HomeMy WebLinkAboutNewport Beach Brewing Co_UP 3485_2920 Newport BlvdCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item 3
January 4, 2007
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3210, icampbellft- city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company
Use Permit No. 3485
2920 Newport Boulevard
ISSUE
Should the City modify or revoke Use Permit No. 3485?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission modify the conditions of approval of
Use Permit No. 3485 as described below.
BACKGROUND
In 1993, the Newport Beach Brewing Company was issued Use Permit No. 3485 to
operate a "restaurant/brewpub" with a Type 23 Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)
license subject to conditions. In 1999, the City authorized an amendment to the Use
Permit to allow the restaurant/brewpub to operate with a Type 75 license subject to
revised conditions (Type 75 allows beer, wine and distilled spirits associated with a
brewpub).
On May 4, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed the operation of the Newport
Beach Brewing Company in response to complaints by nearby residents, property
owners and local business persons. At the conclusion of the discussion, the
Commission found that there was sufficient information to review and possibly modify
the Use Permit.
On August 17, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the matter once again and
directed staff to set a public hearing to consider possible revocation of the Use Permit.
The minutes of this meeting are attached as Exhibit No. 1. Additionally, the Commission
wanted staff to meet with the Brewing Company and neighbors in an attempt to resolve
the matter. Staff has met with both parties and there is not a consensus as to how to
proceed.
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 2
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Newport Beach Brewing Company has been notified of this hearing. A hearing
notice indicating the review, potential modification and potential revocation of Use
Permit No. 3485 was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300
feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum
of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The item
appears on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted in accordance with
applicable law and on the city website.
Neighbors contend that the Newport Beach Brewing Company is violating its Use
Permit and that the operators are not sufficiently controlling patron behavior that is
creating nuisances. Alleged violations include operating a bar rather than a restaurant,
opening the entire dining area on weekends before 5PM, trash in the parking lot and
unruly patron behavior outside the establishment. Neighbors contend that patrons
create noise, cause property damage, urinate, defecate, and conduct sexual activities,
etc. during the late evening and early morning hours. The May 4, 2006 and August 17,
2006 reports outline the complaints and issues. The Brewing Company contends that
they are not violating the Use Permit and they have since instituted several changes to
their operation, which appears to have had a positive effect.
Operational and Physical Changes
The Brewing Company has instituted the following changes:
• The brewing Company agreed to construct a cover over the existing trash
enclosure (building permit under review).
• Employee training on responsible alcohol sales has been completed. All owners
and employees have received L.E.A.D. training and the applicant is agreeable to
ongoing training of new employees. L.E.A.D stands for Licensee Education on
Alcohol and Drugs and the 3 '/2 hour training session is conducted by the
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control staff. It focuses on providing practical
information on serving alcoholic beverages safely, responsibly, and legally, and
preventing illicit drug activity at the licensed establishment.
• The operator has relocated the entrance from the parking lot side of the building
to the Newport Boulevard entrance (through the outdoor patio) when a queue
forms to alleviate noise and patron behavior from causing problems to the
immediate residential neighbors.
• Discontinued the removal of condiments and menus from the tables.
• Discontinued the late night bar menu while keeping the kitchen open at all times.
• Installed signs requesting that patrons be respectful of the neighborhood.
• Stepped up security sweeps of the parking lot to discourage loitering and
boisterous behavior.
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 3
• Maintain a security presence at least one hour after closing.
• Instituted a recycling collection program that minimizes noise generation. Bottles
and cans are separated and stored within plastic recycling tubs within the
building. The full tubs are loaded onto a truck during the day and empty recycling
tubs are dropped off. This method avoids the noisy practice of dumping glass
bottles after hours.
• Scheduling maintenance activities outside of sensitive hours.
These changes have been reasonably successful in alleviating many of the problems
associated with the use based upon discussions with neighbors and the reduction of
complaints; however, several residents remain unsatisfied. Principally, several
neighbors believe the Brewing Company operates as a bar after approximately 10PM
several nights a week.
Code Enforcement, Police Department and Planning staff have conducted
investigations based on complaints by neighbors.
Code Enforcement
Officer Cosylion reported at the August 17, 2006, meeting that the operation did not
violate the conditions of approval based upon his field observations (Exhibit No. 2). It
was noted that his observations were not taken during the early morning hours when
most of the problems seem to occur. A queue forms on popular evenings and the crowd
was boisterous. Noise from the interior of the operation was not considered loud or
unreasonable. Additionally, site was free of litter.
Police
Newport Beach Police conducted an investigation in the fall of 2006 and their report is
attached as Exhibit No. 3.
Planning
Based upon public testimony at the Planning Commission meetings, the following
conditions and alleged violations are at issue:
• Condition No. 9 currently states:
9. The operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be
ancillary to the primary food service operation of the restaurant.
An ancillary use is a "use that is clearly incidental to and customarily found in
connection with the principal use; is subordinate to and serves the principal use; is
subordinate in area, extent, or purpose to the principal use served; contributes to the
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 4
comfort convenience, or necessity of the operation, employees, or customers of the
principal use served..."
During the May 4, 2006 meeting of the Planning Commission, the General Manager
of the Brewing Company stated that alcohol sales constituted more than 50% of
sales during the day and that alcohol sales are close to 90% of sales during the late
evening and early morning hours. Alcohol sales of this magnitude could not be
considered ancillary to food sales in staffs opinion. The full menu and condiments
that are stored on the tables were being removed from the table after typical meal
service hours. A limited late night menu was offered and testimony indicated that
food service was not always available during the late evening. The Brewing
Company's ABC license limits the gross sales of alcohol to be no more than the
gross sales for food on a quarterly basis and no actual gross sales information is in
evidence. Staff recommends the following changes to Condition No. 9:
9. The operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be
ancillary to the prima fy food service operation of the restaurant (e.g. the
brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages may not be conducted without
on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Planning Director on
demand.
The example augments what "ancillary' is for this use and the gross sales limitation
is identical to the language contained within the ABC license condition.
• Condition No. 10 currently states:
10. The approval of this Use Permit is for a restaurant/brewpub and shall not be
construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving
alcoholic beverages during hours not corresponding to regular meal service
hours (food products sold or served incidentally to the sale or service of
alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed as constituting regular meal service)
nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or other use with the principal
purpose of providing live entertainment and /or dancing.
The City permitted a "restaurant/brewpub." The restaurant aspect was stressed in
the original application and in testimony from the applicant in the 1993 approval and
with the 1999 amendment. The brewing, sales and service of alcohol was
characterized by the applicant as accessory to food service; a convenience or
amenity and a way to complement food sales.
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 5
After approximately 10PM, typically on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, the
use takes on a more "bar -like' character as security personnel are provided on
popular nights, a queue forms outside on some evenings suggesting occupancy to
capacity, limited or no food service was available, limited food is ordered by patrons,
alcohol sales dominate and persons under 21 are excluded. These traits are
indicative of a bar rather than a restaurant.
During the August meeting, several Commissioners seemed to stress that the
operation must serve food during all operating hours to avoid being labeled a bar
given the operational characteristics described above. The operator has eliminated
the late night menu and has eliminated the practice of physically removing the
condiments and menus from the tables. The full menu is now available for service
during all operating hours and they have stated that they are "pushing" food sales in
the late evening with some success. With the kitchen open and with meal service
available, the question of whether or not the use has appreciably changed remains.
Even with the kitchen in full operation during the late evening and early moming'over
the last few months, the use retains a bar -like character after approximately 10PM
most evenings. At the conclusion of the August meeting, several Commissioners
seemed to be more concerned with alleviating the nuisance to the neighborhood
rather than drawing a bright line between what constitutes a bar or a restaurant.
