HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/2000Ll
4
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL.
Commissioners Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker-
All present
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney
Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager
Patrick Alford. Senior Planner
James Campbell, Senior Planner
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary
Minutes of April 6.2000:
Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser and voted on to approve, as amended,
the minutes of April 6, 2000.
Ayes:
Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
Gifford
Public Comments:
None
Posting of the Agenda:
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, April 14,200D.
Mw
e�
Minutes
Approved
Public Comments
Posting of the
Agenda
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
SUBJECT: Rothschild's Restaurant
2407 East Coast Highway
(Continued from March 23, 2000)
• Use Permit No. 1851 A
Request to upgrade the existing Alcoholic Beverage Outlet approval to allow for
the sale of general alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption (Type 47
License).
Public comment was opened and closed.
Senior Planner James Campbell relayed a conversation that he had with the
,applicant approximately two weeks ago. He noted that the applicant was in
general concurrence with the conditions of approval.
In the absence of the applicant or a representative, Chairperson Selich asked Ms.
Clauson if this item could be approved without the concurrence of the
applicant.
Ms. Clauson answered that by taking advantage of this use permit, the applicant
is deemed to have concurred with the conditions.
Commissioner Kiser asked staff to clarify if the use permit as conditioned
continues to require valet parking during the lunch and dinner hours.
Additionally, he asked if the parking lot would be re- striped back to the way it
was before to accommodate the twenty -one spaces and the type of parking
done with valet parking?
Mr. Campbell answered that the conditions of approval stipulate full compliance
with previous conditions of approval. This is an amended use permit and the
previous approval did include a condition of approval for valet service.
Condition one required that the parking lot be re- striped in accordance with the
previously approved plan, which is the tandem plan of 1983.
Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 1851
Amended subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A.
Chairperson Selich clarified that at the previous approval of this project, the
employees were required to park on site. The conditions here reflect that those
conditions would remain in effect with the approval of this amended use
permit.
Commissioner Kiser asked staff about Standard Requirement two that says,
'...The use of outside loudspeakers, paging system or sound system shall be
included within this requirement.' It seems confusing and superfluous as
condition 3 states that no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be
permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. Would those be
INDEX
Item No. 1
Up No. 1851 A
Approved
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
referring to all of the same things?
Mr. Campbell answered that condition ten is a standard condition, and if
approved, this condition would not authorize the outdoor paging system.
Commissioner Kiser answered that for this use permit or for future ones that
sentence be revised or deleted. It seems to invite outdoor speakers and
paging systems. If someone picked up the use permit and only read that part,
it could be misleading.
Mr. Campbell answered that the Planning Commission could strike that
particular sentence and that would not change the meaning of the condition
that basically all sound from this facility would be subject to the noise
ordinance and standards.
Commissioner Kiser proposed to add on to the motion that the second
sentence of Standard Requirement No. 10 be stricken, which was acceptable
to the maker of the motion.
Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: None
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Use Permit No. 1851 Amended
Findings;
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail
and Service Commercial" use. A restaurant use with alcoholic beverage
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.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of
Chapter 20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) for the
following reasons:
Patrons of the existing restaurant have requested to the
operator of the restaurant that distilled spirits be served. The
convenience of the patrons and thereby the general public will
be served by the sale of distilled spirits and beer & wine in a
restaurant setting.
• 3
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
The Part One crime rate in the police reporting district in which
the restaurant is located is lower than the citywide average and
lower than the adjacent reporting districts.
The percentage of alcohol- related arrests in the police reporting
district in which the restaurant is located exceeds the
percentage citywide by only 1.1% which is not significant.
There are no day care centers, schools, parks or public
recreation facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site,
though there are residential uses located to the north and south
of the property. The project is not expected to be a problem
since the restaurant presently operates as serves beer and urine
and no recent or outstanding complaints have been received
by Code Enforcement staff nor the Police Department. There is
no outdoor seating and primary use is a restaurant and is not
operated as a bar.
5. Approval of Use Permit No. 1851 Amended to allow the service and
consumption of distilled spirits in addition to beer and wine in
conjunction with a restaurant 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:
• The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial
uses since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial
districts.
• Conditions of approval have been included which should prevent
problems associated with the service of alcoholic beverages and
noise.
Adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and
proposed uses provided that the applicant re -stripe the lot in
conformance with the previously approved plan.
The alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary use of
the facility as a restaurant.
The establishment will provide regular food service from the full
menu at all times the facility is open.
A finding of public convenience and necessity can be made
based on the public's desire for a variety of beverage choices in
a restaurant setting.
The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with
any easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed development.
0
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
site plan and floor plan except as noted below. Any increase in the dining
area or bar area shall be subject to prior approval of a use permit. The
parking lot shall be re- striped in accordance with the previously
approved plan dated March 24, 1983.
2. 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.
3. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in
conjunction with the proposed operation.
4. The approval is only for the establishment of a restaurant type facility 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.
5. 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 a use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. The
existing bar area may only be used for restaurant patrons who are
provided meal service.
6. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of
Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be limited to on -site consumption of
"beer and wine and distilled spirits" 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.
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.
8. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC.
9. 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
5
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
Commission may review, modify or revoke this use permit in accordance
with Chapter 20.96 of the Zoning Code.
10. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall
be prohibited.
11. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with
the permitted use.
12. 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.
13. The hours of operation shall be limited between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.,
daily.
14. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of
litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily
removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all
abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises.
15. Full menu food service items shall be available for ordering at all times the
restaurant establishment is open for business.
16. 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 this
section within 180 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
17. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful
completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained
on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative
of the City of Newport Beach.
Standard Requirements
1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and
standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of
it 6
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
approval.
2. The previous conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 1851 Amended
shall remain in full force and effect. If there are any conflicts between with
current or past conditions of approval, the more restrictive condition shall
take precedent.
3. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation
systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer.
4. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal
Code.
5. The restaurant facility and related off - street parking shall conform to the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
6. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works Department.
7. Public Improvement may be required of a developer per Section
20.91.040 of the Municipal Code.
8. 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.
9. 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.
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. That is, the sound shall be limited to no
more than depicted below for the specified time periods:
40
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
SUBJECT: Tia Rosa Restaurant
2305 -2307 West Balboa Boulevard
• Use Permit No. 3673
A request to change an existing food establishment from take -out to a full -
service, small -scale eating establishment with 25 seats, by expanding into the
adjacent suite. The request includes a waiver of the off - street parking
requirements, and establishment of a new alcoholic beverage service outlet
pursuant to Chapter 20.89 of the Municipal Code.
Mr. Campbell noted that the second sentence in the Standard Requirment No.
11 can be stricken as there is a condition that specifically prohibits the use of
outdoor loudspeakers and paging system.
Public comment was opened.
Jaime Tizon 2307 West Balboa Boulevard, in response to Commission inquiry,
stated that he understands and agrees to the findings and conditions of Use
Permit No. 3673.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Kronzley stated that several years ago, he was on the Balboa
Peninsula Advisory Committee that provided research work on the peninsula.
During this course of research, they found a USC study that was done in 1995 that
found that there is a direct correlation between violent crime and the density of
alcohol outlets allowed or permitted in any community. A couple of years ago,
the City instituted an Alcohol Beverage Ordinance with a number of goals. One
of those goals was to provide the Planning Commission with findings for denial on
new alcohol permits based on crime, density and the number of alcohol permits
in a reporting area. The information provided on page 8 of the staff report is a
result of that Ordinance. At that time, the City was going through the Cannery
restaurant issue that was a highly publicized issue on the peninsula regarding
I`.Ir7�:/
Rem No. 2
Up 3673
Approved
Between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
interior exterior
interior exterior
Measured at the property line of
commercially zoned property:
N/A 65 dBA
N/A 60 dBA
Measured at the property line of
residentially zoned property:
N/A 60 dBA
N/A 50 dBA
Residential property:
45 dBA 55 dBA
40 dBA 50 dBA
SUBJECT: Tia Rosa Restaurant
2305 -2307 West Balboa Boulevard
• Use Permit No. 3673
A request to change an existing food establishment from take -out to a full -
service, small -scale eating establishment with 25 seats, by expanding into the
adjacent suite. The request includes a waiver of the off - street parking
requirements, and establishment of a new alcoholic beverage service outlet
pursuant to Chapter 20.89 of the Municipal Code.
Mr. Campbell noted that the second sentence in the Standard Requirment No.
11 can be stricken as there is a condition that specifically prohibits the use of
outdoor loudspeakers and paging system.
Public comment was opened.
Jaime Tizon 2307 West Balboa Boulevard, in response to Commission inquiry,
stated that he understands and agrees to the findings and conditions of Use
Permit No. 3673.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Kronzley stated that several years ago, he was on the Balboa
Peninsula Advisory Committee that provided research work on the peninsula.
During this course of research, they found a USC study that was done in 1995 that
found that there is a direct correlation between violent crime and the density of
alcohol outlets allowed or permitted in any community. A couple of years ago,
the City instituted an Alcohol Beverage Ordinance with a number of goals. One
of those goals was to provide the Planning Commission with findings for denial on
new alcohol permits based on crime, density and the number of alcohol permits
in a reporting area. The information provided on page 8 of the staff report is a
result of that Ordinance. At that time, the City was going through the Cannery
restaurant issue that was a highly publicized issue on the peninsula regarding
I`.Ir7�:/
Rem No. 2
Up 3673
Approved
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
residential concerns of noise, arrest, crime and vandalism. We passed the
Alcohol Beverage Ordinace. Looking at the table on page 8, it is clear that we
have three times the crime rate per 100,000 of any reporting district within the
City. This reporting district was ground zero for one of the main issues of the
Alcohol Beverage Ordinance, which was we need to start planning the number
of alcohol outlets in the City. Here we have tonight, the first of two new alcohol
permits that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve and I, based on
the table in page 8, can not be supportive of this application with an alcohol
permit. This is a difficult part of town and we need to start somewhere. We have
the tools to do it. This is certainly nothing specific to the applicant, but the
Planning Commission needs to start somewhere. If we do not exercise the power
that we have to plan these alcohol outlets in this reporting district, I have no idea
where we would start.
Chairperson Selich asked if reference was being made to factor three on page
seven, 'the number of alcohol licenses per capita in the reporting district and in
adjacent reporting districts as compared to the county -wide average,' that this is
too high?
Commissioner Kranzley answered that factors two, three and four are applicable
to this reporting district and to this application. There are too many per capita.
Given the population of this area, we will never be able to get it in line with the
rest of the county. I think that the key factors are numbers two and four and
bringing them more in line with the city average is attainable. The city crime rate
average is 3,510.1 versus reporting district 15, which is 11,262.2. As related to
alcohol, 33.96% versus 50.3 %. When you look at these numbers, it is obvious that
this reporting district is way out of line with the rest of the city. I am not here to set
policy but I think it has to be brought more in line. That is one of the goals of the
Alcohol Ordinance.
