HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/20000
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley -
Commissioner Gifford arrived at 6:35 p.m.
It was decided to take the items out of order until there was a full Commission
present to hear the Balboa Inn item.
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney
Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager
James Campbell, Senior Planner
Eugenia Garcia, Associate Planner
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary
Minutes of November 9.2000:
Motion was made by Commission McDaniel and voted on, to approve as
amended, the minutes of November 9, 2000.
Ayes:
McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley
Noes:
None
Absent:
Gifford
Abstain:
Tucker
Public Comments:
None
Postina of the Aaendo:
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, December 1, 2000.
Minutes
Approved
Public Comments
Posting of the Agenda
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
SUBJECT: The St. Clair Company
500 Superior Avnue
• Use Permit No. 3679
A request for the approval of a Use Permit to exceed the basic height limit of
buildings of 32 feet up to 50 feet, in conjunction with the remodel of an
existing 416,499 square foot research and development site. The project
involves the demolition of 208,926 square feet of existing development and
the construction of 207,920 square feet for a total of 415,493 square feet.
Chairperson Selich stated that there will be a presentation by the applicant,
there will be no action taken by the Planning Commission on this item tonight.
This is primarily an introductory session for the applicant to make a presentation
to the Planning Commission on the project. It will be continued to January 4,
2001.
Carol Hoffman representing the St. Clair Company noted Mark Barker, Director
of Community Commercial Development for the St. Clair Company and Chris
Torrey, Principal with the architectural firm of LPA were in the audience. She
then presented a brief background history of the company. She then made a
slide presentation noting the following:
•
Project location with no access to Newport Boulevard was built
between the mid 50's and through the early 80's consisting of research
and development and office uses.
•
Approval of building height.
•
Existing facility is a manufacturing and office site.
•
Renovations of existing buildings will improve the on -site circulation as
well as allow for ADA improvements and other safety code
requirements.
•
The use permit is requested to enhance, improve and revitalize the
existing site.
•
Existing parking structure of 50 feet is five levels.
•
Buildings on site vary from 39 to 43 feet in height.
•
Project goals will allow consistency with existing zoning; reduction of
average daily traffic; increase open space and landscape areas within
the project.
•
All landscaping will be enhanced both on the interior and exterior that
will allow screening of parking from the street.
•
A preliminary traffic study result shows a trip reduction in average daily
traffic of approximately 1,800 trips. We will confirm that in a response to
comments document that will be a part of the presentation in January.
•
Renovate 200,000 square feet; demolish 208,000 square feet because of
age and inadequacies of the existing structures and replace 207,000
square feet.
•
Project is a combination of renovation, demolition and replacement
resulting in 415,493 square feet.
. •
Maintaining the same density and intensity with different configurations.
INDEX
Item No. 1
Use Permit 3679
Continued to
01/04/2001
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
Commissioner Tucker asked if there were any changes or modifications
planned for the west elevation of the parking structure? He also observed that
the proposed project is a research and development project with research
and development parking and traffic features to it. What will the interior layout
of the space look like? How will the applicant assure that this project will
remain a research and development project and not morph into an office
project?
Ms. Hoffman answered the enhanced landscape will be added to screen it
and give the appearance of the same quality of what the new development
will be. She noted the presentation in January would answer any other
questions.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to January 4,
2001.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
• Absent: Gifford
SUBJECT: Koll Center Newport
MacArthur Boulevard /Jamboree Road
• GPA 97 -3 (B)
• Amendment 905
• Traffic Study No. 119
• EIR No. 158
Review of a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment
to allow an additional 250,000 gross square feet of office use within Office Site
B of the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community. The amendments
will provide for the construction of a ten -story office tower.
Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has submitted a request to continue this
item to March 22, 2001.
Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to March 22,
2001.
Ayes: McDaniel., Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: Gifford
INDEX
Item No. 2
GPA 97 -3 (B),
Amendment 905,
Traffic Study No. 119
and EIR No. 158
Continued to
03/22/2001
IS City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
SUBJECT: Balboa Inn & Expansion
105 Main Street & 707 Ocean Front
• Approve Use Permit No. 3683
• Approve the Negative Declaration making the
findings contained in Exhibit 1;
A Use Permit for the Balboa Inn located at 105 Main Street its proposed
expansion to the 707 Ocean Front property. The expansion project involves
the construction of a two and three story structure consisting of 11 new guest
suites, guest spa area, approximately 2,000 square feet of retail space, and a
partially covered 20 space, tandem parking area. It will also involve the
demolition of an existing one -story retail building and pool area that currently
serves the existing Balboa Inn. The use permit application also includes
consideration of an exception to the maximum allowable floor area ratio,
building bulk and building height established by Title 20 of the Municipal
Code for the expansion.
Chairperson Selich noted that this item had been continued and the
• Planning Commission has held a number of hearings. At the last meeting it
was voted on resulting in a three /three deadlock. Therefore, we continued
this item for a new vote. However, we will open the public hearing for any
additional testimony.
Public comment was opened.
Ron Baers noted he was representing Raymond and Michael Pourmussa the
owners of the Balboa Inn and was available to answer any questions.
Dan Parr, 1585 East Ocean Boulevard noted his support of the project. He
stated he has reviewed the architectural plans and feels it will be a desirable
addition to the village. He commented that it would be a nice entryway to
the pier and add some nice shops to the area.
Bill Wren, 1118 East Balboa Boulevard spoke in support of this project. As an
active citizen in various committees he stated that this project would be a
great benefit to the Balboa area. The investment by these property owners
will stimulate the entire area. He urged approval of this project.
Donna Colovero, 1002 East Ocean Front noted that she has been a patron of
the inn for many years. She noted her support of the project and stated that
the renovation appears to be compatible with the surrounding area and
businesses.
Bill Malcolm, 2136 Miramar noted his support of the project for similar reasons
40 stated by previous speakers. He noted that as an architect, the plans are
INDEX
Item No. 3
UP No. 3683
Negative Declaration
Approved
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
excellent and the buildings are in proportion.
Vic Sherritt, 704 East Oceanfront requested that this application be denied.
He stated that to allow this project would affect the properties and the
people on either side. He presented a petition signed by approximately 62
people who are opposed to the use permit. We have no objection to
building within the requirements in terms of height and size. We are
concerned about an oversized building at that location. We think the
property owner has every right to build what is allowed by the city. Most of
the people on either side of the Inn have indicated that it is going to be
harmful to their welfare and also be injurious to their property. There was a
question as to why there were not a lot of people here, I think the people
who have signed these papers really trust you as a Planning Commission and
that you will hear what they have to say and consider their wishes. They
believe in you and trust you. With the rules and regulations as for as granting
a use permit it indicates that if it is harmful and detrimental to the people
who reside around it, the residents, and injurious to the property owners that
you do not grant a use permit. My question is how do you address that with
this large number of people immediately around it that feel it will be injurious
to their property and harmful to their welfare?
• Tod White, 1120 East Balboa Boulevard stated that the Board of Directors of
the Balboa Peninsula Resident Association is in support of this proposal.
Additionally, he noted that many of the businesses are in buildings not owned
by the business operators. Here we have an opportunity to support people
who are willing to invest their money to make the village stronger and better.
This will be a benefit to all the residents to have a strong business district.
Michelle Roberge, Executive Director of the Balboa Theater spoke in support of
this project. She noted that she is currently involved in renovating the Balboa
Theater as part of the city vision of Balboa Village as a cultural, visitor and
resident friendly destination. She noted that people will be drawn to this area
by successful businesses. The expansion of the inn is a crucial factor in this
renovation. She noted her support of the Balboa Inn and endorses this
expansion.
James W. Read, Jr., 702 East Ocean Front stated that there will be a view
blockage towards the pier from the easterly side of his property. He noted that
this project is too massive and bulky and that it will produce a tunnel affect. I
presented a letter to you regarding this project. He stated he was opposed to
this expansion.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Gifford noted the following on the findings and conditions:
0 Finding 10 (1) [iv] the word development should be inserted after the word
G
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
proposed.
Finding 10 (1) [vii] spelling of the words conditioned and be; the last sentence to
read, 'The project includes the use of materials that are in character with the
area.'
Condition 1 is I believe an extremely important condition. A couple of
changes: The applicant shall submit to the. Planning Department samples of
materials and colors to be subject to the approval of the Planning Director prior
to the issuance of a building permit for new construction.' This would make it
very clear about the approval not that they are just submitted.
She then asked if any language could be put in to emphasise something
analgous to a materials condition in a contract, is there anything that works like
that?
Ms. Clauson noted that one way would be to add language that the approval
of this use permit is specific to the development plans as approved.
Commissioner Gifford asked if that raises the threshold of substantial
• conformance? She was answered that it emphasizes the importance of the
site plans as approved.
Continuing, Commissioner Gifford stated that in the last sentence of condtiion 1
she is concerned with the 'high quality. This seems to be a modifier and may
be subjective. Is there a hierarchy of terms?
Ms. Clauson answered that we have used terms before like, first class quality,
high quality. There could be a general acceptance of what high quality is. It is
a matter of terminology that the Commission is comfortable with.
Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood noted that in this condition, the more
important thing to help us is the requirement that the materials, finishes and
techniquest be compatible with the existing inn. That is the level of quality that
we are looking for, exceptt somehhing newer.
Commisisoner Gifford noted that is her concern. I am not sure that some of the
materials in the existing inn are what I would think of as meeting the standard
we might be expecting. 'Character might be better to emphasize.
Ms. Clauson offered that maybe Mr. Baers could come up with some wording
from an architectural design standard that would be accepted in the industry.
Ms. Temple noted that one technique, as a means of assistance to staff, is to
get as much articulation into the record as to what the real goals of the
Planning Commisison are when it is addressing the issues of quality. Perhaps as
• a way to insure that staff has a full understanding of what that means is to also
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
require the applicant to fund staff retaining a design professional to review the
materials boards and advise us on the level of quality we are achieving. If by
virture of explanation in the record that the Commisison gives us that staff does
not feel that, or there is some question that the quality standards are not being
met, then we could bring it back to the Planning Commission for further review,
or, to simply require different materials.
Commisisoner Gifford noted this has merit and asked that something be
drafted to be included in the conditions. In Condition 3 we talk about 707
Ocean Front and then we talk about the existing Balboa Inn. I am concerned
that in some cases if it is not the Balboa Inn any more we might have
comprimised some of these conditions. Can we refer to a specific address
there instead so that we are not just talking about a business name?
Ms. Temple answered yes.
Commissioner Gifford continued noting that the address of 105 Main Street
should be referred to instead of Balboa Inn. Reading Condition 6, line 3 should
have a comma placed after the word one; the last sentence shall read, 'The
covenant shall be reviewed and be subject to the City Attorney's approval
prior to recordation:
• Condition 10: is there an encroachment agreement?