Given that the operational changes instituted by the Brewing Company seem to
have had a positive effect, staff recommends the following modification to Condition
No. 10:
10. The principal use authorized by this Use Permit iA The approval of this Use
Y
Pe^•'�,,,,t06 T a restaurant/brewpub. The accessory operation of a bar is
permitted provided that the kitchen remains open for the service of meals and
that a full menu is provided. This Use Permit and shall not be construed as the
approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use with the principal purpose of
serving alcoholic beverages dUFIFIg hours not cerrespending to FequlaF Meal
nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or other use with the principal
purpose of providing live entertainment and /or dancing. The kitchen of the
business is open. A complete menu that constitutes meal service shall be made
available at all times. Menus and condiments shall be available at the tables at
all times.
• Based upon the complaints received from the community, the applicant was not
taking reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that
constituted nuisances as required pursuant to Standard Condition D. City staff was
not able to verify the complaints as they were not observed directly. The applicant
has posted signs to alert patrons to the fact that residences are nearby. The
operator has stepped up security sweeps of the parking lot and grounds to
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 6
discourage inappropriate behavior. Staff is not suggesting any changes to
Standard Condition D; however, staff recommends several new conditions:
20. The operator shall discourage loitering on site at all times the establishment is
open or employees or owners are rep sent.
21. The operator shall conspicuously post and maintain signs indicating to patrons
to be courteous to residential neighbors while outside the establishment.
22. The aoolicant shall prepare a detailed security operations plan within 45 days of
Planning Department. The plan shall specifically outline methods and personnel
necessary to control patron activity on and abutting the proiect site to minimize
minimum of 1 hour after the posted closing hour.
Employees did not receive adequate alcohol service training in accordance with the
intent of Standard Requirement F. No record of the completion of any training
program was on file with staff and the operator indicated that their staff had not
completed any such training program pursuant to this condition. Owners and staff of
the Brewery have since completed the L.E.A.D. training program conducted by the
ABC Board staff and no current violation exists. Staff suggests a change to the
wording of the condition to require ongoing training.
F. All owners, managers and employees serving and/or selling alcoholic
beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program
in responsible methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages.
To qualify to meet the requirements of this section a certified program must
meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible
Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body, which the State may
designate. The operator shall provide proof of completion for all owners,
managers and employees within 30 days of the approval of this amendment
- -
,.
• Condition No. 6 currently states:
6. The net public area of the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime
use Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,500
square feet. The balance of the net public area shall be physically closed off
to the public by a fixed barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m.
daily.
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 7
No violation of this condition has ever been observed; however, discussions at the
previous Planning Commission meetings focused upon whether the use of the word
"daily" in the second sentence conflicted with the Monday -Friday limitation of the first
sentence. Staffs position has been that there appeared to be a conflict given that
Special Condition #1 of Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137 (that contains a
similar net public area limitation) applies 7 days a week. Staff now believes that
there is no internal conflict as the use of the word daily refers to the specific
limitation outlined in the first sentence in that the barrier and area limit before 5PM
must be in place Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. There is no
disagreement that Special Condition #1 of Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93-
137 and Condition No. 6 are in conflict.
The operator admits to opening the entire dining room on weekends and Planning
staff and the Police Department have observed the entire dining room open on
weekends prior to 5:OO13M. It is staffs present belief that this practice is not in
violation of Condition No. 6 and it is in conflict with Special Condition #1 of Coastal
Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137.
The City agreed to enforce Condition No. 6 in 1994 in a letter to the Coastal
Commission. The City Attorney's office has indicated to staff that enforcing
conditions imposed by a different jurisdiction is not advisable. Due to the fact that
parking problems or other operational nuisances are not occurring during the day
before 5PM, staff is not recommending a change to Condition No. 6.
Other Changes to Conditions
Several additional changes to the conditions are recommended (Exhibit No. 4). In
addition to changes discussed previously in this report, several noteworthy changes to
other conditions and new conditions are recommended that should reduce the impacts
of the Newport Beach Brewing Company on the neighborhood.
• Conditions #2 and #4 have been complied and are no longer necessary.
• Require a trash enclosure cover (amended condition - #14).
• Condition #15 regarding a perimeter wall and underground utilities was waived
previously and the condition is in essence a finding, and therefore, this condition
is also no longer necessary. A wall cannot be placed between the parking lot and
the abutting residences as it would interfere with parking and a wall will not block
noise from reaching the second level of the abutting homes.
• Closure of the parking lot entrance when necessary and thus relocating the
queue to Newport Boulevard (new condition - #19).
• Discourage loitering at all time employees of the use are present (new condition -
#20).
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 8
• Posting of signs to alert patrons of the need to be courteous of neighbors while
outside the establishment (new condition — #21).
• Requirement of a security operations plan to be reviewed and approved by the
Police and Planning Departments (new condition - #22).
• Prohibiting deliveries and property maintenance activities between 8PM and 8AM
daily. Property maintenance activities listed include anything that might create
objectionable noise (new condition - #23).
• Maintenance of a Type 23 or a Type 75 ABC license with changes in the type of
license to be reviewed by the Planning Commission (new condition - #25).
• Prohibition of live entertainment or dancing (new condition - #25).
• Prohibiting the exclusion of persons under the age of 21 (new condition — #26).
• Staff proposes two future reviews by the Planning Commission (6 months & 1
year) as a means of monitoring the use (Condition No. 27).
Summary
Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence based upon the staff investigations and
testimony given by members of the community and the operator at the prior meetings to
warrant modifying the conditions of approval to alleviate detrimental conditions
associated with the operation. Staff does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to
warrant revocation of the Use Pen-nit and staff does not recommend reducing the hours
of operation either at this time. The operational changes instituted by the Brewing
Company, the revisions to the conditions of approval and with the Brewing Company's
recognition that they need to operate in a responsible manner taking into account
nearby residential uses should be effective in avoiding future problems.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has three options to the recommended action:
1. The Commission can take no action.
2. The Commission can revoke the Use Permit. Should the Commission choose
this action, staff will bring back a resolution at the next meeting to consider.
3. The Commission can adopt other changes to the conditions of approval including
a reduction in the hours of operation.
Staff has drafted a resolution reflecting the modification of the conditions of approval as
noted in this report, but unfortunately a through review of it by the City Attorney's office
was not possible. The resolution will be forwarded to the Commission in advance of the
meeting for consideration.
Prepared by:
w 9
J es Gampbell, Senior Planner
Exhibits
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 9
Submitted by:
David Lepo, Plann' Director
1. Minutes from August 17, 2006 meeting
2. Code Enforcement report
3. Police Department report
4. Revised conditions of approval (draft)
5. Draft Resolution (to be submitted under separate cover)
Exhibit No. 1
Minutes from August 17, 2006 meeting
i0
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 18 of 49
. Condition 63 should clarify the times.
nmissioner Henn would like to come up with solutions that will feel like there
improvement even with a slight increased in the intensity as measured by
count.
nmissioner Hawkins supported the operational reviews presented, but thinks it
parking standards need to be adjusted, do it through the code not through the
lication.
Chairman Eaton asked if the Staff had enough direction.
Ling answered yes.
Chairman Eaton continued the hearing to September 7, 2006.
Chairman Eaton asked if Staff will have findings and revised conditions fo
hearing.
Ung said Staff will prepare a resolution for approval with findings and
itions of approval with the changes recommended tonight.
Dn was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue the Our Lady Queen o
!Is Church Expansion (PA2005 -092) to the meeting of September 7, 2006.