Chairperson Selich asked staff when the Council adopted this ordinance, was
there any standard(s) to apply the criteria to? He was answered that these are
listed in the Alcohol Beverage Ordinance for the Planning Commission to
consider. The stricter application of these numbers is in the City Council policy on
approving a new alcohol beverage license that applies to bars, not restaurants,
that are serving alcohol.
Ms. Temple added that the City Council Policy applies to bars, cocktail lounges,
cabarets and nightclubs. That particular part of Council policy would mandate
that the Police Chief issue to the Departmen of Alcoholic Beverage Control a
finding that the public convenience and necessity can not be found and this
would not be an optional determination on his part.
Commissioner Ashley stated that this is a small 25 seat restaurant. It is a mexican
restaurant that would be gutted if not able to sell beer and wine. This use is
appropriate because it is properly zoned.
0
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
Commissioner Tucker noted this is a restaurant and not a bar situation. Serving
beer and wine in a 25 seat restaurant that does not have the facilities for a bar
set up is not what the ordinance was designed for. I support this application.
Commissioner Gifford noted that she too served on the Balboa Peninsula Advisory
Commission. The work done was productive. However, I think it is productive to
encourage the kind of business that this is, small and has the opportunity to
expand by taking over a second store front. Given the hours of operation from
10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., I don't see this as contributing to the crime rate. I would
look much differently at a business that is opened with a large bar. I am in favor
of approving this.
Commissioner Kiser noted that with respect to the crime rate issue, that the Police
were not opposed to this business. I am supportive of the beer and wine license.
He then noted that condition 17 should read the hours of operation should be
limited between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Condition 11 should be eliminated as
there is no place for this.
Staff clarified that there is no space for an outdoor dining area. If this condition is
left in, it would permit alcohol beverage service in an outdoor area if one were
provided.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser for approval of Use Permit 3673
subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A, amended that condition 11
be removed; the second sentence in Standard Requirement condition 1l be
stricken and condition 17 be amended to read 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, and Tucker
Noes: Kranzley
Absent: None
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
USE PERMIT NO. 3673
Findinas:
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and
Service Commercial' use. A restaurant use with alcoholic beverage 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 waiver of restaurant development standards as they pertain to the site,
10
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
off - street parking, landscaping and walls surrounding the restaurant site
will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The project meets the
purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code
for restaurants )full- service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment)
and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with
those requirements if the Planning Commission approves this application,
for the following reasons:
• The existing physical characteristics of the site are not proposed to
be altered.
• The waiver of parking would not adversely impact the existing
parking situation and adequate parking is available on site to
accommodate this use.
• Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the
subject property.
• The same purpose or intent of the required walls surrounding the
property to control noise can be achieved by the recommended
limitation on the hours of operation which should prevent
potential noise problems.
• The change to the restaurant facility from a take -out facility to a
full- service, small -scale facility does not constitute a significant
. change, which warrants an increase in landscape area.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter
20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) for the following
reasons:
• The convenience of the public can arguably be served by the
sale of desired beverages in a restaurant setting.
The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the police reporting
district in which the project is proposed is greater than the
percentage citywide, and in the adjacent reporting districts one
is higher and the other lower than the citywide percentages,
due to more commercial land uses in these three reporting
districts. However, the small scale of the restaurant and limited
nature of the alcoholic beverage service (beer and wine only)
should prevent significant problems from the alcoholic
beverage outlet.
There are no day care centers, schools, or park and recreation
facilities in the vicinity of the project site, though there are
residential uses located across the alley from the property.
However, the project is not expected to be a problem since it is
oriented so that the activity is directed away from the residential
uses and there is limited seating, no bar area and no outdoor
dining.
9
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
A finding of public convenience and necessity can be made
based on the public's desire for a variety of beverage choices in
a restaurant setting.
5. Approval of Use Permit No. 3673 to permit a full- service small-scale restaurant
with service of on -sale alcoholic beverages 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:
• The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial
uses since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial
districts.
• Conditions of approval have been included which should prevent
problems associated with the service of alcoholic beverages and
noise.
• Adequate parking is available in the vicinity of the project for the
proposed use.
• The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service
use which serves the residential and commercial uses and
visiting tourists in the area.
• The alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary use of
the facility as a restaurant.
• The establishment will provide regular food service from the full
menu at all times the facility is open.
• Because the restaurant does not have a bar area specifically
designed for the service of alcoholic beverages, the potential
number of Police and Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
problems in the area should be minimized.
Conditions:
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site
plan and floor plan except as noted below.
2. The interior dining area shall be limited to 25 seats maximum as delineated on
the approved floor plans. Any increase in the number of seating for customers
shall be subject to the approval of a use permit.
3. 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.
4. The development standard pertaining to the site, perimeter walls, off - street
parking (9 spaces being waived) and landscaping shall be waived.
12
T
City of Newport Beach
. Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
5. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction
with the proposed operation.
6. The approval is only for the establishment of a restaurant type facility 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 tavem use as defined by the Municipal Code, unless a
use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission.
8. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of
Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be limited to "beer and wine" and only in
conjunction with the service of food as the principal use of the facility. 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.
9. 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 or leasing company.
10. This approval is for on -sale alcoholic beverage service only. The off -sale of
alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption is prohibited.
12. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC.
13. 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.
14. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive-up or walk -up service windows shall be
prohibited.
15. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the
permitted use unless an amendment to this permit is approved.
16. Upon evidence that noise generated by the project exceeds the noise
standards established by Chapter 20.26 (Community Noise Control) of the
13
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
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.
17. The hours of operation shall be limited between 10:00 PEA AM and 10:00 PM,
daily.
18. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter
and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal
of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting
sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises.
19. Full menu food service items shall be available for ordering at all times the
restaurant establishment is open for business.
20. 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 this section within 180
days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
21. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion
of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises
and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of
Newport Beach.
22. The applicant shall provide a trash enclosure on the subject property in a
location subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department.
The design and location of the enclosure shall be approved by the
Planning Department prior to issuance of any building permit.
i;IM174k �.
The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and
standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of
approval.
2. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems
be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer.
3. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal
Code.
is 14
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
4. The proposed restaurant facility and related off - street parking shall conform
to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
5. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works Department.
6. Public Improvement may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of
the Municipal Code.
7. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 is, the sound shall
be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods:
r :.
is 15
IRIF* 1
Between the hours of
7:00 am. and 10:00 p.m.
Between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
interior exterior
interior exterior
Measured at the property line of
commercially zoned property:
N/A . 65 dBA
N/A 60 dBA
Measured at the property line of
residentially zoned property:
N/A 60 dBA
N/A 50 dBA
Residential property:
45 dBA 55 dBA
40 dBA 50 dBA
r :.
is 15
IRIF* 1
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
SUBJECT: Amendment to front yard setbacks on Pacific Drive
2205 to 2333 Pacific Drive
A resolution of intent to amend Districting Map No. 16 to establish a front yard
setback of 10 feet from the newly established property lines of properties
located on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and
Begonia Avenue due to the vacation of a portion of the public right -of -way.
Ms. Temple noted that this is an act of initiation and does not constitute a final
decision on this issue. The Planning Commission will make its final
recommendation to the City Council when this item is brought back for a
public hearing.
Commissioner Kiser asked if this was adopted, would it change the buildable
area of the homes at those addresses come closer to the existing Pacific Drive?
He was answered yes.
Commissioner Ashley stated his concern of reducing the size of Pacific Drive, as it
is one of the few streets in this area where two -way travel is not impeded by cars
parked at the curb. I would like to ask Mr. Edmonston to investigate the possibility
10 of looking at a one way street system in Corona del Mar as it is difficult to
negotiate those streets in a two -way configuration. A one way street system
would be a lot more fluid and probably reduce a lot of accidents. I would like to
see what this study would show.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to adopt a resolution of intent to
initiate Amendment No. 899.
Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: None
SUBJECT: Lido Diner
3461 Via lido
Use Permit No. 3671
A request to establish a change in an existing retail space to a full- service, high
turnover eating and drinking establishment. The request includes an Alcoholic
Beverage Outlet approval for the sale of beer and wine for on -site
consumption (Type 41 License).
Senior Planner Campbell passed out copies of revised findings and conditions
of approval. As a follow up to the previous discussion on the Alcoholic
Beverage Ordinance, this operation is a diner and will take the place of a
vacant retail space in the Griffith Building in the Via Lido Plaza Shopping
Center. This operation is a restaurant with no bar and they are seeking an
16
INDEX
Item No. 3
Intent to Amend
Districting Map No.
16
Initiated
Item No.4
Use Permit No. 3671
Approved
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
Apra 20, 2000
alcoholic beverage license. There are the some factors to consider as with the
previous request with respect to the Alcoholic Beverage license. The Police
Department did not find any problems with this particular operation. The
revised findings and conditions have been discussed with the applicant
previously and are amended as follows:
a. Item 4 strikes the distilled spirits reference.
b. Change a finding for the Use Permit to establish parking requirements in
accordance with the Planning staff report establishing the ratio of 1 space
for 42 square feet of net public area as 38 spaces and making the finding
that there is adequate parking at the center.
c. Condition 5 would strike the last sentence as it relates to a different
application.
d. Standard Requirement Condition 9 is changed by adding a sentence
regarding the ambient noise as well as a change in the table. The second
sentence is to be stricken as it relates to the outside loudspeakers and
paging system.
e. Two other conditions are to be added; one regarding implementation of
the project and delivery times.
Commissioner Ashley asked about conditions 13 and 15, as they appear to be
in contradiction. Continuing, he noted that a restaurant that is going to be
. serving beer and wine as small as this one is, will be opening at 6:00 a.m. and
closing at 12:00 a.m. through the week and going from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
on Friday and Saturday. Full menu food service to be made available at all
times the restaurant is open means that food will be served until 2:00 a.m. to
continue to have people drinking beer and wine, this may create a problem.
Mr. Campbell noted this particular operation would be serving three full meals
a day and open all hours for eating. This particular condition 15 is more in line
for a bar having restaurant service. This basically limits the operation from
becoming a drinking establishment only. The applicant's intent is to serve full
meals at all times during these hours. Staff's understanding of the hours is that
the applicant wants to take advantage of the theater business.
At Commission inquiry, it was noted that the floor plan on the wall shows a
seating plan of 119 people in booths and at a counter. The net public area is
about 1,581 square feet.
Public comment was opened.
Jim Duda, 17 Bay Island, noted that the application is for a restaurant with beer
and wine service; and that the required parking on page three of the staff
report should read 274 not 286. Continuing, he stated that he agrees with and
understands the findings and conditions of this application. Through constant
monitoring and enforcement of their parking lot, they have been successful in
decreasing the number of illegitimate parking uses and increasing the number
• of spaces available for customers. This location fronts Lido Walk which is a
17
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
pedestrian walk and is not adjacent to any residential, it is a commercial area.
We believe Lido Walk is made for this type of use and would enhance the
center and businesses around it.