Mr. Campbell answered that there is an outdated encroachment agreement
that could potentially be removed or eliminated so we wanted that to be re-
done.
Continuing, Commisisoner Gifford asked about Finding 9 that deals with the
delinquency of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). She noted her objection to
the idea that if you are delinquent the City might give you more consideration
and entitlements hoping that will allow you to acquire the funds to pay the
delinquency. That is problematic for me philosophecially. I would like to hear
from the other Commissioners about changing that to a condtiion.
Chairperson Selich noted Condition 29 refers to the TOT. Following a brief
discussion it was suggested and agreed to change the wording, 'that prior to
issuance of permits, the outstanding TOT shall be paid'.
Commissioner Gifford then referred to Condition 7 and stated that it should be
moved as a sentence at the end of Condition 8. This application has to move
on to the Coastal Commisison. Would there be any objection to language
similar to page 9, 10 (I) [viii] be the first finding we make? I know professional
planners have their own view of things and a finding that is simply a matter of
existing situations so that the first finding would be that there is presently an
entitlement on the site for x number of square feet, etc. If we could put that in,
• 1 would feel better about that there.
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
Ms. Temple asked if we should add into Condition 1 a little bit more articulation
as to what permisisons, so that we can say x amount of floor area, x amount of
height, etc.? Commisisoner Gifford answered that would be perfect.
Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve the Negative
Declaration making the findings contained in Exhibit 1; approve Use Permit
No. 3683 subject to the Findings, Mitigation Measures and Conditions of
approval attached as Exhibit A and subject further to the items I have
articulated.
Chairperson Selich asked if there were any comments or discussion on the
comments made by Commissioner Gifford outside of the TOT issue? None,
then on the TOT issue, Ms. Wood wanted to speak so that is the only thing we
are dealing with.
Ms. Wood noted that the payment of the TOT is more properly something to
be handled by the City Council and City Manager rather than the Planning
Commission as a land use issue. I would prefer that the condition be similar to
the way staff has presented it so that there is some flexibility but still insures
that we resolve that issue before this project goes ahead.
• Commissioner Kranzley noted that if the City Council chooses to amend that
language then they could. This sends a message that we have been trying
to send for every hearing that we have had on this and that is we are not
going to approve this project unless the delinquent TOT is paid. The other
thing is in Finding 9; my understanding is that there is cross ownership
between the old ownership and the new ownership. So I don't know if that
finding is precise, as the current owners were at least limited partners in the
prior ownership, so we might want to research that.
Commissioner Kiser noted a typographical error in Finding 9; Condition 29
should read, 'the applicant shall, prior to issuance of permits, pay in full all
outstanding Transient Occupancy Taxes'. The reason for the clarification is as
I have expressed as well as other Commissioners in past hearings, a real
concern that if the TOT can not be paid by this applicant prior to starting this
construction project, I would be concerned they may run out of funds. If they
are that thinly capitalized so that this can not be done as part of their
financing and project we may end up with a half built project. It is a great
concern beyond the general or philosophical concern that I don't think we
should frankly be dealing with this until it is current. Realizing that the City
attorney has found a significant nexus in the staff report to connect the
payment of those TOT with our approval, I feel strongly about this clarification.
Commissioner Gifford noted this was her intent in her motion.
9 Commissioner Tucker stated his agreement with Commissioner Kranzley that if
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
this is the only part of the puzzle the applicant can decide to appeal it and
take it up to Council or just pay it. I would like to see the condition changed
as suggested by Commissioner Gifford.
Ayes: Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian
Absent: None
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Use Permit No. 3683, Balboa Inn
Mitigated Negative Declaration
A. Mitigated Neaatve Declaration:
Fin in s:
1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3.
2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the
proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade
the quality of the environment.
3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be
compromised by the project.
4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other
projects.
5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that
would be caused by the proposed project.
6. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in
the various decisions on this project.
Mitigation Measures:
1. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the
following measures are complied with to reduce short -term
(construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a)
• controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines
in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities
to minimize project - related emissions.
2. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the
project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce
odors from construction activities
3. During grading activities, a qualified archeologist /paleontologist shall
be present to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If
significant cultural resources are uncovered, the
archeologist /paleontologist shall have the authority to stop or
temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to
assess the significance of the find.
4. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion
and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all
applicable local and State building codes and seismic design
guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC
Section 15.10).
• 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a
comprehensive geotechnical investigation to the Planning and
Building Department for review and approval.
6. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the
approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance.
7. The project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport
Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code
pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours
of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to
6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at
any time on Sundays and holidays.
8. Prior to the start of construction activities (e.g. demolition of existing
building), a construction traffic control plan shall be prepared which
includes the haul route, truck hauling operations, construction traffic
flagmen, and construction warning /directional signage.
9. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project
applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations
regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are
protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are
• planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public
10
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
agencies.
10. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall
submit to the Planning and Building Department a letter from the City
Utilities Department confirming availability of utility services to and
from the site.
B. Use Permit No. 3683:
Findinas:
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates both sites, 105
Main Street and 707 Ocean Front, for 'Retail and Service Commercial'
uses. The project includes existing visitor accommodations and new
accommodations and retail uses which are permitted uses within this
commercial designation.
2. The existing Development at 105 Main Street provides visitor
accommodations (34 units) within the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan
consistent with the General Plan. The inn is a local historical landmark
and has not proven to be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in
the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to
property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare
of the City. Approval of the use permit makes the use conforming with
respect to permit requirements and does not authorize any changes to
the operational characteristics of the use. No expansion of the use or
area on the property north of Ocean Front where the existing Balboa
Inn is located (105 Main Street) is authorized. The structures on the 105
Main Street site remains legal, nonconforming with respect to building
height, floor area ratio, building bulk, parking and landscaping.
3. The proposed construction of additional area for visitor
accommodations on 707 Ocean Front which will be operated in
conjunction with the existing Development at 105 Main Street does
not constitute an expansion of a nonconforming structure. The existing
Balboa Inn is located at 105 Main Street and the new hotel area is
separated from this property by a public street, and constitutes a
separate building site.
4. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments
received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence
that the project, as conditioned, could have a significant effect on the
environment; therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential
environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements
. of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was
11
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
considered prior to approval of the project.
5. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a
whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed
project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources
or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the
evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of
adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Tifle 14 of the California
Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebuffed. Therefore, the proposed
project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to
Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR.
6. A trip generation study has been prepared by the Traffic Engineer which
analyzes the expected trip generation for the proposed project, and
verifies that the proposed project will generate approximately 165
vehicle lips per day which is not a significant increase warranting a
traffic study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
7. 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.
• 8. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section
20.91.040 of the Municipal Code.
9. The existing Balboa Inn owes the City delinquent Transient Occupancy
Tax. This delinquent payment was incurred by the prior
owner /operator and the present owner /operator is current in their
payments. The current owner /operator remains responsible for
repayment of the delinquent taxes pursuant to the Newport Beach
Municipal Code. The expanded project with the additional rooms will
increase occupancy of the existing hotel and make the hotel more
successful, thereby increasing future TOT revenues and enabling the
applicant to repay that those taxes owned.
10. Approval of Use Permit No. 3683 will not, under the circumstances of the
case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or
be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with
the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons:
(a) The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan statistical area has
approximately 47,000 square feet of remaining entitlement, and
the proposed project will not the put the area in deficit.
• (b) The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan statistical area does have
12
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
several underutilized properties. None of these parcels are of
sufficient size or seems likely to redevelop in the near future that
would cause the base development allocation of the entire
statistical area to be exceeded.
(c) The increased development is 755.5 square feet, which is 7.78% of
the overall project. The increased development increases the
mass of the project making it two and three stories. The building is
consistent with massing and size of the adjacent 4 -story inn and
does not constitute an abrupt change in scale, as it is lower than
the inn. The duplexes to the west to the west are two story and are
developed well above 1.0 FAR and the three story condominiums
to the west are of similar size and scale to the proposed project.
The change in scale from the south is significant, but is not
inconsistent with the change in scale between structures located
on Main Street as it extends the characteristic urban fabric further
south.
(d) The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan area acts as a visitor
serving commercial area and recreational area. The
recreational use of the area served both visitors as well as
• residents. The use of the site for visitor accommodations and
retail uses is compatible with the surrounding uses.
(e) The increase development of does not have a significant effect
upon public views. Views from Ocean Front and Main Street are
partially blocked by the existing development of the site and the
increased development will not dramatically affect this view.
The proposed project will open a portion of the view (westerly
26.5 feet) presently blocked by the perimeter walls. The view of
the project site and the adjacent commercial area will be
affected by the project, but in a positive way due to the
project's high level of architectural detail and consistent
architectural style with the adjacent Development at 105 Main
Street.
(f) The site is flat and has no submerged areas and has no sensitive
resources. The site is physically suitable for development as
vehicular access and utilities presently exist that can serve the
proposed project. The site is located adjacent to the
Development at 105 Main Street which is a locally significant
historical landmark and focal point of the Central Balboa area.
The design of the building is consistent with the architecture of the
inn thereby preserving and enhancing the unique character of
the area.
(g) The design of the project predominantly with visitor
• accommodations with its connection to the existing
13
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
Development at 105 Main Street realistically precludes other
land uses that would generate additional traffic. The project
does provide 8 excess parking stalls that will be available to
provide additional parking for the existing inn thereby reducing
parking demand generated by the existing inn for the public
beach parking.
(h) The project is designed to be consistent with the adjacent
Development at 105 Main Street, which has local historical
significance. Promoting commercial districts and providing
opportunities for older, underutilized properties to redevelop is
consistent with General Plan policies. Preserving and enhancing
the Balboa Inn and surroundings is a goal of the Central Balboa
Specific Plan.
(i) The increased height results in a decreased building footprint
where the westerly 26.5 feet of the property is not developed
with any buildings, which will open a portion of the view of the
ocean and beach to Ocean Front.
(j) The increased height permits greater building articulation where
• there is a single story portion between the two three story
elements. This building mass articulation avoids a flat two story
building that could potentially occupy the entire site. The
increased height permits higher clear heights for the project which
results in the ability to incorporate additional architectural details
that are consistent and compatible with the adjacent
Development at 105 Main Street which strengthens the unique
and historic character of the of the area.
(k) The proposed three -story building is consistent with massing and
size of the adjacent inn and does not constitute an abrupt
change in scale, as it is lower than the adjacent 4-story inn. Further
west are three duplexes which are two -story and a three -story
condominium development. The duplexes are no more than 26
feet in height and the increased height suggested does not
create an abrupt scale relationship.
(1) Deviations from the building height in conjunction with a request
to increase the floor area ratio is acceptable based upon
Alternative Development Regulations when innovative or
superior urban design is proposed pursuant to the Central
Balboa Specific Area Plan.