None
Cole
2920 Newport Boulevard I UP No. 3485
e Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewpu
rsuant to Use Permit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City Continued to
1993 and it was subsequently amended in 1999. The City has received several 0912112006
mplaints related to the operation of the use and the Planning Commission will
aluate the complaints, the operational character of the use and the condition
der which the use operates. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission
iy require alteration of the operation or it may delete or modify conditions of
proval. The Commission also may conclude that no changes are necessary and
rocation of the Use Permit is not being considered at this time.
stant City Attorney noted that Commissioner Hawkins recused himself
item due to the appearance of a conflict. Commissioner Hawkins agreed
ised himself.
Campbell, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting:
. The Newport Beach Brewing Company was established in 1994 by
of a Use Permit No. 3485.
file- WC:\Documents and Settings\ 7Campbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/2012006
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
. In September 1999, the City Council approved an amendment to the
permit that approved full alcoholic beverage service with the sale of disl
spirits.
. The City, earlier this year, received a complaint letter regarding
operation of the establishment from a group of residents in
neighborhood. Those complaints relate to the operation itself and ps
behavior around the establishment.
. A report was presented in May of this year at which the Planni
Commission asked for an additional hearing to review the application a
look at whether changes need to be made in the operation or conditions
approval.
• The current report outlines questions and asks for clarification of what was
authorized. A restaurant/brewpub was authorized. The residents contend
the facility is being operated as a bar primarily after 10:00 p.m. and that
operation is leading to nuisances in the neighborhood.
• Is it a bar at those hours, and is it authorized pursuant to the use permit?
Staff is asking.for clarification.on condition 10 (page 3 of staff report).
• In staffs opinion, a restaurant and a bar were authorized. Can a be
operate without the restaurant being there at the same time is a question.
. Historically, the City has looked at these operations and balanced the hour.
that it has operated primarily as a bar against the hours it is operate(
predominately as a restaurant. If the primary activity is a restaurant, the us(
is deemed a restaurant. We believe that is what is happening there today.
There is food service during those hours and up to recently they have had
limited bar menu in the late evenings. It might not constitute regular foo(
service, but food is available most of the time.
What staff is looking for, is what was authorized, and then we can look
whether they are operating with the use compliant with the conditions
approval.
There is a side issue with condition 9 that indicates the operation of
brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary to
primary food service operation of the restaurant. In that condition we
saying it is a restaurant and food service is really the primary use. So ti
is a question as to whether or not alcoholic beverage service has i
become the primary use.
In addition, there is no time limit to this condition. After 10:00 p.m. in the
evening, even the General Manager at the May meeting, indicated that the
primary sales during those late evening and early morning hours is alcohol.
Again, that is more like a bar and goes to the original question, what did we
authorize?
Another issue that has been raised is there is a current limitation or
dining room area during the day time. There has been a condition the
Page 19 of 49
S 3
file: / /C: \Documents and Settings\ JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
applied in 1999 which limited it during the week. There is also a Coas
Commission permit that would indicate it is a daily limitation, at least frc
their perspective. The City is charged with enforcing this action based up,
a commitment that the City made in 1993 to enforce this provision. The C
has been enforcing it on the weekdays and not on the weekend. There
an issue on how this condition has been worded and enforced, and wheth
or not the condition applies daily.
The brewpub has had the full dining open on the weekends. The fang
of the Coastal Commission condition alludes that they shouldn't be.
City's condition can be interpreted both ways because it indicates We
through Friday" but also talks about the physical barrier being there "d;
This condition seems to contradict itself and should be clarified
modified at this time.
The residents have indicated that there is a basic lack of control of patror
in the parking lot. In the late evening a queue forms outside this popul
establishment that is pretty much at capacity in the late evening and ear
morning hours. These folks can at times be boisterous and that leads to
variety of nuisances. The question is, is there control in the parking lot?
The brewing company has security guards there and they represent to'st<
that they are doing their best to control the patrons in the parking lot. Givi
the proximity of the queue line to the residents, there may be ways
alleviate some of the problem by relocating the line to the front of tl
building close to Newport Boulevard. Other folks may be impacted by doir
that and there may be a need to change the patio area to bring people it
That might work in the evening hours to alleviate some of the issues in ti
parking lot given the fact that there are residents living adjacent to tl
parking lot.
Another issue is whether or not they have complied with training prograrr
that is required by the use permit. The City required that the manager
proprietor and all employees undergo responsible alcohol training. The
condition has not been complied with and since the City has informed the
applicant, they have indicated that this training has been completed.
However, there is no evidence to date. The purpose of the condition is tc
make sure that the people serving alcohol are trained and serving in e
responsible manner. A lot of the complaints that the residents are making tc
us are in most cases directly attributable to the consumption of alcohol. We
are hoping more responsible sales of alcohol and the proper training of staf
may alleviate some of the ongoing issues.
The Cannery Village Concerned is a group of residents who have indicates
that they would like to see changes to the conditions that have beer
forwarded to you and that is something that can be considered this evening.
Staff is recommending that we change or modify conditions 9 and 10
clarify specifically what the Commission believes was authorized in 1999
eliminate ambiguity in those conditions. Based upon the determination
the use, we can go forward and modify those conditions to affect positi
change and reduce some of the nuisances.
Page 20 of 49
file: / /C: \Documents and Settings\ JCampbell \Desktop\nm08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 }5
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
. There are a variety of complaints specific to the operation, trash enclo
dumping of bottles, and property maintenance occurring at hours that v
otherwise disturb residences. We are looking at the screening of the
enclosure and to alleviate some of those nuisances through conditions.
. The Police Department is here to give testimony on law enforcement is:
that have occurred there, as well as the Code Enforcement officer who
conducted an investigation, a report of which has been provided for
consideration.
:e Chairman Eaton asked if there are certificates that the applicant can
the City that would verify that the alcohol training had been accomplishe
Campbell answered he is not aware of how that training was provided and
aware of the availability of certificates. He had been assured that they ha
n through that training. As enforcement of that condition, he would like to s
ie evidence that they have gone through that training.
ommissioner Henn noted his confusion on the range of remedy that is available
n this matter. He presumes it can include a change in hours of operation, other
estrictions on how the establishment operates, does it also include revocation of
e distilled spirits license? H asks the question fora better understanding of the: = s
range of remedy that is before this body.
Campbell answered that the Commission can change the conditions
oval, which may change the nature of the operation, but revocation has
i noticed here. Can they revoke that one license type, it wouldn't revoke
use permit but it could be a condition change.
iron Harp, Assistant City Attorney, noted the procedure for revocation is laid out
Chapter 20.96 and there are very specific procedures that need to be followed
fore this body can consider a revocation. It was the intent to bring this matte
ck for at least one more hearing, so the purpose tonight is to primarily have the
;cussion of the items, discussion of what, if any, conditions you would like to be
)dified or additional conditions, and whether or not a revocation hearing would
appropriate, and we will bring it all back the next time.
Henn noted that the range is wide open with the proper noticing.
Ir. Harp answered yes, there are specific findings that are needed for revocation.
ice Chairman Eaton noted the revocation would apply to the City's permit, nol
ie Alcoholic Beverage Control Permit, correct?
Ir. Harp answered, yes.
ice Chairman Eaton asked if there had been any investigations by the ABC, and
so, do you know what the results were?
Campbell answered, yes there was an ABC investigation that began it
uary. The operation was visited and the police were consulted, the findings
� not conclusive to take any particular action and the investigation was closed.
Page 21 of 49
file: / /C:1Documents and Settingsl JCampbe11 1Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 ,A
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
Harp noted the ABC is a different procedure that is set up under
lance and is different from the revocation.
Wood noted that part of what Commissioner Henn was trying to get at
the distilled spirits was something that was added to this use permit at s(
t, so there is a condition that allows that, and would it be possible for
ning Commission to delete the condition allowing that portion of the opera
Dut going through the full revocation procedure?
Harp asked for more history.