Francisco Aguilar, 840 Domingo Way, representing the applicant noted his
qualifications as a manager for a restaurant in Manhattan Beach and looking
forward to working in the area. This is a quality, family oriented american diner
modeled after the East Coast diners of the 30's and 40's. It will serve a full menu
breakfast, lunch and dinner meals. We plan to be open seven days a week
and have requested to be open until midnight weekdays and until 2 a.m. on
the weekends. The reason for these hours is to serve the late night theater
patrons. Although they do not practice these hours, Starbucks and the
Regatta Caf6 have the ability to operate until 2:00 a.m. and we ask for the
same consideration. We are not asking for a full liquor license and have no
intention to be patronized as a bar. In a full service environment, beer and
wine is expected by customers and as required by the conditions of the permit,
will only be served in conjunction with a full menu offering. I assure you that the
diner will be professionally run and will especially cater to the families who live
in the area.
Chairperson Selich noted the 286 spaces needs to be addressed by the
• Planning Commission.
Mr. Duda stated that in discussion with staff, the required parking was 274
spaces. There appears to be a miscommunication.
Ms. Temple clarified that after extensive review of the existing parking
requirements, there was a change that occurred in 1995 that was inadvertently
omitted from the calculations in the staff report. The actual parking
requirement is 274 as the applicant indicates, which will leave the center with a
surplus of 14 spaces after this approval.
Mark Stoner of Edwards Theater, 300 Newport Center Drive stated that Edwards
is excited about this concept as it is complimentary to the theater in Lido and
would like to see this approved.
Terry McKenzie, 1 151 West Balboa noted his support of this application and that
it will be a great addition to the community.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that this is five times the size of the previous
application and it does have a bar that will be used for dining. We have a
closing time at 2:00 a.m. So again, I say if not in this district, when do we stop
issuing alcohol permits for uses in a district that has such a high relative crime
rate to the rest of the City? I am sure that this operation will be run very well,
but these approvals run with the land and we do not know who the next
18
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
. Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
person will be to come in here. I appeal to the Planning Commission on this,
we can not keep adding alcohol permits to the peninsula.
Commissioner Kiser noted that the Standard Requirement 8, the Planning
Commission can add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit on
determination that the operation causes injury or is detrimental to the health,
safety, etc. If things do change with a new operator, we could modify the
permit.
Chairperson Selich noted his concern with the 2:00 a.m. closing because it
seems that most of the permits the Planning Commission has approved were
restricting the closing times to earlier. Staff did a calculation for me that since
the Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance went into effect, we have approved 13 Use
Permits. Most of them were around the midnight hour to close, some at 10:00.
The applicant has brought up that there are two other restaurants there that
are allowed to stay open until 2:00 a.m, and allowed to serve alcohol.
Ms. Temple noted that the Regatta Caf& has a full serve license and that they
close around 11:00 p.m. on the weekends and that Starbucks does not serve
any alcohol.
• Commissioner Kranzley clarified with staff that the Regatta Cafe was approved
prior to the Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance. He was answered that the only
recent permits that the Planning Commission has considered was in regard to
certain forms of live entertainment. This restaurant was established over twenty
years ago.
Commissioner Ashley noted that the restaurant proposed for this location is
outstanding. However, he does not like the idea that it will be opened until
2:00 in the morning. I would hope that they would close at midnight, regardless
of the Regata situation. I do not see people ordering food at 1 in the morning
so they could have a drink. I propose that we limit the hours from 6:00 a.m. to
midnight throughout the week.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to approve Use Permit 3671 subject
to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A with the amended hours to be from
6:00 a.m. to midnight daily.
Commissioner Tucker asked if there was a bar at this facility. Staff answered
that there is a service counter serving meals.
Public comment was opened.
Jim Duda noted that the bar on the floor plan is representative of a soda
fountain. Food service is anticipated, but it is not viewed as a bar. There is a
need for a late night dining service; the applicant would be favorable to
curtailing alcohol service after midnight. Specifically they are looking for
19
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
business that would follow the theater crowds. There are people who work in
the service industry who work late and do not get an opportunity to dine after
midnight. The diner is more concerned about serving food than it is serving
alcohol.
Commissioner Ashley asked Mr. Duda if he was aware that he is creating a
code enforcement problem if they say they are not going to serve after
midnight, but somebody does and it is reported. If you are found in violation of
this, you could have your permit revoked.
Mr. Duda answered on behalf of the applicant that it would be worth the risk.
The market they are seeking to be competitive in is difficult. We are trying to
get this use every possibility to succeed.
Ms. Temple added that to the extent that there are hours of limitation on the
Use Permit, those will be transmitted to the ABC and will be reflected in their
ABC license conditions. The concern about code enforcement is a valid one.
In cases such as this there are more tools to enable enforcement of that
condition. The police department routinely visits these establishments for
compliance with ABC license conditions. Additionally, any violation of those
conditions on any type of routine basis could jeopardize the license in toto
regardless of what is allowed on the Use Permit. We do have establishments
with beer and wine licenses where there are such limitations. Any restaurant
that operates 24 hours a day would never be allowed to serve between the
hours of 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. in any case by the ABC.
Chairperson Selich noted that he did not have a problem with the business
operating with alcoholic service until 2 in the morning. Anything that helps that
theater in that area is worth it.
Commissioner Kiser asked that the sentence referring to the existing bar area in
condition 5 be stricken as it suggests somehow that the restaurant is divided in
a bar area and a restaurant area and this is clearly a food service restaurant.
Commissioner Tucker suggested that the wording be counter area, get rid of
existing bar, may only be used for restaurant patrons who are provided meal
service.
Assistant City Manager stated that is an enforcement problem. We want to
have meals offered at all hours that the restaurant is opened. It should read
that full meal service shall be offered at the counter area all the hours that the
restaurant is opened. This would take the place of the last sentence in
condition 5.
Commissioner Kiser stated that condition 15 says full menu food service items
shall be available for ordering at all times the restaurant establishment is open
for business. I suggest again, that the last sentence be stricken in condition 5
20
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
and if there is a concern of the bar or counter area, then add to condition 15
full menu food service items shall be available for ordering at all times at all
seats in the restaurant.
Commissioner Ashley noted that this restaurant would be a great success. I still
do not like the idea of serving alcoholic beverages after midnight. I want to
see it go to midnight, as that is what is done with most every restaurant that has
a bar. This does not even have a bar, why would we allow it to stay open until
2:00 a.m. when other restaurants with actual bars are not allowed to stay open
until 2:00 a.m.?
Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Use Permit 3671 with
the amendments stated and without the alcohol beverage approval for beer
or wine. I am not against the restaurant; it is a great proposal.
Ayes: Kranzley
Noes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford and Tucker
Absent: None
Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to approve Use Permit 3671with the
findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit A including revised amendments
by staff and with the substitution of condition 15 with condition 5 wording, and
limit the hours from 6:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Sunday through Saturday.
Substitute motion was made by Commissioner Gifford that the hours of
operation are from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 6:00
a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday with alcohol service to terminate at 12:00
a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
Alternate substitute motion was made by Chairperson Selich that Commissioner
Ashley's motion be amended that the operation can stay open until 2:00 a.m.
for alcohol and food service.
Alternate substitute motion by Chairperson Selich was voted on and passed
with 4 ayes and 2 noes.
Ayes: Kiser, Selich, Gifford and Tucker
Noes: Kranzley, Ashley
Absent: None
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Use Permit No. 3671 - Lido Diner
Findings:
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and
21
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
. Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
Service Commercial' use. A restaurant use with alcoholic beverage service is
considered a permitted use within this designation and is consistent with the
General Plan.
2. Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act). This
project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction
or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality
Act Implementing Guidelines.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter
20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) for the following
reasons:
• Patrons expect the service of alcoholic beverages in
conjunction with a full service restaurant. The convenience of
the patrons and thereby the general public will be served by the
sale of beer & wine in a restaurant setting.
• Although the Part One crime rate in the police reporting district
in which the restaurant is located is higher than the citywide
average and higher than the adjacent reporting districts, the
proposed restaurant is not expected to increase the crime rate
according to the Police Department.
• The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the police reporting
district in which the restaurant is located exceeds the
percentage citywide by 16.34% which is not significant.
• There are no day care centers, schools, parks or public
recreation facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Residential uses are not located in close proximity and should
not be affected by the restaurant operation with alcohol sales.
There is no outdoor seating and primary use is a restaurant,
which will not be operated as a bar.
4. Approval of Use Permit No. 3671 to allow the service and consumption of
beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant 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:
The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial
uses since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial
districts.
0 22
11,11# l
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
• Conditions of approval have been included which should prevent
problems associated with the service of alcoholic beverages and
noise.
• The appropriate parking requirement for the proposed restaurant
is the average rate for High Turnover Restaurants pursuant to the
Institute of Traffic Engineers trip generation manual, 1995 update
edition. This rate is 0.45 spaces per seat and a 30% reduction for
walk -in trade is appropriate according to the Traffic Engineer.
Under this rate, the number of parking spaces required is 38
spaces (119 seats " 0.45.0.70 = 37.49 - 38), with a resulting parking
ratio of 1 space for 42 square feet. Adequate parking is available
to accommodate the net increase of 24 spaces based upon
Planning Staff's parking survey.
• The alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary use of
the facility as a restaurant.
• The establishment will provide regular food service from a full
menu at all times the facility is open.
• A finding of public convenience and necessity can be made
based on the public's desire for a variety of beverage choices in
a restaurant setting.
• The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with
• any easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of properly within the proposed development.
Conditions:
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site
plan and floor plan except as noted below. Any increase in the net public
area dining area shall be subject to prior approval of a use permit.
2. 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,
3. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction
with the proposed operation.
4. The approval is only for the establishment of a full service, high turnover
restaurant facility 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.
5. 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 a
use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission.
is 23 The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of
23
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be limited to on -site consumption of
"beer and wine" 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.
7. 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.
8. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC.
9. 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.
10. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be
prohibited.
11. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the
permitted use.
12. 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.
13. The hours of operation shall be limited between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m.,
Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday.
14. 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 hash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises
and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises.
15. Full menu food service items shall be available for ordering at all times at at
seats in the restaurant establishment while open for business.
• 24
`T,1-01
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
16. 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 this section within 180
days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
17. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion
of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises
and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of
Newport Beach.
18. Health Department approval is required before issuance of a building permit.
19. The building is required to comply with current code requirements due to
change in occupancy /use from B & M to A3 (see Uniform Building Code
3405).
20. The number of bathroom fixtures is not sufficient and must be made
• complying with the Uniform Plumbing Code.
21. A grease interceptor for the wastewater system is required.
Standard Requirements
1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and
standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of
approval.
2. The applicant or property owner shall owner shall pay the Fair Share Traffic
Contribution fee pursuant to Chapter 15.38 of the Municipal Code.
3. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems
be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer.
4. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal
Code.
5. The restaurant facility and related off - street parking shall conform to the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
6. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works Department.
• 25
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
•
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. 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:
Between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
interior
exterior
interiorr
exterior
Residential property: 45 dBA
55 dBA
40 dBA
50 dBA
Residential property located within
100 feet of a commercial property:
45 dBA
60 dBA
45 dBA
50 dBA
Mixed Use property: 45 dBA
60 dBA
45 dBA
50 dBA
Commercial property: N/A
65 dBA
N/A
60 dBA
10. 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.