(i) The project is designed to create visual interest and it
incorporates pedestrian scale elements along Main Street,
• Ocean Front and the beach parking lot driveway to the
14
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
south which enhances the significant pedestrian
circulation of the area.
(ii) The project is not monotonous, nor visually unappealing as
the plans include both vertical and horizontal articulation,
which break up building mass.
(iii) The project is designed to visually connect to the urban
commercial area to the north and it does not create gaps
in the streetscape system.
(iv) The proposed development expands the pedestrian
spaces by providing a covered walkway by the sidewalk
with recessed building entries and a landscaped court
along Ocean Front.
(v) The project includes enhanced paving materials at the
building entrance and under the pedestrian bridge, which
will identify entrances and add visual interest.
(vi) Site design and parking areas are designed to minimize
• pedestrian /vehicle conflicts by providing one parking area
entrance on the south side of the site and bollards
between the parking areas and Ocean Front. These
features also help to minimize vehicle /bicycle conflicts. The
project provides sufficient parking for the new uses it
provides 8 additional spaces for the Development at 105
Main Street which presently relies upon the City parking
and street parking.
is
(vii) The project avoids large blank walls and long stretches of
walls without windows or architectural relief, which would
be unfriendly to pedestrians. Awnings and a covered
walkway provide for weather protection and they relate to
the overall scale of the architectural details. The design
and architecture incorporates features including arches,
column details, window ledges, arched windows, Spanish
roof tiles, exposed rafter tails, balcony railings and other
features that mimics the design and architecture of the
historic Development at 105 Main Street. The project is
condfNoned that exterior finishes, materials and colors shall
be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a
building permit and that these elements shall be consistent
and compatible with the existing development at 105
Main Street. The project includes the use of materials that
are ae*ed*ef in character with the area.
15
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
(viii) If the plans were not approved, the project could be
redesigned at two stories, but the building mass
articulation would be lost or the overall building footprint
would potentially increase, and many of the benefits of the
proposed project would not be realized.
(ix) The plan does not hinder the public's expenditures and
planned projects to improve the public parking lot,
streetscape and landscaping within the area.
Conditions:
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved site plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted
below. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department
samples of materials and colors to be subject to the Planning
Departnqen ter approval of the Planning Director prior to the
issuance of a building permit for new construction. Said
materials and colors shall be consistent and compatible with
the existing Development at 105 Main Street. The development
shall be high quality and employ materials, finishes and
• application techniques which are compatible with the historic
existing eh, FGGter eF the existing Balboa Ie"evelopment at
105 Main Street.
2. All previous discretionary approvals for the 105 Main Street
project sites, except for Use Permit No. 3158 and all subsequent
amendments to Use Permit No. 3158 are hereby null and void.
Those discretionary approvals for the 707 Ocean Front project
site shall be null and void upon the commencement of
construction for the expanded Development at 105 Main Street
proposed thereon.
3. The visitor accommodations located on 707 Ocean Front shall
not be operated separately or independently from the existing
8elbee- IRP,development located at 105 Main Street.
4. The project shall provide 20 parking spaces on site for all on -site
uses. Excess parking provided shall be dedicated for use and
limited to use by patrons or employees of the existing
Development at 105 Main Street.
5. All trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and
public streets.
6. a restri..tiya cnytmneint shall he p ed and re wiled on the
• title et the a e4y thet Will IiFnif the a AGI de.,eL.pMeRt et
16
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
A restrictive covenant shall be prepared and recorded in the
title of both the existing Balboa inn development at 105 Main
Street and 707 Ocean Front that will limit the uses,
development and operation of both properties as one,
consistent with this use permit and preclude conversion of the
buildings to any use that would generate additional vehicle
traffic or parking demand and precludes separate
conveyance of 707 Ocean Front and 105 Main Street while
either is used pursuant to this use permit. The covenant shall be
reviewed and be subject to approved -by4he City Attorney's
approval prior to recordation.
& The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan
prepared by a licensed landscape architect or licensed
• architect for on -site and adjacent off -site planting areas.
These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and
water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be
approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a
building permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a
permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system
of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant
materials selected. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular
activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or
similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as
not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of
the Traffic Engineer. Perimeter landscaping required pursuant
to Section 20.45.035(1) of the Municipal Code shall not be
required.
All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be
maintained in accordance with the approved landscape
plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy
and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning,
fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be
kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be
kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs,
and cleaning as part of regular maintenance.
10. The owner shall provide and execute a replacement
. encroachment agreement subject to review and approval by
17
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
the City for the continued operation of the pedestrian bridge.
Standard Requirements:
11. All improvements within the public right of way shall be
constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
12. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works
Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of
the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map
or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
13. That all construction within the public right -of -way be subject
to further review by the Public Works Department and be
completed under an encroachment permit issued by the
Public Works Department. That an Encroachment Agreement
be executed for all non - standard improvements approved to
be constructed within the public right -of -way.
• 14. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and
pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval
of the Traffic Engineer.
15. The proposed parking spaces shall be restriped to comply with
City Standard 805 L -A and L -B. The HC space shall be modified
so that a van size loading area is provided on the right side of
the space.
16. The applicant or operator of the facility shall provide valet
attendant service for the tandem parking lot at all times. The
applicant or operator shall prepare a valet operated parking
plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
17. The applicant shall provide wheel stops or other approved
protective barrier methods as necessary within the parking
facility.
18. For Fair Share fee purposes the retail square footage shall be
considered part of the hotel and not accessed as separate
retail square footage. However, there will be no credit given
from the existing current use.
19. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and
approved by the Public Works Department, along with a
18
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the
on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building permits.
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.
20. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside
the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L.
21. 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.
22. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances,
policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified
by the conditions of approval.
23. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code, including State Disabled Access
• requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building
Department.
24. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of
adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits
authorized by this use permit, and shall be sound attenuated in
accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
25. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the
nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140
of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City
Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or
impractical.
26. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic
markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide.
27. 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.
28. The applicant shall be vested in the Use Permit for the existing
19
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
Development at 105 Main Street immediately upon the
effective date of this Use Permit. This Use Permit, as it applies to
the proposed new construction, shall expire unless exercised
within 24 months from the effective date of approval as
specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
29. Prior to the issuance of permits, the applicant shall pay all the
outstanding Transient Occupancy Taxes shag- be paid. T14e
Qe ,Te
30. The applicant shall reimburse the City of Newport Beach, prior
to the issuance of a building permit, for the costs associated
with having the final plans and specifications for the project
evaluated by an independent architect or design consultant
and to have the construction monitored to ensure proper
implementation. The independent architect or design
consultant shall be hired by the City to act as a consultant and
construction monitor and shall advise the City as to the
• implementation of the project in accordance with the intent of
the Planning Commission's approval. The purpose for the
independent review and monitoring shall be to ensure that the
plans and specifications include the use of modern high
quality materials, finishes and construction techniques that will
make the new construction consistent and compatible with the
historic character of the Balboa Inn. The Planning Commission
desires that the new construction be accomplished in such a
way as to make it appear as a contemporary with the historic
Balboa Inn, not identical to the Balboa Inn and conforming
with the high level of architectural and design detailing
indicated in the approved site plan, Boor plans and elevation
drawings, which is a specific reason for the approval of this Use
Permit.
SUBJECT. Go Rent -A -Van
4320 Campus Drive
• Use Permit No. 3677
On October 19, 2000, the Planning Commission considered the proposed sign
program for the Go Rent -A -Van facility and continued the discussion to this
meeting to allow the applicant time to revised the sign program. The
applicant has submitted a revised sign program attached as Exhibit No. 1.
• The two proposed signs are individual channel letters with exposed neon
20
Item 4
UP 3677 Sign Review
Approved
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
tubing. The letters will be affixed to a green background and then mounted
to the vehicle display /sign structure that abuts Campus Drive. The applicant
intends to mount the signs on either side of the driveway centered above the
vehicle displays. No sign is proposed on the arch above the driveway or on
the side elevations of the structure. No monument or pole sign is requested.
Commissioner Tucker confirmed that the proposal is to remove the sign from
the arch and to have the two signs on either side of the entry area.
Mr. Campbell answered that is what is proposed. The architect has a
rendering that depicts that.
Public comment was opened.
Kaye Gitibin, of Go Rent -A -Van produced a drawing that depicts the signs on
the right and left of the structure. The drawings have been distributed in the
staff report with materials and dimensions of signs to be used.
Commissioner Kiser thanked the applicant for responding to the Commission's
requests and suggestions at the last meeting. This proposal is much better
than before and a good sign program for the location of this site.
• Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the sign program
pursuant to Use Permit No. 3677 with noted modifications of the signs on the
right and left facade of the buildings. The sign is approved according to the
plans dated November 28, 2000 submitted with the staff report.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: Gifford
SUBJECT: Newport Chicken (Haftham Amin, applicant)
3305 Newport Blvd., Ste. F
• Use Permit No. 3686
A request to convert an existing Specialty Food Service establishment (No. 10)
to a full- service small scale restaurant; and to alter the operational
characteristics to add alcoholic beverage service (beer and wine only.) No
changes in the floorplan, seating plan, or hours of operation are proposed at
this time. There will be no live entertainment at this location.
[Commissioner Gifford arrived)
•
21
INDEX
Item 5
Use Permit No. 3686
Approved
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
Senior Planner, James Campbell noted that the census tract and reporting
district maps were not included in the staff report. He then distributed them to
the Planning Commission for their review.
Commissioner Kiser asked about the on -site parking that was available.
Mr. Campbell answered that the parking is between the Blockbuster Video and
the Mexican restaurant at the end of the block.
Commissioner Kranzley confirmed with staff that this is the highest reporting
district for alcohol related problems in the City.
Commissioner Gifford asked if we could add a condition that the facility must
come in compliance with the current sign code?
Ms. Clouson answered that staff can look into whether they had a legal sign at
the time; it might be legal, non - conforming.
Mr. Campbell noted that staff looked for sign permits for this address and has as
yet to find any sign permit for this particular location. A sign permit will be
required. I do not know if the sign there now is in compliance with the new sign
• regulations, that is something we will evaluate with the permit.
Barbara Kaye, representing Newport Chicken at 3305 Newport Blvd., noted
that she had no idea that there was a stipulation regarding a sign permit.