Campbell answered that in 1993 a use permit was authorized to operate
v pub under a Type 23 license. In 1999 there was an amendment to the u
nit that authorized a Type 75 license, which is a full alcoholic beverage servi
brew pub. If you were to do that you would be terminating the amendme
was granted in 1999. There isn't a specific condition that authorizes tl'
rse type.
Harp asked if there was one use permit.
Campbell answered yes, one use. permit that was just amended
Harp noted that, in general, if you take that type of measure, I recommend *
give full notice. You still have to make the findings for basically a simil
idard for revocation as far as the impact on the general welfare of tl
imunity. We will notice it for you and bring it back at another hearing if that
iething you would like to consider.
Chairman Eaton clarified that the modification to expand from beer and w
ation to a full distilled spirit operation was first applied for and denied by
ning Commission and then granted by the City Council, and it was at t
t that the applicant sought the Type 75 license from the ABC Board once
approval for that kind of license.
Campbell confirmed that was correct.
>sioner Toerge asked which condition allows for the full bar and full
or the provision.
Campbell answered there is no condition that specifically addresses that. The
Jitions for the amended use permit are on pages 18 -22 of the staff report.
re is no specific condition related to the license type but the project descriptior
n which the amendment was approved was clearly for that license type.
nmissioner McDaniel noted that hand written page 129 of the report
ut that in a discussion of August 5, 1999 from the City Council. The issue
:n up by the City Council and the vote was on page 131, which shows w
Council was going and how they voted.
r Toerge noted there must be something more than the minutes
this.
Campbell answered that on page 100 is the staff report of the
Page 22 of 49
file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\ JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 15
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
sion, and the City Council's report is on page 97, and the minutes for
s are after that. I wanted to give you that so you could see what
uncil was looking at in 1999 and, indeed, the project description is for a
license.
Wood noted handwritten page 19 of Exhibit B Findings and Conditions f
oval for Use Permit approved by the City Council 09/13/1999 and, assume
is an exhibit to the resolution that approved it. One of the findings is tl
enience of the public will be served by the sale of distilled beverages in
iurant/brewpub setting.
Harp noted he will take a closer look at these conditions but the Commi:
II tell us exactly what they are interested in doing then we will take it back
t it up to come back in the proper form procedurally.
imissioner Peotter noted condition 7 on handwritten page 20 says the h
limited 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and only on Friday
irday extended to 1 a.m. The staff report includes Thursday, I don't N
;h is which.
Page 23 of 49
Matt, Cosylioni. Code. and Water Quality Enforcement .Officer for: the City;; o .
Newport Beach, .gaye. an: overview of:his report, noting: _
• Received complaint letter from residents of Cannery Village noting general
concerns and complaints related to operations at the Newport Beach
Brewing Company.
• We were asked to take a look and ascertain whether the complaints were
happening or not, and to do a fact finding on what was actually taking place
there.
• We went there on three separate occasions. First one was February 2nd,
which was a Thursday night at approximately 9:45 p.m. There was not a to
of activity at the bar or outside the parking lot. The parking lot looked
relatively clean, there was trash but not a nuisance. There was no queu
line and you could not hear voices from the patio that night.
• The second trip was on February 4th which was a Saturday. It wa
essentially the same thing, no queue line, the parking lot was pretty well
maintained.
• The final visit made was on February 10th, which was a Friday night. On
that night there was a queue line, some individuals in the parking to
screaming at each other, there was a lot of loud conversations going on and
the parking lot was clean but a lot of noise and volume going on from the
patrons at the Brewery. He contacted the on -duty manager, Jerry Kolbly,
on the premises and discussed concerns about the noise from the queue
line patrons. We discussed options such as moving the queue line to the
other side of the building or to the front. Also discussed some of the other
concerns in the complaint letter such as the trash. Mr. Kolbly agreed to
have his staff monitor the parking lot for trash.
• We had a good discussion that night relative to what was in the complain
file: / /C:1Documents and Settings\ JCampbell\Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006
r(p
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
letter. 1 followed up with him the next week and had more discussions.
. In terms of the property and activities occurring in the early morning hours,
brought that up to Jerry about the bottles being picked up and obvious
making a lot of noise during the process. Jerry was asked to see if thos
activities to be made after 8 a.m. as a help to the community so they woul
not have to have those early morning wake ups.
. In response to trash and debris issue, we do regular drive bys through tt
area. In terms of the amount of trash, there was general trash but it was
massive amounts of trash laying all over the parking lot so we did not iss
any notices. We did ask Jerry to have his employees do general sweeps
there too, to make sure it is kept clean.
. There was also the issue of closing off a portion of the area before 5 p
daily. We went out there on one occasion and they did have it cordoned
so that a portion of the business was shut off.
. That concludes a report on the investigation.
/ice Chairman Eaton asked the timing on February .10th: He was answered
vas about 10 p.m. and the queue line had about 10 to 11 people stretching fro
he front of the building to almost where the alleyway was.
nmissioner McDaniel noted that you have to respond when you get complaint.
I this complaint was in January so you dealt with it in January and February.
complexity of this kind of situation changes when it is cold outside and peopk
to work in January and February as opposed to summertime. I have twc
!stions. Were you able to look at this place June, July or August maybe eves
y, and were you able to look at it after 11 p.m. at night?
Cosylion answered we do not usually go out after certain hours for
es as we are not police officers. So we let the police handle the late
city. But no, we have not gone out there during the summertime. We h;
;tly received complaints relative to loud noise, we have only two
ruary that we have documented. Any of those complaints would have
arded on to the Planning Department.
Chairman Eaton noted that it sounds like when you went out 45 minutes
at 10 p.m. that there was more activity at that point and there was the q
Cosylion answered that on each day they went out around 9:45 or 10 p.m.
Saturday night there was activity around 10 p.m.
Harp noted his opinion that you would schedule an appearance to revoke th
mdment to the use permit. It will be the proper procedure for handling
ause there isn't a condition that relates to full on -sale of alcoholic beverage
in order to basically deal with that issue, you need to revoke the amendment.
Chairman Eaton stated you are talking about not revoking the entire
revoking the amended portion.
Page 24 of 49
11
file: / /C:\Documents and SettingsU Campbe111Desktop\nn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
Harp answered that's correct.
Vallercamp, Detective Sergeant with the City of Newport Beach, noted:
. As far as changing from a Type 75 license to a Type 23 license, w
would be a full bar to the small batch brewery, that would be something
the ABC would probably look into. They are the arbiters of those things.
. We have a sophisticated method of documenting all our calls for service in
any given area and I had my detectives run a report from January 1st of '06
to August 10th of '06, so it is roughly an 8 month period. I used locations
such as in our computer aided dispatch, when an officer calls out an activity
they could say the Newport Brewery, the Municipal Lot, 30th and Villa, using
all those parameters, I checked the area for our level of service and how
many calls we have had in that vicinity. During that time frame of January
list through August 10th, there were 41 entries. 41 activities listed at the
Newport Brewery, the Municipal Lot, 30th and Villa, etc. , 23 of those calls
were calls from the public. They will require further research to determine
the disposition. The remaining 18 of those were bar checks, parking lot
checks, some of them could have been an officer using one of those
locations as a landmark to call out a car stop or a pedestrian stop.
In the City of. Newport Beach currently we have 341, active ABC licenses.
Those establishments are authorized to sell alcohol in our City. In the area
in which we report these, we break them down into reporting districts. The
reporting district we are concerned with here is reporting district 15. In this
reporting district 15, which is Balboa and 20th to Balboa and 34th Street, up
Newport Boulevard to the Coast Highway, in that triangular area there are
73 ABC license establishments.
In 1999 when the Newport Brewery Company applied for their Type
license at that time there were 60 ABC license establishments in report
district 15. There is a high concentration of outlets in this general vicinity.