11. Deliveries to the restaurant shall be prohibited between the hours of 11:00
a.m, to 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily in order to avoid peak
parking demand for the Via Lido Plaza shopping center.
SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Partnership
101 North Bayside Drive and
1131 Back Bay Drive
• General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 F
• Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 51
• Zoning Code Amendment No. 878
• 26
INDEX
Item No. 5
Newport Dunes
GPA 97 -3F
LCP No. 51
A No. 878
PC -48
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
• Planned Community District Plan (PC -48)
• Development Agreement No. 12
• Traffic Study No. 115
• Environmental Impact Report No. 157
• Conceptual Precise Plan
A General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Planned Community District Plan
for the 100 -acre Newport Dunes property and a conceptual precise plan for a
hotel and time -share complex with conference, meeting, and banquet
facilities, restaurants, a health club and spa, retail and services areas, and
swimming pools and landscaped garden areas.
Ms. Temple noted that Deputy City Manager, Dave Kiff would be available to
review the fiscal impact analysis.
Chairperson Selich asked for an explanation on how all the traffic trips are
accounted for in all existing development as noted by Susan Caustin in her
letter dated April 13'h.
Mr. Edmonston answered that a number of land uses cited in that letter are
already covered as part of another land use, i.e., the Marina Center is part of
the Marina and is included in the trip rate per slip in the Marina. There are other
uses, i.e., laundry facility and public restrooms that are not uses that the public
will pay $5.00 to the Dunes to park and use. These uses are included in the RV
park and the other amenities that are there. That is the largest area we
disagree with in terms of the exact breakdown. There are some other areas,
such as the accuracy of the number of RV spaces, where documentation
indicates that at the time of the Settlement Agreement there were more than
444 spaces; there were 495 spaces. However, that is not what is documented
in the Settlement Agreement, so there is disagreement as to what the baseline
was. The more important thing for the Commission to understand is that when
the traffic study was done, any traffic from a use that is on the ground today,
was counted as it went in and out of the intersections to the Dunes. What was
added on to that count was the proposed project, which is the 470 -room hotel
project minus the 15,000 square foot restaurant and minus a commercial
building that was identified. So, for the TPO purposes, we have provided that
full accounting and more so because my database of committed projects for
the Dunes assumed that nothing had been built since the Settlement
Agreement. We had traffic from the existing Dunes on the ground from
anything that was built since then, like the additional marina slips that is
probably the largest portion of development since the Agreement in 1988.
Anybody going in and out of that marina was counted; additionally we have
carried an extra 200 slips in the committed project list so in essence some of
those trips were double counted for the purpose of this study. The numbers
• used accurately reflect the existing traffic plus the traffic that would come from
27
INDEX
DA No. 12
TS No. 115
EIR No. 157
Conceptual Precise
Plan
Recommended for
approval
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
the proposed project.
At Commission inquiry, he added:
a. The TPO requires that the City have updated counts. Intersections are
counted on a two -year cycle. The current data shows the amount of traffic
from uses at the Dunes and throughout the City. The traffic count at the
corner of Coast Highway and Bayside reflects traffic that would go in and out
of Bayside to access the slips at the Marina as well as the mobile home park
or other facilities that are on that Bayside access.
b. The TPO requires that the actual count on the ground prevail if there is a
conflict between the ITE manual and the counts. Typically, as a portion of the
project is constructed, that portion is subtracted from this committed project
list because it is included in our counts.
c. All projections were based on maximum occupancy, utilization, and
access to and from for RV uses to and from the Marina parking and not
based on annual averages. The numbers would be lower reflecting actual
occupancy rate and typically that would be about 70%.
Public comment was opened.
• Robert Gleason, 101 North Bayside Drive, Newport Dunes noted the following:
a. Conference Center operating conditions - Monday through Friday shall be
limited on summer weekends from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. as well as 8:00 a.m.
and 9:00 a.m. As peak hours change, either a.m. or p.m., we can then shift
these hours to accommodate that change. The cap of people during the
holiday season would revert to the 1,500 cap during the boat parade
season and the 2,000 cap would then apply to the balance of the holiday
season.
b. Traffic discussion - having been involved in the discussion of 1988, that trip
number of 5213 in the Settlement Agreement related to more of a
negotiation as to the Fair Share fee and how that would apply than it did to
the actual traffic study.
c. Bayside Drive re- construction and entrance and monument signage - will
be in keeping with the quality level of the resort as portrayed in an exhibit
on the wall. Along Bayside Drive there will be a thorough landscape
treatment. The treatments on the corners are proposed to be an entry
statement with turf area relatively low in height with a three -foot sign.
d. Planned Community District Plan - this document is key to the project as it
includes the entitlements, design guidelines and quality assurances. We are
in agreement with staff's suggested changes on the conditions in Exhibit G
limiting outdoor music, etc.
e. From a fiscal impact standpoint that given a much higher property tax
assessment on those timeshare units and the agreement to the entitlement
fee that functions like a TOT on those units, the City on a per unit basis
• actually receives more revenue from timeshare than hotel. For the
28
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
operating benefit, that section of the project will run fuller than other
portions of the hotel with less seasonal fluctuations with visitors who tend to
spend 30% to 40% more during their stay. Additionally, timeshare is more a
fact of a contemporary business model for quality resort projects from a
financing and viability standpoint. Lenders require 40% to 50% of equity up
front in a project, this is a way to raise that equity without either decreasing
the quality of the project or the quality of the construction, or decreasing
the amenities that are provided.
f. Development Agreement - contains a number of amended provisions from
when it was originally negotiated with the City Council sub- committee,
Policy on Resort Taxation (PORT). I received and reviewed the draft and
have a number of drafting and technical comments but they do not relate
to the economics or the spirit or substance of the agreement. I suggest
that we be allowed to work those out with the City Attorney. The rest of the
changes are:
1. Fees related to the view park - $200,000 contribution for the park at the
corner of PCH and Jamboree. Revision talks about that becoming an
immediate obligation that would be stayed in the event of legal or
electoral challenges to the project or the Development Agreement
specifically. We would expect that fee and the other related fees to
come into play after the approval of the Coastal Development Permit
• of the project.
2. Timeshare issues - the concerns about enforcement relate to the
entitlement fee collection (TOT) from the timeshare owners association,
which would be a distinct entity from Newport Dunes as the applicant,
developer or operator. Also enforcement of the quality and
maintenance provisions on an on -going basis. First proposed addition
would be to add a phasing requirement so that this would obviate the
ability to build just the timeshare component of the project, which is not
our intent. At the same time we are constructing timeshare units we
would build hotel public spaces and amenities in an equal or greater
number of hotel rooms to ensure that there is an adequate mix of
product. The second proposed addition would be to implement the
timeshare project as a right to use project. The distinction would be that
the association of those owners owns the improvements, owns the sub-
lease and controls the project. The interest that is purchased is like a
membership type interest, so that you have people that don't own
anything particular in terms of real estate, but own a membership
interest similar to a co -op. What this means to the City is that the City
deals with one entity that owns and operates that project. It allows us
to include in the Development Agreement that the contractual
agreement between the Newport Dunes and timeshare owners
association sub -lease agreement and covenants and allows the City to
have a lien right on the association's property in the event that the
entitlement fee is neither collected nor remitted. This is a stronger
remedy then allowed under the current TOT collection code. Secondly,
• it would include the covenants consistent with the project's zoning, the
29
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
Planned Community text, the Precise Plans and all the conditions of the
project so that it allows us to enforce all the quality concerns.
3. New indemnification provision requires Newport Dunes to indemnify the
City for third party actions. I ask for a carve out for negligence or
misconduct on the part of the City.
4. Biggest issue is the term of the agreement. When this agreement was
negotiated with PORT, we were looking at a term of twenty -five years.
That basically covers the development period and also a period of time
when the City maintains its authority under the Development
Agreement with us to enforce provisions of the Agreement. This was
modified in this draft to fifteen years. While that is a substantial
decrease, we understand the reason behind it and find it acceptable.
We have a problem with the additional provision that the agreement
terminates if construction does not start on the project in seven years.
While that is our obvious intent, on a project of this type, size and
location there are a number of factors that are outside our control. For
example, the prior approval of Newport Dunes we received County
approval and a certified EIR in 1980, we were in litigation through 1983:
Coastal Commission through 1984: and the County through 1987 -88,
construction drawings, plan checks at the City up to the start of
construction in 1989. In that particular case, we happened to not hit
• the economic cycle right. Our concern here with electoral changes,
Coastal approval and drawings and plan checks, we may be out
potentially 4 -7 years without the risk of hitting the economic cycle
wrong. During the 1990's there were virtually no quality resorts built in
Southern California. We would request that the term of the Agreement
be fifteen years.
5. Agree to include in the Development Agreement, a reference to the
conference center conditions spoken about at the beginning. Those
particular traffic related conditions are a material condition of the City's
agreement to enter into this Development Agreement for this project.
He concluded by stating that this is a very complicated project. The review has
been thorough and exhaustive. During this process the Planning Commission
listened to everybody, which has been a model of public input and
participation. This will be a project that all can be proud of.
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Gleason answered:
• The architectural firm that has been hired has a high integrity and will
produce a project of high quality.
• The design guidelines are extensive in the PC document and include
mandatory requirements for everything, i.e. roofing material, exterior
finishes, interior finishes, landscape and signage requirements. These will
assure that the quality will be high.
• An average of furniture and equipment being spent on a per room basis is
about $20,000.
• • Phasing of hotel - the entire hotel structure including the parking structure
30
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
. Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
and everything associated with the hotel will be constructed at the some
time as the first phase of the timeshare units. The timeshare unit
construction will be in increments of roughly 25 units.
TOT equivalency - that duty is written in the Development Agreement such
that, so long as Newport Dunes is the manager on behalf of the association
of the timeshare portion of the project, that responsibility falls to Newport
Dunes. If, at such time that Newport Dunes is not the manager of the
association, that obligation would fall to the association.
The fee is levied only in the event that the project is used by an exchanger.
The fee does not apply to use by timeshare owners or people holding
through them. If it is in the rental pool, it is collected at the front desk as a
regular TOT and in this case Newport Dunes is responsible. The exchangers
are the anomaly of the deal because the fee is being collected as
contractual type of fee and not as a tax levy. That would be collected at
the desk up front as part of the check -in procedure.
Carving out negligence - The focus would be on active misconduct or
unlawful acts.
In response to a question about right -of -way maintenance responsibility, Ms.
Clauson stated that could be addressed as part of these approvals. The
Municipal Code requires the properly owner to be responsible for the
• parkways, in this case, DeAnza.
Ms. Wood noted that the review procedure for the final Development
Agreement would give the City the ability to approve the final landscaping
plan, including plant materials.
Commissioner Kiser asked about the entrance at Coast Highway and Bayside
Drive. Where are you on the two corners in discussion with DeAnza and the
other owner?
Mr. Gleason answered that the discussions are preliminary. We will need to
have an agreement with DeAnza due to the gatehouse that will be
constructed, there needs to be a vacation by the property owner. The
discussions regarding the other corner are pending.
