Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 8Exhibit 8 Comment Letters 5i JAMES C. PERSON, JR. Attorney at Law Telephone (949) 673 -9201 507 29th Street - Suite A Facsimile (949) 673 -0774 Newport Beach, California 92663 E -Mail buzzlaw ®buzzperson.com January 22, 2008 The Honorable Robert Hawkins, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: The Arches Grill, 508 29"` Street; PA 2007 -146 Dear Chairman Hawkins and Members of the Planning Commission: As the closest full time neighbor of this restaurant, I would like to go on record in favor of the application and indicate my support for the hours being expanded to include lunch and the increase in special events from eight (8) to twelve (12). I have been a customer of The Arches and would like to con- tinue to be a customer based the existing good relations between the operator and myself. It seems to me that whenever a restaurant changes hands, there is an effort by whoever acquires it to make it just a bit larger somehow. Some do it lawfully cooperating with the City, others do not. I believe that Dan Marchiano has gone about it in the right way, unlike others at this location. I do have some concerns about this application, however, and I think it is necessary for me to go on record with those concerns. At the outset, although I'm sure you are well aware of this fact, this application is not about Dan Marciano and his role in the community; it is not about The Arches, its history or anything else. It is a land use decision, only, made on a parcel of property, in a mixed use neighborhood and which may affect the property and neighboring properties long after Danny is gone, given the fact that a Use Permit runs with the land and not the owner or operator. Danny has been generally a good neighbor and I can't fault his operation. There have been times where I could have complained, but have remained silent about things such as the doors and windows remaining open after 8:00 p.m.; closing later than 11:00 p.m. and the one afternoon I had to endure bagpipes for four hours (I don't mind bagpipes generally but in my view, an hour would have been plenty). These are things I can live with and will not complain to you about as long as Danny continues his overall efforts to be a good neighbor. �Q` The Honorable Robert Hawkins, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission January 22, 2008 Page 2 But again, this is not about Danny or his restaurant. My view is that in a mixed use neighborhood, you have to get along with your neighbor rather than being a source of irritation over things which can be endured. The record will indicate that when the Goodell's (original Aubergine operators) sought to enlarge this building for Aubergine, I went on record and testified in support of that application. At that time, their typical dinner party lasted two hours or more and was extremely low turnover. They indi- cated that they were not going to open for lunch and had been good neighbors. Had I known that there would be substantial changes in the operational characteristics in the building and restaurant later without the benefit of any permits (not by the Goodell's or Dan Marchiano), perhaps I would not have taken that position. Sometime before Danny signed his lease and the Arches opened, major renovations occurred on the property without the benefit of any permits, including the total reconfiguration of the restaurant including electrical and plumbing. The windows had been masked off so no one could see observe this transforma- tion. I am not going to get into name calling as it would be of no benefit at this point. The fact is that when the Arches opened it's doors, probably to Danny's surprise, the restau- rant was substantially different from the approved plans on file with the City. Parenthetically, I don't think that the Planning Director's unilateral decision to grant a temporary amendment of the Use Permit concerning the lunch service was good precedent. Such an enlargement of hours, despite the code, should not be made by any other body then the Planning Commission or City Coun- cil, on appeal. While I support the continuation of the Arches lunch business, I can assure you that it being open for lunch has had a dramatic effect on available parking during the lunch hours in front of my building and in the immediate neighborhood. I can deal with this, notwithstanding the incon- venience caused to persons visiting my premises or others in the neighborhood. M The Honorable Robert Hawkins, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission January 22, 2008 Page 3 My major concern is that while the changes which have been made can be lived with, I am deeply opposed to any further expansion of the use, including enlargement of the net public area, additional hours of operation, live entertainment or other operational changes which will intensify the operation. This holds true for this location as well as the former La Quai on Lafayette, which Dan also operates and which went through some other major alterations, some I believe permitted only after the City discovered major illegal work had been done by the property owner. When I built my building in 1989, I had to follow the rules established by the City, including providing required off street parking. While I have enjoyed being able to frequent this restaurant across the street from me, I will not stand by idly in the event there are further modifications which will intensify the use and impacts on the neighborhood. Thank you for your attention. S'nc rely, ?Je�� JAMES C. PERS , JR. JCP /cl 0 kf JAN Bruce J. Low COW, 411 2921 street NtB�q ewport Beach, California Calirn foia 92663 C'y January 23, 2008 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 330 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 VIA FACSIMILE: 949 6443229 Attn: Planning Commission c/o Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner RE: Arches Grill (PA2007 -146) Dear Jaime, 1 am in receipt of the PUBLIC NOTICE pertaining to the application of the Arches Grill (Use Permit No. 3611) which will be heard by the Newport Beach Planning Commission on January 31, 2008. It appears the Arches Grill wishes to expand hours, increase the number of special events and obtain permission for recent unauthorized seating expansions by the landlord. Our draft LUP /LCP states that a Coastal Development Permit is necessary whenever an applicant wishes to Intensify an existing use. Clearly, the application of the Arches Grill Is an intensification of an existing use and thereby requires a CDP application before the California Coastal Commission. I have spoken with the CCC and their opinion is consistent with my observation. 1, as many other persons in the Cannery Village, am the owner of a mixed use Property that was required to go before the CCC to obtain permission to build under full conformity of all requirements including an abundance of on site parking spaces for a very small development. In the case of the Arches Grill, the landowners have freely expanded without permits and authorization that which was applied for and permitted by the City of Newport Beach and the California Coastal Commission. Now, the new operator wishes to further expand and gain permission for the unpermitted and unauthorized expansions. This matter must go before the California Coastal Commission. This business has done nothing to solve the parking demand that the unlawful and lawful modifications place or will place on the Cannery Village. The fact that the landowner has conducted unlawful expansions encroaches onto the rights of �\k T'd SEES -SaL 646 WdS0:T B002 62 uer other landowners and businesses, as well as, the public's right use the same parking spaces the expansion will utilize. It causes financial detriment to my property, as well as, the properties of my neighbors by restricting the available parking. The fact that this building started out as an existing non - conforming use is no reason to cause further damage to the neighborhood without mitigating measures. It is obvious that there is a limited amount of parking in the Cannery Village. This parking has been the subject of debate with Sober Living By the Sea and the Newport Brewery matters, as well as, the Cannery Restaurant and the 32nd Street loft project. The California Coastal Commission has been very clear in ft's' concern and actions to protect access to our coastline. "in Leau" parking spaces as a solution are nothing more than an insult and a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the Inconvenient truth. The truth that the shortage of parking in the Cannery Village is a problem that needs to be solved with a comprehensive plan, not exacerbation. If the Planning Commission turns another blind eye to the need for parking and the mandate of the California Coastal Commission in the matter of the Arches Grill another unnecessary confrontation with the CCC will surely ensue. Therefore, I request that you require the applicant to obtain a new Coastal Development Permit which will ensure that all reasonable matters of impact to the Cannery Village will be addressed. The neighborhood needs and deserves relief. Relief that should be designed with the help of the California Coastal Commission. S4nc, BLow N� 2'd E22S -E2L Bib WdSO:i 8002 E2 Uar