When the facility was taken over in October 1998, it apparently was all in
compliance. The new owners did not install the sign.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve Use Permit No. 3686
subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A with the additional
condition that an appropriate sign permit be required.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that this is the worst reporting district with
regards to alcohol related crimes within the City of Newport Beach. A couple
of years ago we passed an alcohol beverage ordinance specifically
regarding the peninsula and the fact that we had a disproportionate
amount of city services used in an area on the peninsula because of alcohol
related crime. We have a set of criteria we need to look at for approving
new use permits for alcoholic beverage outlets and you see those on the staff
report on page 5. This reporting district has 3 times the crime rate of any
census district in the city. It has almost double the amount of alcohol related
arrests in the city. It has been found that there is a relationship between
alcohol availability as measured by alcohol outlet density, problem drinking
and motor vehicles crashes. Those census tracts with the highest
• concentration of outlets also report the highest amount of requests for police
22
PI741
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
services and crime. We witness all that on the peninsula and in this specific
reporting district. Yet, we continue to approve requests for beer and wine
and alcohol permits within this reporting district. Frankly, this is beyond me, so
I will not be in favor of this alcohol beverage service.
Commissioner Tucker noted this is a restaurant that has been there for a
period of time. I see it as an adjunct to the restaurant business. I do not
believe it appeals to the young party crowd. I think this is something that this
type of facility ought to be able to have. The fortuity of being in this district
does not change my opinion of the type of facility it is. Therefore, I support
this application.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker
Noes: Kranzley
Absent: None
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Use Permit No. 3686
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
sales and service is considered a permitted use within this designation and is
consistent with the General Plan.
2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
3. The project meets the purpose and intent of the development standards of
the Municipal Code for an upgrade to the existing alcohol license for an
existing restaurant and the existing physical characteristics of the site are
not proposed to be altered.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter
20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) and will not, under
the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in
the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with
the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons:
• The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses
• since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial districts.
23
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
• The convenience of the public can arguably be served by the sale of
desired beverages in a restaurant setting.
• The proposed use is a continuation of the existing restaurant use,
which serves the residential and commercial uses and visiting tourists
in the area.
• The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the police reporting
district in which the project is proposed is higher (16.34 %) than the
percentage citywide.
• Conditions of approval have been included which should prevent
problems associated with the sale and service of alcoholic beverages.
• On -site parking is available for the use.
• 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 without food service, the
potential number of Police and Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control problems in the area should be minimized.
• • No live entertainment is permitted.
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 interior dining area shall be limited to 16 seats maximum as delineated
on the approved floor plans. Any increase in the number of seating for
customers shall be subject to approval of a use permit.
3. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside
and outside the proposed facility.
4. That trash generated by the business be screened from view from adjoining
properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies.
5. 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.
6. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be
prohibited.
24
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
7. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction
with the proposed operation.
8. The approval is only for the establishment of a full service, small -scale
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.
9. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to
operate as a bar or tavern use as defined by the Municipal Code, unless
the Planning Commission first approves a use permit.
10. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of
Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be 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.
11. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC.
12. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the
permitted use.
13. That no temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be
permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the restaurant.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. The hours of operation shall be limited between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
daily.
25
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
17. The exterior of the restaurant and alcoholic beverage outlet shall be
maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall
provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises
and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises.
18. Full menu food service items shall be available for ordering at all times that
the restaurant establishment is open for business.
19. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall
undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in
responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to
meet the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the
standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage
Service or other certifying /licensing body, which the State may designate.
The establishment shall comply with the requirements of these conditions
within 180 days of the effective date of this Use Permit.
20. 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.
21. Health Department approval is required before issuance of a building
permit.
is
22. A handicapped assessable public bathroom is required. This bathroom
must be in compliance with the Uniform Plumbing Code and all applicable
Uniform Building Code requirements.
23. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to
the satisfaction of the Building Department.
24. That where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, grease
interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures as required by the Uniform
Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department
and the Utilities Department.
25. That delivery vehicles shall park within the on -site parking lot and shall not
be parked within the alley for the purpose of picking up delivery orders.
26. That the employees of the subject facility shall park their vehicles on -site at
all times.
27. That the door at the rear of the facility shall remain closed at all times,
except for deliveries.
26
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
28. That Specialty food permit #10 is hereby null and void.
29. 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.
30. That the business shall obtain a sign permit for a sign that is in
conformance with the new sign regulations.
Standard Requirements
The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and
standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of
approval.
2. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal
Code.
3. The facility and related off - street parking shall conform to the requirements
of the Uniform Building Code.
4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
• Public Works Department.
5. Public Improvement may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040
of the Municipal Code.
6. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements.
7. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance
With the terms of this chapter (Chapter 20.89 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code) shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval
unless a license has been issued or transferred by the California State
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date.
8. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to
this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use
Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this
Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date
of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
10. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of
noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the
. proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the
27
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
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:
Residential property:
Between the hours of
Interior exterloL
45 dBA 55 dBA
Residential Property located
Within 100 feet of a commercial
Property: 45dBA 60 dBA
Between the hours of
interior exterio
40 dBA 50 dBA
45dBA 50 dBA
Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60 dBA 45dBA 50 dBA
Commercial Property: N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA
asa
SUBJECT: Naval Residence (Jim Naval, applicant)
1201 Kings Road
• Variance No. 1237
Request to permit the construction of a second story addition to an existing
single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit
ranging from 1 foot to 10 feet.
Chairperson Selich stated that this Variance application had been previously
heard by the Planning Commission and was denied. It had been appealed to
the City Council who referred it back to the Planning Commission to try and
work with the applicant to come up with a different design solution for the
project. Commissioner Gifford and myself worked with the applicant on this
project and met with him a number of times. One of the observations we
made was that there was an area on the property down below that was
buildable, but it did have some restrictions on it in terms of noise from the
highway and topographical constraints. However, we suggested to the
applicant that if he would modify the roofline on his project as suggested by
the Planning Commission and if he would agree to a restriction that he would
not do any other additions to the property that it may be appropriate to
approve a variance on the property. The applicant indicated this was
acceptable to him, as he only wanted the additional bedroom suite on the
second floor. He then distributed a set of revised findings and conditions for the
Planning Commission to review. He then proceeded to discuss revisions to the
findings and conditions in the staff report:
Finding
4 b) Amend to add the front portion of the site
4 d) add, The site has additional buildable area below the existing structure
that could accommodate the proposed addition within the height limits.
is 28
INDEX
Rem 6
Variance No. 1237
Approved
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
However, the topography of the site makes it difficult to use this buildable area
to construct the proposed addition without adverse impacts from Coast
Highway noise. Additionally the buildable area does not offer equivalent view
opportunities afforded to other similarly located sites on Kings Road that do not
have the some topographical constraints and can build two stores at the top
of the lot.
6 c) be eliminated - as every lot is evaluated on its own merits.
Condition 1 - shall read, 'Approval of this variance is specific to the
development shown on the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations
"Plans') dated December 7, 2000. The development shall be constructed in
substantial conformance to the Plans and no further addition shall be
permitted on the property unless an amendment to this Variance is approved
by the Planning Commission. Any further additions to the structure may be
permitted only if the addition permitted by this variance is removed and the
structure restored to its condition at the time of the approval of this variance or
demolished. At such time the structure is restored to its present condition or
demolished the applicant or future owner may then do any remodel or new
construction in conformance to the zoning and building codes in effect at that
time. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a clear set of
plans of the structure as it presently exists including floor plan and elevations so
• that any future removal of the addition approved by this variance, it if ever
takes place, can be clearly identified. A restrictive covenant, subject to the
approval of the City Attorney, shall be recorded against the property to
implement this condition.
Continuing, he noted that this deals with the variance itself. In terms of the
design of the structure, the applicant has done a good job of lowering the roof
on the bay side of the property that we feel the roof should curve back down
towards the street on the front side of the property. (he passed out a sketch)
Public comment was opened.
Mr. Jim Navai, 1201 Kings Road applicant thanked the Commission for all their
work. After reviewing the sketch, he agreed to pulling the front of the roofline
back.
Dr. Nicholas Yaru, 1210 Kings Rod noted his objection to this variance and
asked that it be denied. He was present at previous hearings and as a result,
he and a neighbor composed a petition, distributed to Planning Commission,
that was signed by 31 homeowners who object to any variance above the 24-
foot height limit. The rest of the neighbors are in a deficit in regards to the value
of properties and views if this height variance is granted. The homeowners
believe that when homes were built and modified on Kings Road, we knew
that there were restrictions. Now, to have you grant a variance for somebody
because it is noisy, is trite and not proper. We are saying that the variance
• should be denied and Mr. Navai should abide by the some rules that all the rest
29
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
of us did.
Commissioner Kiser noted that this addition could be built so that it would be
larger and block the view without any variance at all. Are you aware of that?
Dr. Yaru answered that he is aware that this building already has two stories
and would now be three stores. There are balconies on the back of the
building that could be modified into additional rooms without requiring any
variance whatsoever. I as a homeowner do not see why he can not address
his problem and make his changes in a manner that meets the regulations and
codes that all the rest of us have done. He could easily modify that first and
second floor with existing balconies into rooms. Mr. Navai told me that now
that the Balboa Bay Club is building up higher, that he is going to have his view
impaired. He is concerned about that, but not concerned about the rest of us
who are further back from him.
Commissioner Kiser stated that the applicant could actually build an addition
that would run out wider and closer to the side property lines. One of the things
we have to grapple with is competing concerns about what is less detrimental
or could be done without a variance. Discussion continued.
. Bill McCullough, 1410 Kings Road stated that he understands that the house
could be built so as to obstruct more view. As one of the homeowners who
signed the petition, all we ask for is that whatever they can built within the
guidelines, let them build. Even if it takes more view than what the proposal is.
That is all we asked before and is all we ask now, to stay within the guidelines of
the City. I bought my home five years ago with the understanding that the
south side could go 29 or 24, that is what I am asking everybody to stay with on
that side.
Public comment was closed.
Chairperson Selich noted that approving a variance is abiding by the rules of
the City, it is part of the Zoning Code. A variance is a technique whereby the
Planning Commission is able use independent judgement to deal with difficult
sites. Certainly these sites along the bluff fronts that have steep topography are
difficult and it is virtually impossible to have a standardized set of rules that can
apply to each and every site. The Planning Commission can evaluate each of
these sites on a case by case basis to make an equitable judgement on the
property.
Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Variance 1237 with the
Findings and Conditions of Approval as read into the record.
Ms. Temple noted Condition 1 to be revised, the approved site plan, floor
plan d elevations (Plans dated December 7, 2000 as revised by the Planning
Commission).
30
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
Commissioner Kiser noted that the word, that, should be added as part of the
text in the second line after, At such time... I don't see a dimension on how
far the roof is to be cantered down towards the street. That should be
clarified as to how far the roof is to go on the Kings Road side.
Chairperson Selich noted that the dotted line on the sketch is meant to
indicate where the roof is to be brought down. The dash line is the elevation
that is the top of the flat portion of the overhand at the Coast Highway side
of the property.
Commissioner Tucker then explained the Variance procedure for the benefit
of the audience.