Ayres Boyd, 2541 Crestview Drive presented a position paper issued by the joint
grouping of seven homeowners associations (Special Committee of
Associations (SCA). (copies were distributed) He stated that this paper had
been presented to the applicant. He asked that the Planning Commission
continue this matter to a future meeting until after all have had the opportunity
to hear the Evans Company reply. The developer has substantial risks to the
project's success that could be reduced if only the City and the developer
would consider this proposal. The SCA would like to support this project;
however, the SCA is not in favor of the current plan.
Anders Folkedal, 319 Morning Star spoke on behalf of the Dover Shores
•
31
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
Association. He noted the size of the project as almost three times larger than
the original proposal. The original proposal prohibited multi -story garages on
the property. He noted that in 1998, Mr. Burnham wrote a legal opinion that
basically agrees with ours as presented by counsel, Barbara Lichman. The 1998
Coastal letter has also been re- affirmed. We would like your consideration on
the proposal of our association.
Ramona Harris, 396 21st Street thanked the Commission and staff for all their
hours on this project. She noted that during the course of her work, she has
received positive comments on this project. The citizens of Newport Beach
have the right to have the best resort hotel in our community that will benefit
the City by adding to the tax basis.
Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive asked how the timeshare membership
contributes to the City?
Joyce Lawhorn, 265 Mayflower noted her concern about all the heating,
venting, and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), including building and
parking structure mechanical ventilation equipment, shall be maintained a
minimum setback of 15 feet from the western property line. The western
property line is my back fence, which puts those mechanical devices in the
• middle of the green belt and before the nine -foot wall that has been promised
as a mitigation measure. I ask you to check this over to see if this is what is
really meant as I think the minimum needs to be behind the nine -foot wall. The
right of way in Boyside Drive will not have any construction storage or delivery
of materials. I am for this as it is right behind my house. The construction
vehicles will need to be routed down Back Bay Drive and through the RV park
and straight out the back of Mayflower. This will create an impact that we will
live with for 18 months during the construction. The daily trip number does not
reflect the change of the addition of the hotel rooms.
Mr. Edmonston answered that the revised traffic study dated March 2000 was
based on the 470 -room project. That number was reduced and then restored
back to 470, therefore, the numbers in the March study prevail. The number of
trips coming from the hotel would be 4,200 (470 rooms), with the reduction of
the lost RV spaces as well as the other uses on site the net changes would be
3,600 on Boyside Drive and 600 on Back Bay Drive. Truck traffic being diverted
off Back Bay is not under discussion at this point. Construction traffic will be
limited to one entrance or the other.
Staff noted that the condition for the HVAC reflects a mitigation measure in the
EIR and is a minimum requirement in order to assure compliance with the Noise
Ordinance. Additionally, the existing City code requires that all HVAC
equipment be rated prior to the issuance of a building permit on sound levels
and that it be placed accordingly to comply with the Noise Ordinance.
Pauline Bearden, 212 Tremont stated that the Dunes hotel is one of the best
• 32
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
things that has happened to the park. I believe in the free enterprise system
and private rights. We are going to have progress. I hope to be able to
continue to live here to see it happen.
Mr. Gleason noted that the timeshare tax is a possessory interest tax and is
taken under a leasehold interest. The possessory interest tax is calculated on
the value of the interest that is bought. The membership interest shall be
valued on the purchase price, the same way that a divided sub -lease interest
would be assessed. Those values, from a purchase price standpoint are
enrolled identically on the assessor role at two- thirds the purchase price. On
the HVAC setback concern, it would make sense that it be a minimum of 30
feet from the sound wall on the Dunes side. The construction mitigation
measures talks about the wall as being built in the earliest stage of the
construction. The new trip number is 3,520 trips on Bayside Drive and 80 new
trips on Back Bay Drive for a total of 3,600 trips. In terms of meeting with
representatives of the SCA, we did meet yesterday afternoon as well as having
had a number of conversations with the surrounding communities. We spoke
with Mr. Boyd in the fall and have had continual contact with all seven of those
homeowners associations. We have received input from them and have
incorporated a number of those suggested changes.
• At Commission inquiry, Mr. Gleason stated that he has no plans to do anything
with the HVAC equipment. That is the sort of thing that is very for down the line.
The condition contained in Section 10.26.05 in the Municipal Code that talks
about sound attenuation is sufficient protection in that regard. There is also a
requirement that be done in connection with the final precise plan. This is just
the conceptual precise plan for this part of the project application.
Public comment was closed.
Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager, referencing a slide presentation noted the
difference between the timeshare contribution versus hotel room contribution.
The American Resort Development Association (ARDA) tells us that timeshares
users will spend about $163 per day. The hotel user spends a little less. The hotel
tax or the use fee proposed in the Development Agreement would allow the
timeshare to come up to a significant amount. The possessory interest tax is
actually where the timeshare brings in more money than a hotel unit. The hotel
is valued on the assessment role at construction costs. Typically the timeshare is
valued at or near its purchase price with some adjustment made which
produces a higher net. A second exhibit showed an average night of the
timeshare (75 2- bedroom suites) by owners, exchangers and nightly rental and
unoccupied use. The average night usage shows owner use as 50%,
exchangers use of 30 %, nightly renters use of 20% and 33% of that 2317o (left from
the lock -off feature) is unoccupied. This information is based on industry
standards.
Ms. Temple added that all of the 75 units are 2 bedroom suites, the only
33
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
difference is that some have the ability to be locked off in order to create more
than the 75 increments either through the exchange program or regular hotel
use. The actual selling of the timeshares will be in the 2 bedroom unit
increments. Regardless of whether a unit is occupied as a regular two -
bedroom timeshare unit with the non - ability to be locked off, it still has the
opportunity to be occupied in any one of the three categories of occupancy.
Mr. Kiff concluded by saying that this proposal by the Dunes would have a net
positive stream of about 1.4 million.
Ms. Clauson stated that the reference to a memo by the City Attorney, it is
believed that there is not a conflict between the information in that
memorandum and the subsequent information that the City Attorney has given
on the vested rights and the baseline analysis for purposes of determining the
threshold of significance of the impact. That context of the quote from the
memorandum to staff was in actual consideration of doing an environmental
impact report. That was done and the information has been disclosed on what
the impact of the existing counts are today and how the proposed generation
of traffic will be increased over that amount. For purposes of determining the
baseline for the traffic impacts with regard to the City's TPO and the threshold
of significance of that impact, we believe that it is correct under the CEQA to
provide for vested entitlements. There are two reasons, the entitlements are
vested and there is case law that supports using those numbers. The numbers
have been used in the TPO and in all other projects in the City that have been
approved or evaluated have been evaluated with those numbers as if the
traffic exists.
Commissioner Kranzley stated his concern with the Monday through Friday
condition on the conference center staggering. If party one starts or ends at
6:00 p.m., party two could not start or end until 6:30 p.m. I would revise that to
starts or ends at 6:30, party two could not start until 7:00 p.m. The other issue I
had concerns the boat parade and the impact of the increased number of
catered guests between the Thanksgiving and New Years period of time. The
applicant has addressed this in excluding the days of the Christmas boat
parade and I understand that this is a period of time that has lower occupancy
in the hotel. I am inclined to go along with this condition as presented by the
applicant.
Chairperson Selich clarified that these suggestions would be initiated as
changes to condition # 1.
Staff clarified that those particular statements in 3a (applicant's handout) on
the summer weekend condition were placed into the wording as by way of
example only. You are now actually setting specific start and stop times. This is
summer weekend and does not address peak hour. The examples were not
carried over in the actual drafted conditions. The examples are there for
demonstration only.
34
7:173
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
Ms. Temple added that to the extent that there is a prohibition particularly on
the weekday peak hour for actual events starting or releasing from their
activities, those were not part of the example basis. By way of example, it does
not matter what number you choose, so long as they are half an hour apart
because the intention is that when having two events, the start times have to
be staggered in order to minimize the one time arrival.
Commissioner Kranzley clarified with staff that the intent in Exhibit G -1 is
consistent noting that the examples would be part of the public record in case
there was a need of clarification.
Chairperson Selich asked staff to work on these changes to be discussed later.
Commissioner Kiser suggested that in the draft of condition #2, section 3 of the
applicant's handout, to insert based on actual counts as determined by the
City Traffic Engineer. This would make it clear that we are not talking about the
applicant or operators own traffic counts. All Commissioners agreed.
Ms. Temple stated that in Exhibii G -1, staff took all the active components of
the prior two conditions and put them into more useable format for staff to
• administer without making any substantive changes. We can do the same
things for the revisions suggested tonight by the applicant and will do so. In
terms of being able to present you something written, with some of these
subsequent conditions based on the applicant's proposal this evening, we are
not going to be able to hand you a piece of paper that shows what the
motion is all about. I suggest that you go ahead and proceed with the straw
votes and perhaps the final vote and then staff will go back and actually
prepare all of the revised documents. We will transmit them to you for your
review and then if any questions by the Commission are raised as to the
substance of the changes, we could then bring the whole package back at
the next meeting.
Chairperson Selich stated that a plan has been presented on Bayside Drive
design. There are recommendations in the staff report that are not necessarily
concurrent with what the applicant is proposing.
Commissioner Kranzley noted his concern with cueing; the applicant has
assured us that they will have plans in place to prevent a cueing problem
impacting Coast Highway. He asked to hear more information on this by the
applicant.
Mr. Gleason stated:
• Gatehouse operation will be operated similar to existing ones on Back
Bay Drive.
• There will be three entrance lanes, some will be automated and some
manually operated depending on whether it is a Bayside Village
35
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
resident, marina tenant or guest of the hotel.
There is room for approximately 26 cars between the gatehouse and
Pacific Coast Highway.
Our current operation opens the gates to let people through when
there are planned large events. There are secondary controls farther
up on the property.
The gatehouse is an agreement that was made with the residents of
Bayside Village and their concerns with ingress and egress for cars and
pedestrians as well as security.
Chairperson Selich noted his support of the plan presented this evening. He
stated this plan presents a much stronger landscape statement for the entry to
the hotel as well as allowing for the gatehouse concept. It presents a problem
with regard to past City practices in a number of ways, one of which is
eliminating on- street bike lanes, but we would have a two -way off - street bike
trail. We are limited in the right of way; I would rather have the off - street bike
trail and the additional landscaping. The other area that is a potential problem
is the turn around, the City standards require 42 feet, but this is 38 feet. I would
ask staff to respond to that.
Mr. Edmonston answered that the standard drawings are approved by City
Council and in the case of the turn around area it is controlled by the Fire
• Department's requirements for getting their large apparatus turned around.
Whether they have any particular issues at this location, I do not know. I have
made them aware of this design but have not heard back one way or the
other. The Fire Code specifies a 20 feet width minimum, but the Fire Marshall
has in the past with gated access been agreeable to reducing that to 14 feet.
The main concern is not to slow the fire trucks by threading their way through a
narrow access.