In 1999 the citywide total arrests there were 3,704, of those in the enti
City. 1,656 of those arrests were related to alcohol, either drunk drivin
drunk in public, those types of issues. In 1999 again in reporting district 1
there were 624 total arrests, 65% of those were alcohol related, either dru
driving or drunk in public. Bringing it to the year 2005 the citywide to
arrests were down a bit to 3,115. The alcohol related arrests citywide w:
1,056 so we are talking roughly 33 %. In reporting district 15 in 2005 the
were 646 total arrests and the percentage of alcohol related arrests in tt
specific reporting district was 65.4 %. So you can see we are pretty bu
here in reporting district15.
. Lastly, the State Alcohol Beverage Control had a case specifically with I
Newport Brewery somewhere around April 11th of 2006 and they clo
their case on August 4th. At that point, the advised us, "the majority
complaints were from the outside area."
nissioner Toerge asked if the 341 outlets in the City and the 71 outlets
15 include retail outlets. Is there a breakdown?
Page 25 of 49
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\ JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 l�
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
Vallercamp answered yes. He can provide the breakdown at a
sioner Henn clarified that the ABC investigation stemmed from
the area?
ctive Vallercamp answered that he had called the investigator who said the
their investigation and received no further information on what it pertained to.
mmissioner McDaniel noted that there has been input from some sources
a Police Department doesn't respond very well, and when they do, they say
ught a place next to a bar you dummy what did you do that for? Would you
respond to that.
active Vallercamp answered that is not a typical response of an officer. I
going to say whether it occurred or not as I wasn't there. I would be surpri
somewhat disappointed if an officer told me that.
Commissioner McDaniel asked do you believe that when there is a call that
response is fairly quickly? Can you give us a feel for response time? There is
indication of negligence,, it is the same old thing, it's just a bunch of drunks.andi
are not going: out there because we're too busy over here doing. someth
important.. That's the allocution and I thought you would like to.be able to respc
to that before
atective Vallercamp answered we have more officers down here as there
ire pedestrians, more parties down here, more ABC licenses and there
Dre calls in this particular area than any area in the City. We deploy very he:
wn here in this vicinity of the entire Balboa area. I would say our response I
probably faster than most in the county.
iissioner McDaniel noted it would be fair to say that you're busy down N
3y and you would already be here responding to something else, so y
n't have to come from down coast. You've got adequate amount of pol
attending to activities that are here. I just want to get the opportunity
Vallercamp answered yes.
Chairman Eaton asked about a copy of an article that appeared in 1
;ter on July 7th that appears to quote, from the Police Department, incidei
id to bars in the City and the Newport Beach Brewing Company listed as 1
highest generator incidents between December 1st, 2005 and June 6th
rear. I am wondering if you can comment on that and its accuracy a
ier these incidents can be attributed to these bars and if so how.
live Vallercamp answered that it falls in line with the statistics that
you, the 41 calls. This ended in June 6th and my statistics ended
I think this is an accurate representation citywide.
Chairman Eaton stated the article says most of the calls involve fights
intoxication occurring outside the bars. Is that something that can
uted to these incidents?
Page 26 of 49
file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\ JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 1`1
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 27 of 49
Ave Vallercamp answered certainly alcohol plays a part there,
rations and general boisterous behavior. This is such a highly conce
with so many bars and restaurants down there that serve alcohol.
Chairman Eaton said what I was trying to get at was when you sty
(ing, I thought you had said that sometimes when you use tl
fication criteria it's even possible for vehicle stops that happen to be at
section. So, I was trying to figure out if any of these incidents would I
those kinds of things, or whether they really were problems associated
of with this particular bar.
ective Vallercamp answered he had spoken with Sergeant Harford and he c
statistics from the same computer aided dispatch system that I did. Some
se could very well be the landmark of stopping a car at Cabo Cantir
refore it shows up as some sort of activity at that location.
Chairman Eaton asked do you have any sense at all as to how many
incidents really were related to the patrons of this bar?
ctive Vallercamp answered without hand pulling each event and each police
rt, whetherr it- was; an arrest report or crime report of some nature, withou
ically ,reading each of them don't.
en Miles of Miles Law Group, representing the Newport Beach Brewing
ipany, stated I am actually going to try to limit my statements to addressing
e of the conditions that were raised in the staff report and some of the
pretive efforts with respect to the main conditions 6, 9 and 10. 1 would like to
iit time for the General Manager to address some of the voluntary condition
have been proposed by the Brewing Company and the community outreach
is that have been made to address what we think are the actual concerns that
;ts the operation of the brewery and the Cannery Village.
tition 6 - I don't really know if there is much of an issue to that with respect tc
final word, daily. Normally when you interpret a condition that in speck
ms the general and it is very clear from the very first sentence that the 1,50(
prohibition is Monday through Friday. So, I believe the final word daily i,-
/ a reference to the days in which you have the preclusion it applies. Actually
second sentence is redundant and can be stricken if that would be a
andition 9 - addresses the issue ancillary. The way the brewery reads conditic
you have three components. The operation of the brewery and the service
coholic beverages shall be ancillary to the primary service operation of t1
staurant. Again, during full hours of operation you are going to have differe
eakdowns of food and alcohol and even beer. So really, especially the way th
• alcohol licenses are drafted, they deal with quarterly revenue. I don't think it
• most appropriate way just to focus in on an hour because there is going to I
iomalies throughout the hours of operation. There are going to be hours th
e 100% food service, or the lions share is food serve and there may by :
inute intervals it will be all alcohol. Really, condition 9, 1 think, addresses th
id talks in terms of ancillary with respect to three components. I think that in tl
rerall picture of the 13 years that this condition has applied, I think the conditil
> drafted has worked and I don't think it needs to be modified. In terms
arification we are willing to suggest clarifying language if that is the will of tl
26
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\ JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 28 of 49
)ndition 10 - I think boils down to the phrase, hours not corresponding to regul
Dal service hours, and I think Jerry will expand on the fact that full meal servi
going to be provided through all operational hours of the brewery. I think th
is condition 10 to rest. Unless you are of the mind set that the regular me
rvice hours can't be established by the Newport Beach Brewery Company.
)uld also like to point out that condition 10 does reference alcoholic beverag,
opposed to beer. I think conditions 9 and 10 do reference the fact that the
stilled beverages being served, so there is a reference point in the conditions
pport that position.
itinuing, he noted with respect to a use permit with conditions, once they are
:d upon, they become a fundamental property interest. I want to address
nmissioner Henn's inquiry about remedies and go into a little bit of what the
idard is here for reviewing a conditional use permit. Just so everyone knows,
independent judgment standard is what applies if a court were to review the
Dn of a city. It is a far less deferential standard of review than I think you might
nally be used to in terms of discretionary approvals and is based upon actual)
isional law out of 4th Appellate Division 3, which was the classic Goat Hill
11 ern case in Costa Mesa, . so it appears that drinking establishment make pretty .