Ayes: McDaniel , Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: Agaianian
Absent: None
Exhibit No. 1
Findings and Conditions of Approval for
Variance No. 1237
• Findinas:
1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan
since a single - family dwelling is a permitted use within the Single - Family
Residential designation.
2. That this project has been reviewed, and it qualifies for a categorical
exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act under
Class 1 (Minor Alteration to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square
feet or less than 50% of the floor area).
3. That 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 since no other public
easements exist on the site.
4. The special circumstances applicable to the property that the strict
application of this code deprives such properly of privileges enjoyed by
other property in the .vicinity and under identical zoning classification
are:
a) The unique topography of the site of the lot restricts the ability to
comply with the height requirements.
b) The front portion of the site is additionally constrained by the
• slope as it drops off from the street which makes it difficult to design a
31
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
second story addition on the front of this lot and remain within the
permitted height limit.
C) The addition is generally in conformance with the surrounding
neighborhood when viewed from Kings Road.
d) The site has additional buildable area below the existing
structure that could accommodate the proposed addition within the
height limtls. However, the topography of the site makes N diifficult to use
this buildable area to construct the proposed addition without adverse
impacts from Coast Highway noise. Additionally the buildable area
does not offer equivalent view opportunities afforded to other similarly
located sites on Kings Road that do not have the some topographical
constraints and can build two stories at the top of the lot.
5. The approval of Variance No. 1237 is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant for the
following reasons:
a) The applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to
other homes in the neighborhood without exceeding the height limit.
b) The applicant has designed an addition to the house that tries
to work within the constraints of the lot to the maximum degree
possible.
C) The proposed project is generally comparable to the size and
bulk of other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict
application of height requirements could result in an addition that is
substantially higher than currently proposed or too small to be feasible
or desirable for the owner.
6. The granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this
code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same
zoning district for the following reasons:
a) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and
development regulations by way of permitting variance applications.
b) The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical
difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique
topography that exists in the area and on this lot.
H
SiFROIGIF t9P9@FGIPh�'•
c) Without the sloped condition, the applicant could construct an
addition within the required height limit.
The granting of the application will not be materially detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons:
9 32
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
a) The applicant has designed an addition that is generally in
conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from
the street.
b) When viewed from Kings Road, the house is no taller than one
that could be constructed in conformance with the height limit.
C) Were the project to use the full height available utilizing the
City's roof averaging provisions, the Kings Road elevation could be
higher than the proposed development, provided the depth of the
addition were reduced and a more pitched roof was incorporated.
d) Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed
addition, staff does not feel that it will significantly harm the
neighborhood.
e) Other two and three -story elevation residences exist in the area
along Kings Road and as viewed from West Coast Highway.
Conditions:
1. Approval of this variance is specific to the development shown on the
approved site plan, floor plan and elevations ( "Plans ") dated December 7,
• 2000 as revised by the Planning Commission. The development shall be
constructed in substantial conformance to the Plans and no further
addition shall be permitted on the property unless an amendment to this
Variance is approved by the Planning Commission. Any further additions to
the structure may be permitted only if the addition permitted by this
variance is removed and the structure restored to its condition at the time of
the approval of this variance or demolished. At such time that the structure
is restored to its present condition or demolished the applicant or future
owner may then do any remodel or new construction in conformance to the
zoning and building codes in effect at that time. The applicant shall submit
to the Planning Department a clear set of plans of the structure as a
presently exists including floor plan and elevations so that any future
removal of the addition approved by this variance, if it ever takes place,
can be clearly identified. A restrictive covenant, subject to review and
approval by the City Attorney, shall be recorded against the property to
implement this condition.
2. That two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on site
for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the
residential unit at all times.
3. That all public improvements are constructed as required by Ordinance
and the Public Works Department.
4. That an encroachment permit be processed through the Public Works
Department for all work within the public right -of -way and that an
33
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
encroachment agreement be executed for all non - standard and
decorative improvements to be constructed within the Kings Road right -of-
way and any easements.
5. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is
desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
6. That 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.
7. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest
appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal
Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding
is unreasonable or impractical.
8. That all work within public rights -of -way and easements be completed
under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department.
9. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from
public streets and adjoining properties.
10. That this variance 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.
*•r
SUBJECT: Starbucks
2801 East Coast Highway
• Planning Directors Use Permit 69 and
• Outdoor Dining 76
Planning Commission review of staff approval of a request to expand an
existing full service small scale eating and drinking establishment into a
neighboring tenant space. Increase interior seating from 12 seats to 21 seats,
increase exterior seating from 8 seats to 12 seats and provide separate
restroom facilities. This application will replace the existing Planning Directors
Use Permit No. 15 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 39 and their
amendments. Commissioner Kranzley called up this item for Planning
Commission review.
Commissioner Tucker was recused from this matter due to a conflict of
interest.
is 34
INDEX
Item 7
PDUP 69
OD 76
Approved
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
Mr. Campbell noted changes to conditions and findings of approval
(dist(buted) refer to page 7 - 9 in the staff report. The first finding change is to
add an additional bullet point to finding b. The basics of this finding is that we
are determining that the expansion of the coffee house is not a detriment
provided it maintains its operational characteristics as a coffee shop. It
recognizes the fact that if this permit were to be transferred to another use,
they might be open during lunchtime hours serving full meals as well as dinner
and potentially creating some issues during those hours. That would be a
detriment to the area if it were to be expanded in that fashion. There is a
change to condition 3 to restrict the seating so that it remains basically where
it is and not be moved into the retail area. There are two additional
conditions, 32 and 33 that would basically limit the facility to its existing
operational characteristics, very similar to what Starbucks does. The intent is
not to limit what Starbucks does but would prevent any future food uses
utilizing this use permit to basically open up a more intensive restaurant.
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted there is no definition of food
service within the Code. Our thought here is that a muffin /scone and a cup
of coffee do not constitute a meal. The complaints that staff has received is
the congestion at the intersection and in the residential neighborhoods.
Other complaints historically have been the bathroom, that is why the
• application is here. We have put the applicant on notice that they need to
provide them. Complaints are that the patrons are using restrooms in other
establishments in the area. The primary purpose of this application is to
provide those restrooms, that is why they are expanding into the adjacent
suite. I have not heard any specific complaints about the opening time.
Commissioner Kranzley stated that in the December 19, 1997 approval, it
states that all unauthorized seating shall be removed prior to the issuance of
the new certificate, and in the current report there is referral that the
applicant would allow patrons to use their restroom. However, there was no
condition in the 1997 approval for this. So this confuses me.
Ms. Temple answered that is actually covered by the Uniform Building Code,
where a restroom needs to be made available. As part of the original
specialty food permit, under which the operation was originally established,
the building department made the determination that the nature of the use
was such that actual public accessible restrooms were not required. The
business simply indicated that people would be allowed to access the
employee restaurant. Since that time, the actual operation of the Starbucks
and the existing operation based on compliance with of access requirements
in the building code would require accessible restrooms under today's
parameters. The Building Department does in fact receive complaints from
patrons of the facility related to the lack of restrooms. I can not give any
specifics why access to the existing restroom was not made a condition of
the original Director's Use Permit approved a couple of years ago. In trying to
. resolve the restroom issue it was staff who requested the applicant look at the
35
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
possibility of leasing the vacant tenant space next to it as one means of a
resolution of that particular issue.
Commissioner Kranzley stated that he is a frequent visitor to that area and
during the a.m. peak hours, that area is a mess. There is illegal parking, there
is parking throughout the residential area and between the hours of 7 and
7:30 a.m. it is an amazing sight. Part of this was addressed a couple of years
ago when we revised Title 20. There was something called Specialty Food
that I think was put in the Code mid to late 80's. My understanding was that it
started off with a maximum gross floor area of 1250 square feet. When you
think about gross area of 1250 you think about an ice cream store, candy
shop where you literally walk in and look at something and walk out. It is
supposed to be more of a retail experience than an actual sit -down
experience. Tables were brought in when the gross floor area was increased
to 2000 square feet and the original concept to what specialty food was did
not exist. We were then having these little coffee shops with areas for people
to sit down and spend time there. We have experienced this with this comer,
which is Bruegers' and Seattle's Best and Starbucks. The experience is the fact
that it is not working; it is too crowded and is a parking hazard. The parking
that is there does not work; there is no signage that tells us that we can park
under the building. A large number of people who go there in the morning
• do not park there, they park wherever they can they get out of the car
quickly and go to Starbucks pick up their coffee and leave. So what you
have is a combination of a coffee shop and a drive through without the
window. We have those uses compounded by the other uses that are in that
corner that create a problem in the a.m. peak hours. So when I saw the
expansion of this use permit, I thought why would we expand in an area that
is not working and is detrimental to the surrounding residents? The answer
was, well if you have more seats inside there will be fewer people lingering
outside. I am not sure that will work, but in my thinking you will have more
people sitting inside and you will still have the same amount of people going
in and out for their coffee on a drive - through type basis. I think what we
have at Starbucks is a use that has outgrown its location and probably needs
to find a different location in Corona del Mar where the use is more
compatible with the surrounding area. That is why I called up this use permit.
At least with Bruegers' and Seattle's Best there is some semblance of parking,
with Starbucks there is none.
Commissioner Agaianian noted that he concurs with the traffic problems in
and around the area during that a.m. peak. The place is just going crazy and
people are just trying to get by or get through. I park underneath the
building itself and I find it difficult. It is difficult to find, difficult to squeeze in,
difficult to back out. The space is there, but it is not particularly operational. I
don't know what to do at this point. I think we will attract more customers
and I don't think you can just open a larger shop without attracting more
people. I think my issue is the traffic with the a.m. circulation.
0 36
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
Chairperson Selich noted that one solution may be that the parking behind
the Hobie Sports is not used at all because it is gated. If something were to
be worked out where the parking down below be used for employees of the
whole block only because the public will not use it no matter how many signs
you put there, they will park on the street or in an open lot before they go
downstairs. Maybe have an arrangement with whomever owns the Hobie
lot that in the morning during the peak hour that the gate be opened and
assigned for use by Starbucks.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that if we do not approve this, we still have
what we have today, which we don't like. Plus we have no bathrooms and
people standing out in the street.
Public comment was opened.