Mr. Gleason added that he tried to get as much radius as he could. We are
actually bulging out the roadway and crimping down the size of the bike trail in
one area. One of the round -about has a 50 foot outside radius and a 15 foot
inside radius based on the current landscape plan in that area. The only way
the large trucks could not turn around is if someone at the gate did not let
them through so they could use the inside area for the larger turn around. The
lanes are 20 feet wide. The only non - conforming lanes in that area are right of
the intersection and these two lanes are 12 feet wide.
Commissioner Ashley noted that the revised plan is an improvement. Parking
for Bayside Village visitors has been re- installed on Bayside Drive. Movement
going in and pedestrian access design shows creativity and sensitivity.
Chairperson Selich then talked about the landscaping at the entry. He asked
the applicant what type of condition would be agreeable regarding the
implementation of the design concept.
0 36
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
1
Mr. Gleason noted that this would depend on the negotiations with the
adjacent landowner. Conceptually, we all feel the same, there needs to be
something significant and monumental on that comer in keeping with the
character of the resort. I feel reasonably assured that the east side is doable
and can accept a condition in that regard. The west side will be our best
effort.
Chairperson Selich suggested to the Commission that they accept the exhibit
as part of the conceptual precise plan to be approved and that it be
conditioned upon that the final design is reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Review of the Development Agreement,
Commissioner Tucker stated that he and Commission Kiser offered suggested
comments to the City Attorney who re- drafted the agreement. The major
issues that we brought up were that:
• the City be indemnified from a suit
• reduction of the term from 25 years to 15 years
• strengthen the provisions that call for first class design and construction;
• have some type of limitation on assignments of the agreement
• and, that the revenue stream be accounted for after the agreement
expires.
Ms. Clauson added that there are minor changes and clarifications to the
Development Agreement. The City Council will approve the Development
Agreement. so any recommendations for the content that have been received
so for have been drafted in. Any recommendations that the Planning
Commission may want tonight, they can be drafted in as the Development
Agreement is sent to the City Council.
Commissioner Tucker noted that he would like to see included in the CCR's
document that secures the entitlement fees to the City that the City explicitly
be made a third party beneficiary. The assignment provision contemplates an
acceptable assignee, purchaser, transferee, or sublessee would have a net
worth of at least 4 million dollars, which strikes me as low. I think that it should
be considerably higher, certainly before construction starts. The qualities of the
assignee prior to the construction versus after the project is constructed and
the term of the agreement should be discussed. The duty to commence
construction within a seven -year time frame should be discussed. Fifteen years
term seems adequate given the scope of this project.
Commissioner Kranzley asked about the verbiage that the vested entitlement
would generate approximately 4000 average daily trips, the project will general
approximately eight hundred (800) average daily trips more than the vested
entitlement.
Mr. Edmonston answered that would be the correct number based on a 600-
37
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
room hotel and was not revised to show the reduced project. New numbers
will be included in the revised Development Agreement.
Commissioner Kranzley asked about the annual review process. Would this
preclude the condition on the conference center or are they two different
processes. Staff answered that it would not preclude the condition on the
precise plan.
Commissioner Gifford noted her concerns of re- drafting this document to
reflect the new form of ownership rather than the timeshares and the tie -in and
in effect, this sublease between the Development Agreement and the
sublease. It will also provide for Section 10.3 that says the termination can only
result from a default with respect to a material provision of this agreement that
specifies the conditions with respect to the scheduling. The underlying concern
of the traffic flow with regard to the conference center would be specifically
provided as a material provision. If this agreement is terminated in seven years,
that doesn't seem to matter too much. There are pros and cons for the City
and the applicant for a shorter or longer term. I agree that we need a much
greater number in terms of a potential assignee.
Chairperson Selich asked about the fees specified in the Development
Agreement, the first fee of $600,000 for traffic improvements and the second,
fair share fee of $235,402. He was answered that there was a TPO analysis
done for the original approvals in 1983, but there is no direct link. That TPO
analysis identified 8 intersections that would need to be mitigated and there
was no direct cost link between those improvements and the $600,000. It is a
negotiated amount that came out of the Settlement Agreement for general
traffic improvements. The fair share fee, if calculated today for a 470 -room
hotel, with a credit for the trips removed from the 150 RV spaces that would be
lost, would be $479,124.
Continuing, Chairperson Selich stated that he was the one who suggested the
start date in the draft Development Agreement (DA) to be seven years. I felt
there should be some incentive to move the project ahead expeditiously, since
the existing project sat there for seventeen years since the initial approval of
the Settlement Agreement. Also, I was concerned that by having such a long
term on the DA, fifteen years plus the initial seventeen years, we would be
locking these fees in for an equivalent of thirty -two years. Development
Agreements for more complex projects than this, the maximum term is fifteen to
twenty years. I would not be opposed to dropping out that section if we did
have something on the Fair Share fee that would raise the baseline from
$235,000 to what a current fee would be and then lock that fee in for the term
of the Development Agreement, which would be fifteen years. In terms of the
$600,000, since that was a negotiated fee and not tied into any fee schedule, I
think should be left alone. The Fair Share fee should be brought current and
locked in for the term of the Development Agreement. With that kind of
provision, I would not be opposed to removing the seven -year start date on it.
38
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
Commissioner Ashley noted his concern of the fees. He stated that the money
should be paid after Coastal Commission approval of the plans, not before.
The recordation should only occur after the Coastal Commission has approved
the plans that have been submitted for their review. Continuing, he noted that
the fees contributed for the Marine Educational Center should be collected
after Coastal Commission, not before. I agree with Commissioner Tucker that
we should not limit the applicant to seven years, it should be changed to
fifteen years. The recording of this agreement should take effect after the
Coastal Commission approval. To enforce all of this prior to Coastal approval is
injurious to the applicant.
Staff noted that the date that the document is recorded, should be the same
as the effective date throughout. It says the date the adopting ordinance
adopted by the City Council becomes effective.
Chairperson Selich stated that the document should be recorded after the
effective date of the ordinance. Why would we wait until the Coastal
Commission approves it?
Commissioner Tucker noted his agreement with the Chairman's comments, as
this is part of the administerial procedures, it is not prejudice to the applicant,
as he can't move forward until he gets all approvals up line.
Ms. Wood stated that payments of special City benefit should have language
that talks about them being due after Coastal approval, or if there was legal
challenge or referendum.
Ms. Clauson added that she woul look at having changes made to effective
date for purposes of fee payments and the recording of the document.
Commissioner Kiser noted that he had reviewed this document and as for as
the previous discussions, agrees with all that has been said. The fifteen -year
term in the Agreement makes a lot of sense. I need to take a closer look at the
Agreement, as the suggested changes will require new language to fit the
concept of what is being offered to the public. The only thing that I see that
was not incorporated and needs to be included is the force majeure exception
that makes it clear that this provision doesn't apply to monetary defaults of the
agreement. Meaning that earthquakes, walk -outs, riots, etc are not going to
extend the time up to the six month for payment of any amounts that would be
due to the City that are the obligation of the applicant(s). The Development
Agreement seems to be in reasonable shape.
Commissioner Tucker agreed that the Fair Share fee should be updated and as
a trade off the fifteen years is then fixed. The quality of construction issues
should come back to the Planning Commission. We should not have the
Development Agreement state a protocol that is inconsistent with the
39
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
conditions. The two need to be brought into conformity. I would not want the
City to be in the position to argue whether negligence was gross negligence or
not. The carve out in the indemnity should not include negligence or gross
negligence.
Ms. Clauson stated that negligence is a tort term and the concept here is
indemnification or defense with any claims against the processing of this
project. It is not much of a helpful carve out.
Chairperson Selich noted that the straw vote on the Development Agreement
be that we are approving the Development Agreement with the comments
made to the City Attorney to pass on the City Council. We will rely on the City
Attorney to incorporate that wording appropriately.
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Gleason suggested that the net worth requirement
pre - development of the hotel for the assignee could be ten million dollars and
the financial ability to carry out the project.
Chairperson Selich noted that with all these suggestions took a straw vote to
which all of the Commissioners were in favor of the Development Agreement.
. Review of the Design Guidelines.
Commissioner Tucker handed out copies of portions of the guidelines that deal
with the building elements, character, style, materials and color. He noted his
suggestions to strengthen the assurances as to the quality of the project that
All be delivered. I am willing to have a bigger project if it is demonstrably a
better project. One additional item that should be added is the hotel building
itself as opposed to the timeshare units. The hotel building ought to be
constructed out of block and should be added as one of the materials. The
applicant has seen this and the only difference we had was minor and that is
the ability to have gazebos with block support columns. I wanted to see wood
or stucco, but they pointed out that it would match the existing structures.
Continuing, the roof plane for the part of the project closest to the highway
where the conference area will be is shown as a two -story flat roof. I have
concerns about people looking down onto a flat roof. That would not be a
good idea. Is it possible in that particular element that it be turned into a
pitched roof? My concern is having mechanical equipment up there as well.
Flat roofs should be discouraged. So, if we could add that as a re- design that
would hopefully eliminate any unsightliness.
Mr. Gleason noted his acceptance of these changes. Looking at the roof
planes, that area has been reduced to a relatively small area. We can make it
work as there are only two and three stories in that area.
Mr. Alford commented that changes to the project are more appropriately
addressed through the conditions on the conceptual precise plan. He offered
40
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
suggested language dealing with the issue of flat roofs in the general design
guidelines that might apply to any future modifications or new buildings on site.
In Commissioner Tuckers handout, the section that deals with roofs could say
the ..:'Flat roofs should be discouraged in general, but may be used in small
areas to accent the roof plan. When flat roofs are used, they should receive a
gravel topping that should be colored to match the adjacent roof tile"
Chairperson Selich asked if there were any concerns on the suggestions made
by Commissioner Tucker. All Commissioners agreed that these be incorporated
in the design guidelines.
Commissioner Kranzley asked if the changes made during this process would
be reflective in a new PC text. He was answered that Exhibit E -1 contains all
the updates to the PC Development Plan, which includes the design
guidelines. Continuing, he noted that there has been a lot of discussion
regarding the visual simulations. I am wondering where they should go, in this
or in the conditions as an example. The simulations are a matter of public
record.
Mr. Alford answered that the visual simulations are based on the conceptual
precise plan, so it seems logical that you condition that.
Ms. Temple noted that there has been discussion in the past that the building
as constructed would be reflective of those visual simulations. If what is
actually constructed is of great variance to those, than the Commission could
require further design changes. If you wish to include that concept as a
condition that would be appropriate as a condition on the precise plan. You
would refer to the visual simulations prepared for the precise plan as approved.
Chairperson Selich proposed further Planning Commission review through
conditions as well as the PC text and Design Guideline modifications. The
Planning Commission gets to review the details of this project before they get
to the final precise plan, which is basically construction documents. Along with
that on page 11 of the Design Guideline section 9, there is a reference to on-
site trails that says,.. the final design of on -site pedestrian bicycle trails shall be
reviewed by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. I
would also want to insert that the Planning Commission review and approve.