d land use law. . :So, we are,dealing.with a fundamental interest here, it is very
Drtant. we see a`.very big distinction between clarification and modifying or
)king in part or in whole, conditions in this permit.,
would like to address the procedural question that the Commissioner
(dressed. I see it a little bit differently. It is true that Chapter 20.96 doe
(dress revocation. I would like to read Sub part A, titled Duties of a Planning
rector, which states, "Upon the determination by the Planning Director that there
e reasonable grounds for revocation of a use permit or other discretionary
sproval authorized by this Planning Code, that revocation hearing shall be set by
e Planning Director, the Modification Committee, the Planning Commission, or
e City Council, whichever took final previous action on the permit." The point
;re, and it is a procedural one, is that I believe that in both 1993 and 1999 the
ial action, with the coordination of the Coastal Development Permit, but initially
th the use permit and in 1999 1 believe the City Council took the final action on
at. So, the way I read revocation, if you determine that revocation is what we
e talking about I would have to say the public notice that was posted doesn't
-lude revocation. It didn't merely limit this hearing to reviewing the use permit, it
ates the Commission may also conclude that no changes are necessary. In
vocation, the use permit is not being considered at this time. That infers that it
initially being considered, so I hope that you do realize that revocation is no
:cessary. I think to the extent that we are addressing the revocation issue the
tial threshold question is whether there has been a determination by the
anning Director and secondly, I believe that the City Council shall set that
faring. There is a question as to whether what we are doing right now is
ipropriate. Moving beyond that, I would like to point out that, again in the
iginal approval and again in 1999, in the staff report the actual essence of the
;e permit is that you have conditions that protect against these types of
iisances and the finding that has to be made is that the use with the condition
consistent with the General Plan, the specific planning in the area and that then
e no interferences with the public health, safety and welfare. I think with that,
Dse two express findings by the City Council and the 13 years that have
inspired, I think that is really what this body is up against in terms of making a
file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\JCampbelllDesktop1nm08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 °��
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
that somehow it is warranted to truly consider revocation or really
antive modification to these permit conditions.
would like to point out that there has been a lot of late correspondence and we
idn't have the most formal presentation, but we had to deal with a lot of let(
orrespondence. One of the addressed items was a receipt of August 5th.
ugust 5th was a date in question where there was testimony from a Mr. Reef,
elieve, that somehow there was no food service in the late hours. That is ar
sue for the Commission and I want to provide this receipt that shows that a
1:00 p.m. on August 5 that in fact full service was provided, half Chinese chicker
alad and fettuccini alfredo. That actually went on until 12:56 a.m. I don't know i
ris was actually submitted. (he submitted it for the record). There is a lot a
take here and I would like to reserve time for rebuttal, or at least to respond tc
our questions, and I would like to hand this over to Mr. Kolbly to talk about the in:
nd outs of what has been offered by the Brewing Company to address noise
,sues and issue of parking lot, the queue, trash and whatnot.
Chairman Eaton asked Mr. Harp to discuss issues of level of review
mental interest and which body has jurisdiction to consider revocation an
Harp stated continuing to look at the. Code sections if there is going to be
edification or addition to the Conilrtions; then you'are clearly the body that wor
idle that matter. If it is revocation, the alcohol beverage, ordinance, which
9060, is primarily the use permit that they were obtaining allows for it to be
the Planning Commission, or the Planning Director, to revoke the permit and
6 the procedures to follow related to 28.9 says that it is set before the body tf
k final action, the Planning Commission action was appealed to the C
uncil and there is an express provision in 29.0640 that where I read it exeml
: appeals so I believe the Planning Commission would be the proper body
ar revocation. As far as the standard of review goes, I don't think that is
ue. You need to make a decision based on the record that is here before yc
t would be the decision that would eventually be litigated.
-e Chairman Eaton
rocation. I assume
the Council.
affirmed that this is the proper level to hear modification
also that whatever this Commission does can be appeal
Harp answered yes.
Miles noted that the majority of the conditions in the permit were in
1993, 1 don't believe there was an appeal at that point in time.
>mmissioner Toerge noted condition 9 is clear. The operation of the brem
d the service of alcoholic beverage shall be ancillary to the primary food sen
eration. You used the word anomaly to describe certain hourly quotations,
our last hearing there was a statement by the general manager that 90% of
:eipts after 11:00 p.m. are from alcohol. You consider that ancillary?
Miles answered yes. What I am talking about is if you take a deviation over
hours of operation.
Toerge answered I understand, but let's not do that.
Page 29 of 49
�a
file:l /C: \Documents and Settingsl JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 30 of 49
said 90% of the receipts are alcohol, do you consider that ancillary?
Miles answered that the operation of the brewery and the service of alcohc
:rages are ancillary to the primary food service operation of the restaurant.
ration is not broken down into certain segmented hours of operation. Again
point would be taking it to the logical conclusion, what happens to that 11
rtes, 5 minutes, it is ancillary within the language of condition 9.
ssioner Toerge noted the service of alcohol is supposed to be tied
eating hours that are certainly not after 11:00 p.m.
Miles noted that for the brewery the regular meal service hours are all hours
Mr. Kolbly, General Manager of the Newport Brewing Company, noted:
• Referring to condition 6, during that time of the day the service is 100% food
in the area. Now, if you take the restaurant away from me on Saturday and
Sunday afternoons where I am strictly serving food in that area it will be
problematic.
• My: partners and I agree about the clanty,of the "conditions.:
• There will be a roof cover for the trash and we are discussing relocating the
line after 9:00 p.m. off the entrance off Newport Boulevard.:
• We have started discussions with security regarding the preparation of a
detailed security plan.
• We have tried to work with the neighbors on how to work out the situation.
Everything that we brought to the table was, not accepted and the
impression was that the neighbors wanted the establishment to be closed.
• The business has been there over 11 years and there are barely any fights.
You can go to Disneyland and see fights there.
• This is a great establishment for the patrons and tourists all the way from
Germany. Now, these residents that just moved in over a year ago are
saying we are no good. This is not the way we run things.
Commissioner McDaniel noted there are some issues outside the establishment
that you have no control over; there are some issues that your establishment is
pausing in the neighborhood. My view to start with is to give you time to fix it and
try and do better and then come back and see how you did. I am not interested in
revocation at this point, but there are issues in terms of trash, things patrons do in
the community, and there are certain things you can do to fix it. If we can get you
moving towards that , which I think you are interested in doing, maybe all of this
pan go away. The other side is the residents have to recognize that they bough
something next to where you are and they are going to have to recognize there is
going to be some activity at that location and they are going to have to live with
:hat too. You both need to live together. I prefer you make attempts to fix th
:rash, bottle collection, locking off your parking lot and if there are people running
file: / /C:\Documents and Sett ings\ JCarnpbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 3
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
and in the neighborhood, it will not be your issue. The other issue I have
Type 75 liquor license was given because you folks, at some point, request
t as your customers need hard liquor with their food. So that was supposed
ancillary as you wanted to bring other patrons in to get the food. That clearly
what is happening here, its a bar after 11:00 p.m.
r. Kolbly asked if the Alley Restaurant was a restaurant? He noted he conside
a restaurant but that after 10:00 p.m. no food is being served there and a bar
)ing on. Anytime a restaurant is open after 11:00 p.m., you are not a Denny's
rictly serving food. The hours were given to us since day one, we have h;
ies to get in. There wasn't a problem then, but now all of a sudden there is. TI
Deration has not changed. 1 offer full service meal all the way to closing.
>ioner McDaniel noted the Type 75 license service of booze was to
to the food and that is not the case.
Chairman Eaton asked:
. How long does the queue line get.
._ How would you move the line to the 30th Street -side if you need to keep tt
doors open to the parking lot?
. There is a condition on the ABC license that the line shall not extend
30th Street. If you did have the line originating at the. 30th St. en
would it get so long as to encroach along the alley?
. Is the kitchen open until closing?
Kolbly answered:
25 -36 people maximum.
. It would be the south side open during the day and then closed at night
the actual entry would by the fire line door and the line would run so
towards the pier. I
. The line is not starting on 30th Street, we will have to place a hole on
patio with an entrance so it would run onto Newport Boulevard south.
. Until we stop serving alcohol, those guys are cooking in the kitchen.
lic comment was opened.
d Carson, owner of Rudy's Pub and Grill and property owner, noted:
. He supports the development that has gone on in the Cannery Village.