A. J. Kuhl, Starbucks Coffee 17700 Newhope, Fountain Valley representing the
applicant noted that the Corona del Mar store was in the first ten that was
opened up in California. The floor plan is the same as when it opened in
1992. Continuing, he noted the opportunity to improve the store, which will
result in a benefit to the community and to the customers. We are planning
to provided American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant publicly
• accessible specific gender restrooms and add some seating by leasing the
adjacent space. The seating portion of it is an outfall; to get the bathrooms
we need to rent the adjacent space of 1,000 square feet. We take up a
couple hundred square feet with the restroom and we have a couple of
hundred additional. We think this will provide a better store overall and satisfy
the request of the City to provide specific gender restrooms. We think that in
light of the competitive issues, we think this is a long -term plan for us to retain
customers. Staff has raised the issue of parking. What we are doing is not
increase any ability to pump out more coffee, we are not adding more staff
we are holding on to what we have. The increase in the parking problem
with the morning hour rush in and rush out, so the seating aspect of the
request does not seem to have any type of bearing on that issue. By
expanding this space, we are taking over what could potentially be another
tenant in that space and that tenant would have employees and customers
parking there. We anticipate trying to maintain the volume we have and
essentially free up parking for our space. There is a major competitor coming
in down the street. I don't think this expansion will increase our sales. Our
sales have actually declined since they peaked in 1995 -1996. At that time
1996 -97 we were trying to process a permit to increase our seating from 12 to
25 at that time anticipating new competition coming in we did not get the
approval for the additional seating. The competition came in and our sales
declined; we anticipate a similar situation with new competitors coming in.
As we have opened up additional Starbucks stores it does put the focus on
the stores we have in the neighborhood they serve. The first store was a
novelty for Southern California, the next store that opened up in Via Lido
• were at first destination type uses, now it's a neighborhood use. If for some
37
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
reason Starbucks went away, the business would shift to the coffee shops
across the street. People are not using the parking underneath. There are a
number of things to encourage the use of the existing parking. One is to
better identify the available parking; it might be helpful in code enforcement
for people to get ticketed who are in the red zones. That would send a
message that if they do park in the red zone, they will get a ticket and that is
a strong message to send. We could also stencil on the front door that
parking is available under the building and ask customers not to park over at
Brueger's and Seattle's Best as they may get towed. This would send a
message also, to encourage our customers to park in the spaces down
below. The 3 tandem parking spaces we have are to be used by our 3
employees as suggested by staff. We are increasing bathrooms by changing
the existing facility that we have, as it is an odd shaped building. It is unsafe
to have customers come from the back to the employee restroom area due
to customer and operational safety issues. We have not found any
reasonable alternative to relocate that restroom so we think this is a solution.
It will not adversely impact the area but actually create a benefit to the
area; it will create additional parking through this expansion.
Chairperson Selich asked if the applicant could explore the possibility of
getting the Hobie Sports lot open early in the morning during the peak hours?
• Do you have any objection to doing that? Getting off -site parking
agreements is pretty common.
Mr. Kuhl answered that they would do that.
Commissioner Kiser asked the applicant to explain how the expansion was
not intended to increase the amount of coffee to be sold as stated in his
presentation. I am trying to understand why you would need to lease
another space just to maintain your present customer base.
Mr. Kuhl answered that the plans we have provide a very nice seating area
with a fireplace. We think it will be an amenity. We have lost customers in
the past. With having another competitor opening up down the street, all of
the coffee shops will feel the loss of customers.
Commissioner Kiser noted that this is a defensive move on your part to
maintain the present business? If that is the case, then these parking issues
are non - issues completely. If you do not have any more customers than you
have now, and you are just maintaining your present customers, then the
concerns with additional parking I assume you consider that a non - issue.
Mr. Kuhl answered that we do not anticipate an increase the demand for
parking.
Commissioner Agajanian asked the applicant if they had considered another
• larger location to accommodate all your needs at one time that would help
38
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
alleviate the traffic.
Mr. Kuhl answered that when this issue first came up, we searched for other
locations but were unable to come up with any. We do have a lease at this
location, so if we did find another site, it is not as though we could up and
leave. We have several years left on our lease, so that is part of the difficulty.
Commissioner Selich noted that another problem is the people congregating
out on the sidewalk. I wonder if you would have a problem with as part of
this expansion of agreeing to make a portion of the expansion area an
outdoor area. I looked at the building today and it would be easy to pull the
curtain wall back in about six feet and make those three tables outdoor
tables and would provide more room for people to congregate on the
outside and still have the some amount of seats.
Mr. Kuhl answered that part of the design is to cut back what would be the
north /west corner. There are dotted lines where the roofline changes to
provide outdoor seating; that was our attempt to do that.
Commissioner Selich asked if more could be done, as there are a lot of
people who congregate. There are two issues, parking and large number of
• people who tend to congregate outside the door and out onto the sidewalk
area because there is not sufficient outdoor area as part of your use. I don't
believe that just by providing the seats indoors that you will have all those
people come inside. A lot of those people are bicyclists and other outdoor
types of people who are not going to be attracted to going inside the store.
That is why I am saying would you object to pulling that curtain wall back
about six feet or so and make those three tables outdoor seats.
Mr. Kuhl answered that he didn't think they would have a problem. We will
look at this as a possible solution.
Dan Purcell, 501 Poinsettia commended Commissioner Kranzley for bringing
this issue up. Chairman Selich is right on with his recommendations of the
parking and outdoor dining. I live about a block and a half off Coast
Highway. In the village area we live close to one another; there are people
on top of each other. That particular location and the kind of improvements
that are going to be made in Corona del Mar, we had some discussions on
what is the center of town. The geographic center is Marguerite and Coast
Highway; the social hub is the coffee shops. We don't want to lose that. It is
convenient for the people who are south bound and northbound. I
discourage signs that would go up saying people are going to be towed or
ticketed, we don't have that and don't want it in Corona del Mar. I did a
parking study of the entire business district in Corona del Mar and counted
every space along there as well as all the spaces behind in the alleys in those
areas. It does seem that large parking area that is gated off could be used
• for parking if it was opened during certain hours and again those employee
39
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
spots used underneath. The other coffee shop at the other end of town does
not have similar parking problems because they have a shared parking
arrangement with the Honey Baked Ham shop. I can see exploring the use of
the Hobie lot. It would be nice to have that outdoor dining area as well.
Cal Coatsworth, 515 Goldenrod referencing his letter dated October 17}h,
which asked for him to look into some issues on this application. He stated
that Starbucks is good about cleaning up their area, however, they disregard
the times when this is done. I have talked to code enforcement about this
issue and I do not know why it is not noted in the staff report. He noted that
Starbucks closes at 12, they then take their trash out and slam the doors of
the trash receptacle. Parking is a problem and with this expansion it will be
exacerbated. People park everywhere, red zones, driveways, curbs, etc. The
Hobie lot was gated because of Starbucks. Nine stalls for parking is not
adequate. The extra 900 ft space that is being leased by Starbucks, when
you use 200 square feet for two restrooms, that leaves 800 square feet; what
happens to that space? If there are not people coming there, then people
will be staying longer; either way you have a parking problem. I don't think
that Starbucks is a good neighbor when it comes to the hours and cleaning.
It has proven to me as a neighbor that they do not follow their restrictions on
the use permit. I would like to see more strength in the language of the
. report and I think that they have outgrown their location.
Mr. Kuhl answered that as far as the extra space is concerned, we are
actually relocating all of the dining areas seats into that expansion area.
That will open up the retail and coffee serving areas. I would certainly talk to
Hobie to arrange parking. I was talking to my design consultant and he tells
me we can drop that wall back to provide that seating. Additionally, if it is
the Commission's desire, we can provide more seating in the rounded
landscape area also. At Commission inquiry, he noted that he did not know if
all the people who are illegally parking are his customers or not.
Commissioner Kranzley noted he would move for approval of the expansion if
they could bring back an off -site parking agreement with the Hobie lot for at
least some time during the peak hour morning period. That is the only way I
would approve it. Looking at the numbers if we grant you 21 indoor seats, 12
outdoor seats that totals 33 seats; for one seat for every 3 you have nine
parking spaces of which 3 are for employees. You are way short on parking.
The bottom line, parking is a large issue, granted you are not the sole cause,
but you are a main contributor and by expanding that contribution it is
counter intuitive that you will add more seats and a fireplace without
expecting to increase your business. That does not make any business sense
to me.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve this item with the
additions of comments regarding the reconfiguration of the outdoor dining
• and the off -site parking agreement with Hobie Sport.
40
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
Commissioner McDaniel stated he is not comfortable with this applicant to
bear the burden of that corners rogue parking. Is there any evidence that
states that?
Commissioner Kranzley answered that the point I am making is that at least
Bruegers and Seattle's Best have some semblance of convenient parking.
We have all agreed that the underground parking at Starbucks is not
adequate or convenient.
Commissioner Kiser asked that all employees would use the underground
parking. He suggested that specific information regarding the lot behind
Hobies to be used for parking. He then commented that he supports the
approval.
Chairperson Selich noted that we do not need to specify the number of
parking spaces in the Hobie lot, it is either all open during the peak hours and
before the other stores open.
Commissioner McDaniel stated that if the applicant is not able to acquire the
agreement, what happens then.
. Chairperson Kranzley answered that he can come back if they can not get
an agreement.
Commissioner Gifford referencing the added conditions asked what nexus
exists between Condition 32 regarding non - beverage food ties back to? I
am not sure where it fits in.
Mr. Campbell answered that it goes back to the third bullet that was added
under Finding 6. That basically defines this as a coffeehouse with operational
characteristics that do not create a restaurant.
Commissioner Kiser noted that non - beverage food terminology is a
recognition that beverages like coffee are technically a food. This would
refer to basically solid food rather than coffee.
Commissioner Agajanian noted that a distinction is being made between
food that is prepared (washed, handled, cooked) whereas the coffee is
brewed and handled like processed food. The distinction is that a non -
beverage food is sold that is already wrapped up, but not processed.
Commissioner Gifford stated that it would make more sense to say in addition
to beverages they shall not serve any food other than non- beverage food.
Non - beverage food is then defined as pre - packaged and ready to eat.
What prevents them from serving other than pre - packaged food and ready
• to eat food? I know that they can not have traditional meal service, but
41
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7.2000
what is here to prevent them from serving that?
It was suggested and agreed to:
• add Food shall be limited to prepackaged and /or ready to eat food
..in front of Condition 32;
• and remove the word or from the second line of Finding 6 bullet point
3 (The use does not prepare er food on- site...
Commissioner Kranzley agreed to make the amendments to his motion.
Ayes:
McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
Tucker
FINDINGS:
i. The Planning Department determined in this case, that the proposal
would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the
neighborhood, and that the outdoor dining permit as proposed would
not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport
• Beach Municipal Code for the following reasons:
• The increase in seating beyond 21 seats would increase current
parking demand that would further hamper the effectiveness of the
existing parking and traffic circulation system on -site and in the
vicinity. Such impacts would cause increased vehicular traffic that
would obstruct the entry driveways and extend into the public right -
of -way on Goldenrod Avenue thereby creating unsafe and
hazardous conditions.
• The approval of an increase in the interior seating of the
establishment is not compatible with the surrounding residential land
uses since it would worsen traffic and circulation on Goldenrod
Avenue and East Coast Highway.
2. The property is designated for 'Retail and Service Commercial' use by
the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program.