Page 12, section 14 on -site street - I don't know if Bayside Drive is going to be
considered an on -site street or not. Staff answered that Bayside Drive is not an
on -site street but is a public street. Page 23, alternative development
standards - in our revisions, is the height specified in conformance with the
revised proposal? Staff answered yes, the height limit section and the daylight
plane section were revised. Page 30, section K Coastal Access - says provision
shall be made to provide adequate coastal access to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director and the California Coastal Commission, I would put in there
that it also be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The same suggestion for
the off -site circulation element to be included.
• 41
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
Referring to page 29 of the Design Guidelines, and the exhibit that shows the
public water front access, one of the concerns I have is that it be more friendly
for pedestrians who come from the outside and want to get access to the
walkway system around the lagoon. There should be another pedestrian
access provided.
Commissioner Ashley noted his concurrence with the various recommendations
made to assure the quality of the type of resort and suggested review of all
plans by the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Selich asked Commission that with the modifications suggested,
are they in favor of the PC text and the Design Guidelines. All Commissioners
agreed.
Exhibit G -1 conditions:
Chairperson Selich stated that one of the most important aspects of approving
this is to make it is one of the best projects and to get a guarantee that it will
be the best project. It will take a higher level of review than the Planning
Commission normally does on projects. In concert with changes made in the
design guidelines, I would like to suggest that we do the following:
• Add to Condition 1 - Prior to the submittal of the final precise plan for
Planning Unit One and any other new construction or remodel of any
structure in any planning unit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning
Commission for review and approval for conformance to the design
and quality provisions of the development agreement and the design
guidelines the following: Final Site Plan, Final Floor Plan, Final Elevations
including material boards and colors; Final Landscape Plan, Final
Parking Area Plan including a parking management plan; Final Lighting
Plan and Final Signage Plan including Coastal access signing and other
background and supporting information and studies that the Planning
Director, Planning Commission or applicant deems necessary for a clear
representation of the project. Also, a final landscaping plan for the
remaining planned units shall be submitted for the same review and
approval in conjunction with the submittal of the above plans for
Planning Unit One. I don't believe that there has been a set of
landscape plans submitted to the City for the rest of the project. Since
we are approving a Planned Community District for the entire property
that is already built, it is appropriate for us to review a set of
landscaping plans for the rest of the project. The Planning Commission
will have a review process where we can be assured that all of the
objectives we have tried to achieve through nine meetings on this
project will in fact, be accomplished.
• Condition 22 (renumbered to 33) - insert that the Planning Commission
should review and approve.
• Condition 27 (renumbered to 38) - incorporate the exhibit on Bayside
M 42
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
Drive that was presented this evening by reference as the conceptual
approval and that the final design and approval shall be approved by
the Planning Commission.
Continuing, Chairman Selich noted his concern about the low chain link fence
on Back Bay Drive. It seems unnecessary as the vehicular access is controlled
through gate access. It presents a feeling that the public is not welcome as
pedestrians into the project. I would suggest that we have a condition that the
chain link fence along Back Bay Drive be removed. The only fencing in that
area that is left is that necessary to provide security for boat storage parking.
Mr. Gleason answered that the low chain fence was installed after the loss of
the second boat and trailer from the boat launch parking area. What was
happening was that overnight people would go in and hitch up to a boat and
drive it over the curb and landscaping on Back Bay Drive. Boats are being left
out overnight outside the boat storage area. The boat launch parking is also
outside that fenced area.
Chairperson Selich rescinded that additional condition and suggested another
condition that would be that the public walkway system shown on page 29 of
the design guidelines shall be connected to Back Bay Drive at two points and
. that the final plan for the walkway system shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for review and approval for conformance to public access
requirements and design standards and guidelines of the PC text.
Mr. Gleason agreed to this condition.
Continuing, Chairperson Selich stated that the last suggested additional
condition would be in reference to the bike trail along Bayside Village Mobile
Home Park. There appears to be room to place some landscaping between
the bike trail and the mobile homes, rather than have all the landscaping on
the hotel side.
Mr. Gleason agreed to re- construct the bike trail away from the mobile homes
to allow landscaping between the two.
Mrs. Wood asked if the proposed wording to condition 1 might be more
effective if it were instead written into the PC text? You are asking for Planning
Commission review of any construction on the entire properly, not just Unit 1.
The conceptual precise plan deals only with Unit 1, whereas the PC is for the
entire property.
Mr. Gleason noted the chart on page 8 of the PC text was meant to sketch the
approval scenario. The Planning Commission has to see any conceptual
precise plan that comes forward. You also have to see any final precise plan
that didn't previously have a conceptual precise plan. The only thing lacking is
the case such as this, the hotel where the final precise plan wouldn't be
43
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
brought back to the Planning Commission. Perhaps we should incorporate that
the final precise plan in all cases would need to come back to the Planning
Commission. This would provide for some substantial review by the Planning
Director. The final precise plan is the last round of planning type review. It
would be in advance of preparing construction drawings.
Chairperson Selich stated that he thought the final precise plan was the final
construction documents with working drawings. In the PC text it says that the
final precise plan shall include the final engineering necessary to pull building
permits. Following discussion, he stated that he had no problems with this
conditioned as part of the PC text, if staff feels that is the best way to handle it.
His only concern is for review by the Planning Commission. It was agreed to
place this in the PC text.
Mr. Alford, referencing the handout about richer natural materials, suggested
an example be added, '..For example ceramic file may be used for door and
Window surrounds, wall fountains and stair risers.' It is a design element that is
fairly common with this architectural style and goes to some of the talk
regarding detail ornamentation. Additionally, insert in the railing section that,
'the use of ornamental, metal railings should be limited to the smaller
decorative balconies.'
Mr. Gleason stated that we are not sure what we will be doing with the
balcony treatments yet.
Chairperson Selich asked if there were any objections to incorporating into the
previously approved guidelines, the suggestions made by Mr. Alford and my
previously suggested Condition 1 to be incorporated into the PC text by the
staff? All Commissioners agreed.
Commissioner Tucker noted on Exhibit G -1 that:
o Condition 10 (renumbered to 21) on the HVAC units should say, shall be
located as for as reasonable from the western property line, but not less
than 30 feet. If we could incorporate some language so that it will be as
for away as possible.
• 1 would like to suggest a condition that there be no outdoor amplified
music from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
• An additional condition concerning the applicant having the duty to
maintain the Bayside parkway. I want this to look nice; I want to make sure
that the materials planted will be taken care of.
• A condition referencing the revised precise plan submittal March 7, 2000
sheet 9A, the most southerly portion above the conference space where it
refers to two -story flat roof will instead become a pitched roof.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that:
• A condition regarding employee entrance from Back Bay Drive - all
• employee and delivery traffic shall access the site via Back Bay Drive
44
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
utilizing the service /emergency road. This would also include any type of
set up deliveries.
Include the boat parade exclusion in Condition 4 (renumbred to 11),
except from Thanksgiving Day to New Years Day, but not during the time
of the annual Christmas boat parade the maximum number of guests shall
be 2,000.
Biminate any spa membership - primary use of the spa is for hotel guests.
Visual simulations to be included in Condition 2.
Commissioner Ashley asked if it was intended that all construction trucks be
banned from Bayside Drive. Staff answered that there was no specific
direction along those lines.
Commissioner Tucker asked if it would be feasible to get construction
equipment over to build the timeshare units that will be built in phases after the
hotel is done?
Mr. Gleason agreed that it would be difficult for the balance of the timeshare
phasing after hotel construction. It would have to come in off Bayside Drive. I
have concerns with the volume coming through the RV park; it is probably
more than the normal employee and delivery traffic in that regard.
Chairperson Selich stated he is not in favor of requiring all construction come
through the RV park, as it is not an appropriate access. They will have to use
the public street and come down Bayside Drive.
Ms. Temple added that one option would be to suggest that within their final
precise plan sufficient information be included on the construction phasing
and planning, construction traffic planning.
Mr. Gleason noted his agreement with staff suggestion. This will take a little
more consideration and we agree to work to minimize the impacts an Bayside
Drive. We will come up with a comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Kiser added:
• Condition 25 (renumbered to 36) - minimum radius should be 38.
• Condition 11 (renumbered to 21) regarding HVAC - add a minimum setback
of 30 feet and shall be otherwise placed and designed to minimize noise
emanating to adjacent properties. I would not like to see a major air
conditioning unit close to the homeowners there.
• Condition on amplified music - the hours prohibiting the music should be
from 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. People should have the right to sleep in.
Mr. Gleason clarified that the only time music after 7:00 a.m. was allowed has
been during a race. I would agree to the 9:00 a.m. hour condition.
Commissioner Ashley noted that music for diners during breakfast hours could
•
45
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
be limited by the Noise Ordinance. The hotel will have to keep in mind their
own guests.
Commissioner Kiser agreed that the suggested hour should remain at 7:00 a.m.,
as the Noise Ordinance will be in effect.
Commissioner Tucker stated that the people who would be disturbed the most
are the guests of the hotel. What I did with 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. was to pick
up a condition that was set forth in the noise study. We ought to let the
operators worry about that themselves, as they will be disturbing more their
own guests than people insulated from the noise by the hotel structure.
Commissioner Kiser added that for an additional condition on the chain link to
be replaced with lower and less visual obtrusive means of providing security for
the boat storage and launch area. For example, low posts, etc. but would
disappear into the landscape.
Mr. Gleason stated that he would have to look at this operationally.
Mr. Alford stated that part 2 of the design guidelines contains guidelines for
walls, fences and screens. This condition could be added to be consistent.
• Commissioner Kiser stated that this condition regarding chain link fence is to be
reinserted to read that the chain link fence shall be replaced along Back Bay
Drive with a lower and less visually obtrusive means of providing security for the
boat storage area subject to the Planning Commission approval as part of the
final precise plan. Mr. Gleason concurred.
Staff included by reference condition amendments on 4c (enumbered to 11 c),
and 8 (renumbered to 18).
Straw vote taken on proposed conditions by Planning Commission and staff in
Exhibit G -1. All Commissioners agreed.
Prior to taking a vote on the EIR, Chairperson Selich asked counsel if the
Planning Commission had met all the CEQA EIR requirements.
Ms. Clauson answered that the Planning Commission is reviewing and
recommending for consideration to the City Council the draft EIR. The final EIR
will be presented to City Council.
Commissioner Gifford stated that she was not present at the last two meetings
that the Dunes was discussed, however, she has listened to all of the tapes of
those meetings.
INDEX
Motion was made by
Commissioner Gifford to
adopt Resolution 1518
•
recommending approval
of Environmental Impact
46
Report No. 157 with the
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
. Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
findings and recommendations.
INDEX
Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: None
Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt Resolution 1519
recommending approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment No.
97 -3F; Local Plan Amendment No. 51, Zoning Code Amendment No. 878,
Planned Community District Plan (PC -48), Development Agreement No. 12; and
Conceptual Precise Plan for unit one with the findings and conditions listed.
Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Kranzley
Noes: None
Absent: None
Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt Resolution 1520
recommending approval of Traffic Study No. 115
Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker
• Noes: None
Absent: None
Chairperson Selich suggested that a short adjourned meeting be held to
discuss all the revisions to conditions that have been voted on tonight prior to
City Council.