. There are responsibilities of the developers in the area and it should
enforced by the City with the loft like environment mixed use to m;
people aware of what they are moving into. Maybe there could be sc
Page 31 of 49
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\ JCampbell \Desl,-top\nm08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006
aA
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 32 of 49
sort of waiver, or signing off, that they are aware of the business operatic
within the surrounding neighborhood that close at 2:00 a.m. and open
7:00 a.m.
. The restaurant owners try to control people as they leave the establishi
and we do our best job, but it is not always our patrons leaving
establishments causing the problems.
. It is tough to lay the blame on any one establishment.
. 1 know that Balboa Imports is looking to become a loft environment behii
us, which means our parking lot will open up directly to those new propose
lofts and there is nothing that we can do when we let our patrons out
keep them quiet. They are going to set off their car alarm noise and that
always going to happen. There has to be some sort of leniency in dealii
with the public, dealing with the business owners and the fact that we we
there first. I know 1 put a lot of money in my building and to have this fig
two or three years down the road will be a difficult pill to swallow.
John Dale, patron of The Newport Brewery, stated his support of this
establishment, noting:
@. Family environment.
• No way to quantify what responses that the Police Department has in that.
area that are related to the bar itself.
• They do a great job with the security at the door.
• Food is served all night long.
• It is a friendly atmosphere and people enjoy going there for drinks and it is
one of the few places in Newport that has a patio.
. This is the kind of business you want to keep in Newport Beach and is no
the kind of thing that you should shut down because some people moved in
next door to a bar. They knew it was there before they bought their place.
Brian Kokus, local resident, noted:
. There is a lot of traffic from other restaurants that goes through
Beach.
. As a former restaurant manager, the stipulations brought up a
education and addressing those issues are addressable and I believe
they will be addressed by the applicant.
. I am pro business and running restaurants in any city after 11:00 p.m.,
consumption goes down, that's just the way it is.
. People choose to have a cocktail instead of food and we shouldn't
file://C:\Documents and Settings\ JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 25
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
that. If you restrict one restaurant by limiting what they can do, you
setting a precedent and saying to other restaurants that when
problems come up that you are going to handle it the same way. I think
is a dangerous precedent.
Markowitz, owner of a newer loft in the area, noted:
. Loyalty of the business patrons is wonderful. As a business owner she
appreciate it.
• However, the business is not operating in a civilized manner.
. None of us want to shut this down.
. We are trying to bring some civilization to this establishment after a
hour.
. It is about business and I am happy that they are successful.
•. However, ,there, is violent verbal behavior late at night that disturbs,,i
sleep..:.
• There have been altercations between several of the neighbors and
owners as a result of sleep deprivation.
• If you are tired, you get angry. The parking lot is out of control.
. It is a great business, but I would like to see some compatibility
neighbors.
. Stop the juvenile fighting, and if the law has to be a catalyst for that, then
be it.
. Being drunk in a parking lot is illegal. When we have called the police,
the time they get there, the patrons are gone.
. She noted episodes of urination during the day.
• She asked that the consumption of alcohol be controlled.
• The queue line is loud and noisy.
missioner McDaniel asked what time these problems are happening.
. Markowitz answered it is after 11:00 p.m. and she had actually been
at 1:30 a.m. by people in the parking lot last night.
nmissioner McDaniel noted it couldn't be these people as the establishmi
closed at 11 last night so it couldn't have been their patrons. I am trying
what the problem is and I am not convinced from what you are saying that I
it at 1:30 that they were their customers because they were closed.
Page 33 of 49
file:HC: \Documents and Settings\ JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 ��
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
Markowitz noted clearly it was not associated with them but that she %
rated because she is awakened so many times strictly from their parking
queue line noise. I support the business, but can't we live together?
Chairman Eaton asked how close she lived to the establishment. Are yor
of the dividing line between their parking lot and the municipal parking lot?
e do most of these disturbances take place?
Markowitz answered she is adjacent to the parking lot. Absolutely, and
irbances happen on their parking lot.
Green, local resident noted:
. There are many businesses in the area.
. The disturbances come from all the people coming home from all the bars
the neighborhood.
Page 34 of 49
. You can't put the blame on Jerry's business and the argument that this i
stemming from the misuse of their permit is ridiculous. You have a bunch o
drunk'peoplg.coming home.
. He has watched from his patio the craziness of people going home and they j
come from all around except Jerry's place as it is closed down.
McDaniel asked if they accumulate in the parking lot.
Green answered they accumulate everywhere as they are parking in the
on the streets; h has seen many fights on the sidewalks.
Steed, local resident, business owner and a Cannery loft owner, noted:
. The establishment is a nice one until after 9:00 p.m.
. I did not realize when I bought my place that the Brewery operates as
nightclub, they crank the music up and it is booze only.
. The parking area is the launching pad for the whole peninsula. Where
there more parking than at the Brewery.
. I have tried to work with these people to come to some solution but it
been futile.
. At night it is completely out of control. My house is used as a urinal, the
has been blood on my property and I have seen fights coming out of t
bar. Sometimes it is so violent that people have climbed over my fence
get away from the brawl.
. I don't call the police anymore because it is futile.
. The Brewery is operating outside their use permit. The first thing it says
file: / /C:\Documents and Settingsl JCampbe1 11DesktopUnn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 �1
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
they are not going to create a nuisance in the parking lot, and they do.
. They have been uncooperative.
. The violence is unbelievable.
Lenard, local resident, noted his support of the restaurant. He has brought
ly there many times as the food is excellent and moderately priced.
,ice and atmosphere are very friendly. He asked that it continue to operate.
Stevens, employee of the restaurant and local resident, noted:
. The waiters push food at the restaurant after 11:00 p.m. not only becaL
we are told to as it is good for sales, but for every ticket we are going
want a higher bill because that means a higher tip.
. Every person who sits down there is asked if they want something to e
we let them know the full menu as opposed to being 'booze only.' We try
push as much food as we can.
. 1 was the waiter, on August 5th, where some patron was told at 10:45 p.m ...
the kitchen wasn't open "and we ended up with the half chicken salad a "'
midnight. I don't recall saying that then, I might say it later for whateve r
reason, but as I am there to make money I push sales as much as I can.
. I have never seen 100 people in the parking lot and there certainly is
blood anywhere.
mioner Toerge noted the testimony of the General Manager was that I
was always open. You just said you would say it was closed at 11:45 p.
r. Stevens answered that was on him if he said it at all. When I am there, I
e food as much as possible.
Callahan, local resident, speaking on behalf of her husband and his staff
d they love the restaurant and when they get off work they go there late in the
ing for food. If they don't have the opportunity to get there, I bring the food tc
. The food is great and it is a great place to go with the family.
,nmissioner Toerge noted this is not how great the food is, it is about the imps
the neighborhood and the late hours. I appreciate the fact that the food mi<
good, and the servers are nice, but that is not the issue. I encourage you
: about the issue that is the noise that is created, the impact on t
ghborhood and the ancillary nature of the food.
r Jusco, local resident and regular patron of the restaurant noted his support
is establishment noting he has brought his family there many times. He stet
at this is the kind of establishment that the City should be supporting and r
3pping their hands. The Code officer and the detective both gave no spec
oblems at the Brewery. ABC couldn't find any problems, so what is the iss
her than this Commission gave approval to build a home in a retail area that ji
rppens to be right behind the Brewery. Anybody living within a block of Newp
Page 35 of 49
I
file:HC:\Documents and SettingsU Campbell\Desktop\tnn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 a%
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
levard is going to have noise. How you can point the finger at the Brewe
say it is their fault, doesn't fly. This problem is all up and down Newpc
levard and unless you come down on every bar in the City, you will still have
lem. If you do it only to the Brewery you are discriminatory unless you do it
ybody else. This is a great establishment and I would hate to see anythir
happen to it, they do a great job.
audience became very vocal at this point.