The proposed use is consistent with that designation.
3. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities).
4. The proposed full- service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment is
retail in nature, mainly serving persons residing or working in the
neighborhood and is not necessarily a destination point. It is anticipated
• 42
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
that the proposed use, based on its limited menu, will have parking
demand characteristics similar to a general retail use.
5. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to walls,
landscaping and lighting (exterior illumination) meet 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 Director approves this application, for
the following reasons:
• The existing physical characteristics of the site are not proposed
to be altered.
• 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 limitation on the
hours of operation.
• The change to the restaurant facility does not constitute a
significant change to warrant an increase in landscape area.
However, the recommended conditions of approval which require
enhancement of the existing landscape areas will better meet the
• intent and purpose of this development standard.
• The existing parking lot lighting will not be altered; there have
not been any past complaints related to lighting and the same
result of intent or purpose is achieved by the existing light sources
and the conditions of approval.
6. The approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 for a full- service
small scale eating and drinking establishment will not, under the
circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort, and general welfare of the city for the following reasons:
• The proposed use is a continuation and expansion of the
existing limited food service use that serves the neighboring
residential and commercial uses and visiting tourists in the area.
• The nearby commercial and residential uses will not be
adversely affected by the proposed change in the operation
since the hours of operation have been limited and the parking
requirement based on available on site independently accessible
parking spaces.
• The use is a coffeehouse and food and beverage sales are
limited to ready to eat food and beverages as defined by Title 20.
The use does not prepare er food on -site and the use does not
provide meal service of any kind. These operational characteristics
limit potential impacts of the proposed use to the AM period.
Conversion of the establishment to a cafe or restaurant where any
food preparation occurs on -site or traditional meal service is
• provided either from a counter or table service would create
43
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
additional impacts during lunch and dinner periods. Expanding the
impacts of the use beyond the AM period with the addition of food
preparation or meal service would be detrimental to persons living
and working in the area.
7. The approval of that portion of the request of Planning Director's Use
Permit No. 69 to allow the increase in the interior seating of the
establishment will not, as modified under the circumstances of this case,
be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general
welfare of the City for the following reasons:
• The subject property is currently non - conforming with regard to
parking which results in the property being under - parked for the
uses that occupy the existing building. However, the non-
conforming status will be eliminated by the increased tenant
space size and additional parking spaces allocated to the
subject facility. The limitation on the number of interior seats in the
establishment is based on the number of parking spaces (9
spaces) available to the subject tenant space.
• The off - street parking spaces in the common lot are for the benefit
of the proposed establishment and the other uses on the subject
property. The three tandem parking spaces allocated for the
• benefit of the subject facility are not utilized as required by the
existing approval (Planning Director Use Permit No. 15) and are
generally not available for patron or employee parking because
the rear space is usually occupied blocking access.
• The addition of interior seats will increase vehicular traffic and
circulation on Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway and can
be minimized only by limiting the total number of seats of the facility.
CONDITIONS.
Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions.
2. The previous approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 15 shall
become null and void upon the implementation of any portion of this
use permit approval and cannot be reinstated.
3. Maximum seating and /or stand -up counter space for no more than
21 customers shall be maintained inside the subject eating and
drinking establishment (and the outdoor dining subject to approval of
a separate outdoor dining permit). Any increase in the number of
seating and /or stand -up counter space for customers shall be subject
to the approval of an amendment to this use permit. Seating shall not
be added or relocated within the identified retail area.
• 4. The outdoor dining shall be installed and maintained in accordance
44
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
with the separate review and approval of an accessory outdoor
dining permit.
5. The applicant shall submit plans to the Building Department for the
building permit that reflect the change in the establishment, including
the number of authorized seats permitted for the facility, both interior
and exterior. The applicant shall contact the City Code Enforcement
Officer to schedule an inspection of the facility to verify compliance
prior to final of the building permit or issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy.
6. The "net public area' shall be limited to a maximum of 1 ,000 square
feet (exclusive of display and condiment table areas).
The hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00
a.m. and 11:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday; and 6:00 a.m. to
midnight, Friday through Sunday. Any increase in the hours of
operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this
use permit and may be subject to approval of the Planning
Commission.
• 8. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited unless the use
permit is amended and approved by the Planning Commission.
The approval is only for the establishment of a restaurant type facility
as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, with the principal
purpose of the sale or service of food and beverages.
10. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage
onto adjacent properties or uses. Prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule
an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division. The
inspection will verify and confirm the control of light and glare and
compliance with the limitation on the number of interior seats.
11. The area outside of the food establishment, including the common
walkways, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner.
12. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent
properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound
attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
13. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both
inside and outside of the proposed facility, but not located on or
within any public property or right -of -way, unless otherwise approved
• by the Public Works Department or the General Services Department.
45
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
14. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the
property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash
container enclosure.
15. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean
up of all on -site and off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by
the use and shall submit a detailed plan for the policing of the
surrounding vicinity for compliance with this condition.
16. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored
in the trash enclosure (three walls and a gate), or otherwise screened
from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up
by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top
that shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or
while being collected by the refuse collection agency.
17. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as
to control odors. This may include the provision of fully self- contained
dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters,
if deemed necessary by the Planning Department.
18. A minimum of 9 parking spaces shall be provided for the exclusive use
of the subject facility and shall be designated by appropriate signage
or pavement marking to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer
and the Planning Director. Three of the tandem parking spaces
located within the parking garage shall be dedicated for the parking
of employee vehicles of the subject facility only. Prior to
implementation of the increase in the number of seats, a parking plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Director that depicts the method of
compliance with the conditions of approval related to the subject
parking lot. The remaining on -site parking spaces shall be maintained
for the general use of all tenants of the subject property on a first -
come, first -served basis and shall not be designated for the exclusive
use of any one particular tenant, unless approved in conjunction with
any future discretionary approvals.
19. The parking lot shall be maintained in its present configuration
providing 19 on -site parking spaces and meet handicap accessibility
requirements.
20. Employees shall park on -site at all times during regular business hours.
21. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements.
22. No outside public address speakers or paging system shall be utilized
• in conjunction with this establishment.
46
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
23. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different
ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the
conditions of this approval by either the current business owner,
property owner or the leasing company.
24. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction
with the permitted use.
25. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs
shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the food
establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordance with the
Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be
prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by
the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an
encroachment permit or encroachment agreement.
26. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform
Mechanical Code prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
for the subject business and approved by the Building Department.
Issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed
• to the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
27. The facility shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code for commercial kitchen grease
disposal.
28. Deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., daily, unless otherwise
approved by an amendment to this use permit.
29. A covered wash -out area for refuse containers and kitchen
equipment shall be provided and the area drain directly into the
sewer system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Director and
Public Works Director in conjunction with the approval of an
alternative drainage plan.
30. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission may add to or
modify conditions of approval to this use permit; or revoke this permit
upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this
approval causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
31. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the
end of the appeal period.
• 32. Food shall be limited to prepackaged and /or ready to eat food Non
47
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
feed as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Prepackaged food
is any processed food prepackaged to prevent any direct human
contact with the food product upon distribution from the
manufacturer. Ready -To -Eat food that is in a form that is edible
without additional washing, cooking, or preparation by the food
facility or the consumer and that is reasonably expected to be
consumed in that form.
33. Traditional meal service either at a counter or table shall be
prohibited. Beverages served in conjunction prepackaged or ready -
to -eat food does not constitute a meal. Cooking or meal preparation
facilities shall be prohibited.
34. The added portion of the tenant space shall be altered to move the
storefront back approximately 5 feet to reduce the indoor sealing and
add area for outdoor seating. The alterations shall be approved by
the Planning Director.
35. Supplemental off - street parking shall be provided during the morning
peak hours (7 a.m. to 10 a.m.) through an off -site parking agreement
• with a nearby commercial property owner. The agreement shall be
approved by the Office of the City Attorney. The location of the off -
site parking shall by approved by the Planning Director.
SUBJECT: Jiffy Lube Signs
2801 East Coast Highway
Use Permit No. 3647 sign program
Review of sign program for the Mariner's Mile Jiffy Lube under construction as
required by Use Permit No. 3647.
Commissioner Tucker asked staff for and received a brief review of the
ground rules for monument signs. I am not sure that I understand completely
how the monument sign program works.
Mr. Campbell referring to the staff report noted the prototype exhibit of a
monument sign. This particular exhibit is included in the sign program and
strategic vision, which is the policy document upon which this entire program
was developed. The provisions call for a relationship between the height of
the overall monument sign to its width. That is, the width would be 25% of the
height: if the sign was 24 feet high, it could be 6 feet wide. That is the height
of the total sign structure. The term sign panel is the uppermost portion where
the graphic or lettering, etc whatever is being depicted as the sign. The
• proportions I am discussing are the overall sign structure of the sign cabinet,
48
INDEX
Item 8
UP 3678 sign program
Approved
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
or the entire monument. The height is whatever is proposed and the width
would be 25% of that overall height. The actual sign panel area there is a
formula that talks about how large the panel can be on that particular
monument. The exhibit depicts the design quality, the proportionality. He
then proceeded to discuss the proportions /dimensions of the exhibit of Figure
3, single- tenant monument sign. Then, referring to Figure 1- the pole sign, he
noted that the only provision or limitation on the sign panel size is to its area.
It will need to fit in the overall width of the cabinet and if you follow the
proportion of the area to its height, you will develop a sign that is relatively
small that basically fits within the top quarter of the sign.
Commissioner Tucker stated that what it comes down to is in order to have a
sign that is not narrow, you need to have a sign that is very tall. A 12 -foot sign
Will have a width of only 3 feet. A small facility like the Jiffy Lube could have a
25 -ft high sign that is basically as tall as the building. This should be
compared to another business with a larger frontage or bigger area where a
25 -ft tall sign fits into the scale of the property that you are dealing with. We
may end up with in this particular case a sign that is skinny, and I wonder if
maybe it might be too narrow.
Mr. Campbell noted that in looking at this particular provision, staff looked at
• developing a relationship between the width of the property to the overall
height of the overall sign. We debated that with the Business Owners
Association who help develop this with staff. We then kept it with the existing
provisions, which would allow it on a 50400t wide property. Staff looked at
those relationships and recommended that the sign height be 15 -feet high,
which is below the level of the building and we felt made a good height
transition from the street to the building. It is less than four feet wide. The
existing panel they are looking for at the top of the sign gets to be relatively
small because it will be reduced in height proportionally as the width
decreases. In talking with the applicant, they are concerned that the
message the sign portrays will be lost, given its size at that point. Staff wanted
to point out in the staff report that there are other alternatives that could
meet their corporate identification needs through the use of their logo.