Staff added that the revisions could be transmitted to each of the
Commissioners. We can then schedule a meeting for review if anyone of the
Commissioners suggested that something was not consistent with their
recollection. If all of the commissioners felt they had no questions and that it
accurately reflected their understanding of the changes, we would not
actually bring it back to a meeting. All Commissioners agreed.
EXHIBIT G -1
(attached to Resolution 1519)
Approval of this conceptual precise plan is contingent on the adoption of
General Plan Amendment 97 -3, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
Amendment 51, Zoning Code Amendment 878, Planned Community District
Plan 48, Development Agreement 12 by the City Council and the
certification of Environmental Impact Report 157 by the City Council and
the adoption of Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment 51 by
the California Coastal Commission.
47
City of Newport Beach
. Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
2. The final precise plan shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved conceptual precise plan, including site plans, floor plans,
elevations, visual simulations, and public improvement plans, except as
noted below.
3. All future site improvements and activities shall be in conformance with this
approval and shall comply with all the mitigation monitoring measures and
mitigation monitoring requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program of the Newport Dunes Resort EIR (State Clearing House
No. 98061 113). In the event of any conflicts, the conditions of this resolution
shall prevail.
4. The final precise plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Commission.
5. The final precise plan shall include a landscape plan for all the remaining
planning units.
6. The final precise plan shall include a construction traffic management plan.
7. The final precise plan shall include public shoreline access plan. The public
•
shoreline access plan shall provide two public access routes connecting
the shoreline promenade to Back Bay Drive.
8. The two -story section at the south end of the hotel shall have a pitched
roof.
9. The existing chain link fence along Back Bay Drive shall be removed and
replaced with a lower, less visually obtrusive, security fence of a design and
construction that is consistent with the Design Guidelines.
10. The segment of the bike path that is adjacent to Bayside Village Mobile
Home Park shall be relocated to provide a minimum 5 -foot wide
landscaped strip between the path and the mobile home park.
11. Catering functions (i.e., those designed to attract primarily non -hotel
guests) in the conference center shall be restricted as follows:
a. On Fridays (beginning at 5:00 p.m.), Saturdays, Sundays, and federal
holidays from May 1st through Labor Day of each year:
1) The maximum number of catering guests occupying the
conference center at any one time shall be 1,500.
2) Functions involving two or more engagers /groups totaling more
than one -half of the maximum number of catering guests (750) shall
48
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
be scheduled to start or end at least one -half hour apart. Functions
involving a single engager /group may have a single start/end time.
3) Functions involving no more than one - quarter of the maximum
number of guests (375) may be scheduled to start or end during the
P.M. weekend traffic peak hour at the intersection of Coast
Highway and Bayside Drive.
4) The minimum time between functions to be held in any single room
during two different time periods is one and one -half hours.
5) The City Manager may, at his /her discretion, approve a maximum of
four (4) waivers of this condition per calendar year. Waiver requests
shall be submitted a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of the
event and shall be accompanied by a traffic and parking
management plan designed to minimize any impacts associated
with the waiver.
b. On Monday through Friday, except on federal holidays:
1) The maximum number of catering guests occupying the
conference center at any one time shall be 1,500, except from
Thanksgiving Day to New Year's Day, but not during the time of
the annual Christmas Boat Parade, the maximum number shall be
2,000.
2) No catered events in the conference center shall be scheduled
to start or end between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.,
exclusive.
3) No catered events in the conference center shall be scheduled
to start or end between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.,
exclusive.
4) Functions involving two or more engagers /groups totaling more
than one -half of the maximum number of guests (750 or 1,000)
shall be scheduled to start or end at least one -half hour apart.
Functions involving a single engager /group may have a single
start /end time.
5) The City Manager may, at his /her discretion, approve a maximum
of twelve (12) waivers of this condition per calendar year. Waiver
requests shall be submitted a minimum of thirty (30) days in
advance of the event and shall be accompanied by a traffic
and parking management plan designed to minimize any
impacts associated with the waiver.
0 49
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
INDEX
c. Should the Coast Highway /Bayside Drive intersection peak traffic
hours change, based on actual traffic counts conducted by the
Public Works Department, by one -half hour or more from the existing
peak A.M. hour of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. or the existing peak P.M. hour
of 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., then the prohibited time periods shall
change accordingly to correspond to the new peak hours. The
Public Works Department shall notify the applicant of changes in
peak hours. Said changes shall not apply to any events scheduled
prior to notice of such a determination.
d. The applicant shall be required to provide information to prove
conformance with this condition semi - annually. The report shall
include retrospective information for the preceding six -month
reporting period as well as prospective information on all scheduled
events subject to this condition for the forthcoming six -month report
period. Reports shall be submitted to the Planning Director on
January 31 of each year for the period of July 1 through December 31
of the prior year and on July 31 for the period of January 1 through
June 30 of that year.
. e. Following the first two years of operation of the hotel, the
applicant may apply to the Planning Commission for a modification
of this condition based on demonstrated traffic generation and
parking demand statistics.
12. The health club, including fitness and spa facilities, shall not be made
available for use by non - guests via sales of memberships or periodic passes.
This condition shall not prevent non - guests from use of the spa facilities on
an appointment basis.
13. Outdoor amplified music shall not be allowed after 10:00 p.m. and before
7:00 a.m.
14. In determining the project's compliance with the Community Noise Control
Ordinance (Chapter 10.26 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code),
each of the noise level standards specified Section 10.26.025 and Section
10.26.030 shall be reduced by 5 dBA for a simple tone noise such as a
whine, screech, or hum, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for
recurring impulsive noise such as hammering or riveting.
15. The applicant shall take appropriate measures to minimize the idling of
vehicles at the main hotel entrance, the function area entrance, and at
50
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
the time - share /marina lobby entrance to minimize noise and exhaust
emissions.
16. All employee and delivery traffic shall access the site via Back Bay Drive
utilizing the service /emergency road.
17. All employees shall be required to park on the Newport Dunes Resort
property.
18. All temporary lighting used during the construction phase shall be designed
and located to confine direct rays and glare to the project site.
19. At the end of construction, the applicant shall wash exterior of the homes in
Bayside Village to further reduce the impacts of fugitive dust generated
during the construction phase.
20. All loading and unloading activities at the westerly side of the structure at
• ground level shall be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
21. All heating, venting, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, including
building and parking structure mechanical ventilation equipment, shall be
located as far as feasible from residential areas, but not less than 30 feet
from the property line, and shall be sited and attenuated to minimize noise
impacts to adjacent residential areas.
22. Trash container areas shall be screened, walled, and secured to prevent
accidental off -site transport of trash into water bodies.
23. No car washing, changing of oil, or other auto repairs shall be permitted
within the 30 acre Hotel and Time -Share Resort site. Hotel service vehicles
and equipment used for maintenance shall be washed at the existing boat
wash rack or other locations off the project site. Vehicles shall be serviced
at approved maintenance sites, either on -site or off -site.
24. Landscaped areas that utilize fertilizers and pesticides shall be managed in
concert with guidelines provided in the Orange County DAMP.
25. Regular litter control and emptying of trash receptacles will be scheduled
to minimize debris that would be carried to Upper Newport Bay. The
Newport Dunes Resort management shall adhere to refuse management
and collection methods that limit wildlife access by using covered trash
• 51
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
containers that cannot be easily overturned or accessed by wildlife. The
Newport Dunes Resort management shall promptly control refuse
generated by visitors using on -site facilities.
26. Employee training on Best Management Practices shall be provided
pursuant to the Newport Dunes Resort EIR Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
27. A water interceptor and catch basin monitoring report shall be prepared
by the applicant on an annual basis pursuant to the Newport Dunes Resort
EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
28. The applicant shall be responsible for the inspection, implementation, and
maintenance of the structural and non - structural BMPS outlined in the final
Water Quality Management Plan and SWPPP.
29. On -site roadways and parking lots shall be cleaned on a weekly basis to
reduce the discharge of pollutants into the storm drain system from paved
surfaces.
30. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall implement
• standard contract specifications requiring instructions to be carried out by
the construction manager to minimize emissions by heavy equipment.
Measures may include but not be limited to: 1) proper maintenance of
equipment engines, 2) use of cleaner burning equipment or equipment
using alternative fuels, 3) avoidance of idling equipment for extended
periods of time, 4) connecting stationary equipment to electrical facilities,
and 5) avoidance of unnecessary delays of traffic resulting from blockage
of traffic by heavy equipment.
31. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works Department.
32. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is
desired to obtain a grading or building permit prior to completion of the
public improvements.
33. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer
and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The
time -share and marina area's surface parking lot shall contain one (1) tree
for each five (5) parking stalls consistent with the Newport Dunes Planned
Community District Plan Design Guidelines.
34. Intersections of private streets and drives shall be designed to provide sight
distance in conformance with City of Newport Beach Sight Distance
•
52
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000
Standard 110-L. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be
considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight
line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. Sight distance
requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval
of the Traffic Engineer.
35. Approval of the Bayside Drive control gate and turn - around is contingent
on City Council approval of the vacation of the segment of Bayside Drive
from the Bayside Village entrance to the project property line, pursuant to
the City Council Policy L -9.
36. The Bayside Drive control gate lanes shall each be a minimum of 14 -feet
wide and the turn - around shall have a minimum 38 -foot radius. The final
design of the control gate and turn- around shall be subject to the approval
of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department.
37. Asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities,
vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be
approved by the Public Works Department and the final design shall be
approved by the Planning Commission.
38. Bayside Drive shall be reconstructed with curbs, gutters, sidewalk, street
•
lights, and pavement as needed, storm drain and bike trail improvements.
All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the
Public Works Department.
39. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of landscaping in
the Bayside Drive right -of -way north of Coast Highway.
40. Intersection improvements shall be constructed at Bayside Drive and Coast
Highway, including signal modifications as required by the traffic study.
41. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard
improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer.
42. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and
approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of
water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to
recording of the parcel map /tract map. Any modifications or extensions to
the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by
the study shall be the responsibility of the developer.
43. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the
applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities
will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include
verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities
•
53
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
April 20, 2000 INDEX
Department.
44. Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid.
45. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight
distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L.
46. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement
of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment
and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local
requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery
of materials within the Bayside Drive right -of -way.
47. All improvements shall be completed as required according to the traffic
study for the Newport Dunes development.
EXHIBIT E -1 Newport Dunes Planned Community District Plan - recommended
changes to text are incorporated herein by reference and ariached.
• ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business
a.) City Council Follow -up - none.
b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic
Development Committee- none
C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a
subsequent meeting - Commissioner Ashley asked for an analysis of the
one way streets in Corona del Mar. Also asked for a study to reduce the
median strip and provide U -turns at acceptable intersections along PCH,
Dove, and Arches to allow for elimination of curb parking. Chairperson
Selich asked to amend the MFR districts to require some type of site plan
review.
d.) Requests for excused absences - none.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:55 p.m.
Adjournment
LARRY TUCKER, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
0 54