Commissioner Tucker noted that in reading the Mariner's Mile Design
Framework, there was a lot to read. Now that we have a concrete example
in front of us, I am not overly enthused about a building that small having a
sign that is 15 feet tall and is skinny and does not give a lot of text. I question
what we did on that one regard.
Commissioner McDaniel asked if it was an illuminated sign and was answered
that the sign panel at the top is illuminated. The cabinet itself is basically
sheet metal, textured and painted to match the proposed building. There is
no provision for a condition on the amount of illumination that is covered by
the Sign Code that provides light and glare not to be excessive to cause a
• detriment. Staff will look at the sign illumination when it has been installed
49
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
and tone it down if necessary.
Ms. Temple noted that there are specific lumen levels for various types of
business districts within the Code and those will come into play in this case.
Public comment was opened.
Bill Hemingsmith, T and T Sign Co. of 1436 Cherry Ave., Long Beach spoke as
the sign manufacturer for the Jiffy Lube. He noted the following:
• Fabrication - aluminum with a textured background; panel will be a
left -hand face and vacuumed form through the aluminum.
• Illumination - the lumens that will come through will be subtle and
mute; there will be no neon sign. The neighbors or adjoining
businesses will not have a problem with the lighting of the sign itself.
• Number of signs - total of two wall- mounted signs located on either
side of the building; one ground sign and a monument sign if possible.
Jiffy Lube relies on that signage as people come up and down that
street and identify with that logo. Without that, they would not be
able to pull customers in. Jiffy Lube advertising is their signage.
• Monument sign - willing to work with staff so that it is pleasing for the
residents and the City. He ,presented an alternative design with the
• dimensions of 15 ft high and 3 ft wide. He agreed that this does not
look pleasing and is not something that Jiffy Lube would like to have.
He noted that they would like to have something shorter and wider,
not that it dwarfs the building.
Commissioner Tucker stated that if someone misses the wall sign they would
miss the monument sign while driving by. My business is as a shopping center
developer. This is a lot of signage. No town is nearly as permissive as Newport
Beach. I don't have anyplace where I have a building ten feet off the street
With that small a building with a three -foot sign on both sides of the building. I
am not saying I am not going to vote for a monument sign, but I think that
retailers ask for as much signage as they can get. Retailers would put 15 signs
on a building in case somebody missed the first 14.
Commissioner Gifford referencing the graphic that was provided, noted that
if the 3 feet of the actual copy face were sitting on the 2.6 ft. base with a little
margin on the top and bottom, would that satisfy your requirements? (The
total foot height would be 6.5 ft. monument sign)
Mr. Hemingsmith answered yes. This would add the reveal in the middle so
that an additional 3 inches with 3 feet above that. He asked if the
Commission would like a roof on the top of it? Going 2, 6, 5 and another 6
inches would make it a 6ft sign from the base to the top. The text will be
added with the J logo.
Mr. Campbell added that there is a provision in the code with how much
50
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
area these panels can take up. This new diagram may exceed that area.
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Hemingsmith noted that some articulation could
be added to the top of the sign, i.e., maybe columns to tie it into the building;
design elements that would scale out to the proportion of the sign that could
be pulled from the building.
Public comment was closed.
Chairperson Selich commented that the suggestion of lowering the sign
seems to be the most acceptable solution. In getting this clarified with staff, it
really seems that when we approved the Mariners Mile Design Guidelines, we
actually approved the concept that encouraged vertical monument signs
and not horizontal signs. I know there are exceptions in there that allow us to
do a lower monument sign, but the theme we adopted was to go with the
vertically oriented monument signs.
Commissioner Kiser noted that this particular location as close as it is to Coast
Highway and that many of the buildings on the north side are close to the
street; because of the nature of this building allowing wall sign in each
direction not for from the street, I can not imagine people traveling up and
• down Coast Highway are not going to see and know there is a Jiffy Lube
there. I question the need for a monument sign at all, I realize it was
approved, but I had in mind that the ground sign should be a 4 or 5 feet high,
not 6, 7 or 8 ft. The Jiffy Lube sign is well recognized and I would think that the
owner would want the most attractive property they can. I believe a low
monument sign would fit in here quite well.
Commissioner Gifford noted that in the context of the hypothetical that we
were talking about, could we achieve some of the shortening of that through
lowering the 2ft 6inch base?
Commissioner Kiser answered that from the standpoint of this particular
building, we might consider putting a height limit and let the applicant work
with it. I know the sign people are very creative and they have a couple of
very visible wall signs and so my suggestion would be that we arrive at what
we think makes sense from a height limit and allow them to design
something. They would then come back to either the Planning Director or
someone, to have that approved.
Commissioner Kranzley noted his agreement that a 6 -foot tall monument sign
is pretty massive, especially with the wall signs and the building is built right
there.
Commissioner Tucker asked if there was on- street parking. We don't want to
have that sign be too small; I think a 6 -foot sign total might be advisable to
• see over the top of cars. I think I would support a 6 -foot sign, maybe 5 1/2
51
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
feet high.
Chairperson Selich noted that the concept under consideration is to use the
exception procedures as noted in the staff report and come up with our own
proportions, which is taking the 3ft by 6 ft sign and putting it on a monument
base.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve the sign in connection
with the Use Permit 3647. The monument sign rather than as submitted in the
drawings in the packet dated October 30th having to do with the wall signs
and dated November 22nd; with respect to the monument sign it is to be re-
designed to a maximum size of 4 feet wide by 5 and 1/2 feet high. A plan is
to be submitted to the Planning Director for approval.
Mr. Hemingsmith noted that the way we had it was 6 feet wide and we had it
set up as 3x6 on the panel. Commissioner Gifford mentioned that we just
take that and drop it down onto a base with an architectural feature on top.
If we make it 4 ft it will not be much signage. Six feet will be acceptable as
we can get our logo on it. I can be more creative, and if you will allow me to
work with staff on this I understand your concerns.
• Commissioner Tucker noted that under our design guidelines, you would have
3 and 3/4 feet width with a 15 -foot sign. We are giving you an extra 3 inches.
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Hemingsmith noted that with a 6 -foot width he
could take aluminum, route out the copy and logo, and take 1/2 inch acrylic
and push it through. Then when it illuminates at night, you will just see the text
and logo; the actual background will be opaque. It would give you the
channel letter effect. This would give a halo affect.
Commissioner Selich noted this would be very similar to the sign approved on
Mr. Rocky Ray's Center in Corona del Mar.
Commissioner Kiser noted he would revise his motion to make the outline of
the signs be up to 6 feet wide by up to 6 feet high. The re- design will be
submitted to the Planning Director for approval, but only with the
understanding it will conform with the description just given in the hearing
tonight by Mr. Hemingsmith. The sign will be routed aluminum with the push
through acrylic; and the wall signs as proposed. A variation of an element
within the 6 -foot height will tie in with the architecture of the building, i.e., a
little roof. This would not add any height, but would be within a 6 -ft by 6 -ft
dimension.
Commissioner Tucker noted that considering the amount of signage on the
building, this sign would best be a modest sign. I am sticking with 4 ft in width
and 6 ft in height in which the base would need to be 2 1/2 feet of that.
• 52
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
Commissioner Kiser then revised his motion again so that it the sign would be
4 feet wide by 6 feet high maximum including any architectural elements
and that the proponent will work with the Planning Director to get approval
of the sign. The base will be at least 2 1/2 feet high and the construction
elements will be the aluminum with pushed out acrylic.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: None
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Time
Chairperson Selich suggested that whatever time we do settle on for starting
the meeting, that we have a provision in our Rules that says we do not take
up any new business after 11:00. So, if we move it up a half -hour then we
move that time up also.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that some of our meetings have run on into
• time periods when we may not be functioning very well. I don't think a 6:30
p.m. start time is a hardship. I think it would provide us with more of an
opportunity to get these meetings over with at a decent hour.
Commissioner Gifford noted that she sees this as a way to helping the public
to participate in our meetings. It is very hard for people to come here and
have an item that they are concerned with and have it heard late at night.
It does not lend itself to citizens' participation. I am in favor of starting at 6:30
or even 6:00p.m. With a corresponding roll back of the latest hour at which
we would take up a new item.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to change the start of the
Planning Commission meetings to 6:30 p.m. and no additional items to be
heard after 10:30; our rules and procedures are to be so amended.
Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern stating that sometimes it is hard
to finish work, get cleaned up and get over here.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
Abstain: Agajanian
Absent: None
• 53
IL1111 1
Item 9
PC meeting starting
time change
Approved
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported
that on November 14th the Council approved adding a staff member to
the Planning Department to help with the backlog of plan checks;
introduced an ordinance to increase the cost recovery to 100% full cost,
this ordinance was approved at its second meeting November 28th.
Also on the 14th, Council approved an agreement with Sutherland Talla
Hospitality to give them three years to be the exclusive party the City
would work with to develop a potential project for the Marina Park site;
at the November 28th meeting, there was a discussion to develop
guidelines for implementing Measure S to be reviewed at the meeting
of December 12th.
b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic
Development Committee - none.
C.) Oral report on status of Newport Center General and Specific Plan
program - Commissioner Kranzley reported that there was an in depth
discussion on what issues should be addressed. It is an involved process.
Chairperson Selich asked that the minutes be sent to each of the
• Commissioners.
d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a
subsequent meeting - Commissioner Gifford asked for a briefing on the
issues of tree selections in the Balboa Village. Commissioner Kranzley
asked about the Bay Island tree.
e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future
agenda for action and staff report - none.
f.) Status report on Planning Commission request - Ms. Temple noted the
updated exhibit. In terms of the Bay Island tree, that will be reported on
at the next meeting. A deadline of December 151h has been set for the
removal of the Kentucky Fried Chicken bucket sign on the property.
Regarding complaints on the timeliness of public hearing notices, staff
went to our mailroom and talked to them about the procedure. I was
told that the blue cards that are sent out 14 days in advance of the
expected hearing date are sent to a sorting company. The mail is
sorted by zip code and then the mail is delivered to the post office the
following day. The post office will receive our mail either Friday or
Saturday. From there the mail goes to Santa Ana for distribution. The
postal people we spoke to indicated it would be unusual for any first
class piece of mail to arrive any more than 4 days from the time of
delivery to the post office unless there was some problem with how the
automatic sorters read the ap code and put on the wrong bar code.
• We have been assured by the postal people that the mail gets
54
INDEX
Additional Business
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
delivered within four days. I intend to continue tracking this with the
Post Office to follow up. We think the system should be working
properly. Following discussion, it was determined to address blue cards
to all of the Commissioners as well as the Planning Department.
g.) Project status - none.
h.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Gifford stated she
would not be able to attend the Christmas party.
Mr. David John Gorthis, 419 Bellvue Lane, Balboa was given time to speak his
position on the Newport Chicken application.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m.
STEVEN KISER, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
•
• 55
INDEX
Adjournment