Harp noted this is a public meeting and all rules of decorum prevail. If anyc
lates those, the officers will be happy to escort you from the premises. Plea
the people speak. The Planning Commissioners are not here to respond
astions, they are the ones who get to ask the questions.
imissioner McDaniel noted he has tried hard to listen to everyone, he will
ig and it would be best to hear the issues, not the emotions. We have
e decisions and so we ask questions to help us understand the situation to
to make a good decision. Think about what you do to help yourselves wh
make your presentation. We don't want to argue with anybody or cause e
)le. Help us to get through -the issues.
Reese, noted nolition"104 10. states the'epproval of this use permit is for
taurant/brewpub -arid shall not be construed as the approval of a bar, cockto
nge; or other use serving alcoholic beverages during hours not correspondir
regular meal hours (food products sold or served incidentally to the sale
vice of alcohol beverages shall not be deemed as constituting regular. me
vice)... I did go there on August 5th and when I went there it was with tt
antion to see how it is being operated. The security guard met us at the do.
J was checking ID's. We asked why he was doing that and he said that aft,
0 p.m. the restaurant becomes a bar and that no one under21 is allowed in
y would lose their liquor license. The restaurant had patrons standing and IOL
sic was playing. We sat at a table and asked the waiter for food who told a
kitchen was closed and the only thing to order was drinks. There were r
ps, pretzels or popcorn being served. There were three security guards insic
restaurant and another one was outside. It was obvious that this was astir
a bar, not a restaurant.
went on to say that if you look at all the paperwork, the Planning Commissior
I City Council were specific about the operation. Referring to hand writter
le 127 of the staff report, he read the testimony of the then general manager
awn Needelman. He then spoke about the differences comparing testimony.
suggested closing the restaurant at 11:00 p.m. as that is the normal closinc
of a restaurant and that will solve the problems.
rge Schroeder, noted he was present at the meeting in 1993 when the origina
iit was received. The reason they got the permit was they were going to be e
pub. He was present in 1999 when they applied for their liquor license.
erring to handwritten page 18, item 5, the restaurant/brewpub use is
patible with the surrounding commercial and nearby residential uses, there
always been residential uses in that area. It seems to be an impression tha
the new loft condos were built behind it on one street now there is
lential. There has always been residential use in the Cannery Village area.
of the original staff report was that they would operate in a way that would be
eable with the nearby residential uses. I don't think it reasonable this mar
file: / /C:1Documents and Settingsl JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm
Page 36 of 49
12/20/2006 a 1
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
)se his business. All that matters is are they complying with the permits th
ave gotten, and in my opinion they are not. The solution is they should close
1:00 p.m. on Saturday and Friday nights, which should alleviate a lot of t
roblems for the residents in the area. I have lived 18 years here and it is not f
> blame everything that is wrong on this one establishment, but we can look
is permit they have and the conditions they agreed to. There are fistfights on t
treets after the bars are closed and often times I am awakened at 1 a.m. and it
and to get back to sleep and it does affect your work day. This establishme
hould comply with the conditions of the permit. He continued talking about o&
stablishments and noted that his survey resulted in closing times of 11:30 p.
le noted that this is a bar.
Wetherhault, local resident, noted:
. The 200 blocks of 28th, 29th and 30th Streets get pounded every
with drunk activity.
• A drunk has tried to break into his property. The police responded.
• Fights have occurred where the police responded as well as 1
paramedics.
• Various acts of sex, property damage, vulgar language go on.all times
the night.
• The point is these types of incidents continue to increase, as does
number of people under the influence of alcohol The number of police
to this area is extreme.
• The residents are tired of this and if the patrons can not leave th
establishments in a responsible manner and the bars can not control
activity of their late night patrons, then the City needs to start laying
these establishments.
. This establishment went in as a restaurant and we would like to see
continue as a restaurant but you need to do something to curb this activity.
nmissioner McDaniel noted you mentioned a lot of things that have happened.
i mentioned broken bottles but it is not normal that containers would be taker
from this establishment necessarily. You haven't talked about any specifics.
Wetherhault answered it is one of the impacts, it is another bar havir
act in the surrounding community. You can see the number of responses
Police Department that are alcohol related.
McDaniel noted this is in general for the area, not specific to
He was answered, correct.
Commission inquiry, Mr. Wetherhault added that there is loitering in the pa
s directly adjacent to the residents and you can see them coming from
Page 37 of 49
file:HC: \Documents and Settings\ JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 30
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
Bransiwaski, past resident of Cannery Village, noted everyone is tall
ancillary use. The relevant definition of ancillary use comes from quart
ation. How much booze versus how much food is sold quarterly. You c
it down to days, hours, weekdays. You can in terms of discussion, but
ant definition is quarterly. So why are people talking about what happ
:en the hours of 10 and 12 p.m. or what the characteristics might be?
)ny Shepherdson, resident since 1967 stated when his place was built there wa:
small gourmet market that is now the Brewery, so these things came after I wa:
resident. The Brewery, Malarky's and Rudy's are not sidewalk cafes. I pass the
rewery on Sunday mornings and it appears to have a nice ambience. Wha
appens late at night is when our nightmare starts. These are full on drinkinc
Aablishments. The drunks late at night keep him awake and from hi:
:rspective the village atmosphere is being destroyed in his immediate vicinity bl
e Brewery, Malarky's and Rudy's. The police can not respond when thing:
appen. Rudy's on Sunday afternoons has live entertainment with a live P1
stem that sounds like it is in his garage and this is around 4 -5 in the afternoon.
is very difficult to take and has gotten the police involved. He asked that if the
ty is pushing the mixed use and have businesses and living quarters together
it to allow the hard liquor license, for these things to continue, it really isn"
sing to fit. We need help to maintain the Newport Beach village atmosphere.
Weeds, business and property owner in Cannery Village, noted: 1.
. It is important to seek compliance with the use permit, that is what this
about.
. Just because this operator has operated outside the permit for
years, does not validate or legitimize the actions.
. When this use permit was applied for they were promoting themselves as
restaurant and one of the reasons this was done is this was an amiable we
to get a permit.
. If they had gone in and said they were going to operate as a boisteroi
nightclub at 11p.m., 12 and 1 a:m. on the weekends, they would hal
virtually no chance of getting the permit. Particularly since this district has
high concentration of bars and history has shown that nightclubs have n
fared so well down there.
. He mentioned other nightclubs in the area and stated the problems of a
night venue with alcohol.
. This establishment was promoted as a restaurant because they could get
permit as a restaurant. Now they are operating as a restaurant most of tt
time in the restaurant hours and as a full blown bar after 11 p.m.
. The clear solution is to bring them into compliance and have them be
restaurant they promoted themselves to be, which many of the o
restaurants in the area have set a fine example by doing so.
. Condition 6 - the net public area of the restaurant is limited to 1,500
Page 38 of 49
file: / /C:\Documents and Settingsl JCampbe1 11Desktop\nm08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 31
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
fee daily. There is a bit of ambiguity the way this is written but we ha'
contacted the Coastal Commission and it has been presented that it is
daily restriction and is part of the condition of the Coastal Permit. That
something that needs to be regulated and enforced by the City.
Condition 7 - The hours of operation Monday through Thursday are 6 to 11
p.m. and we think those should be the hours of operation on Friday anc
Saturday as well to bring it into compliance with a restaurant type operation.
Condition 9 - The alcohol should be ancillary and not primary and should
in conjunction with food. The operator promoted that they needed this
order to make the food work, then use it for the food. After 9:00 p.m. tl
most compelling testimony, 90% of the business is alcohol so that really
in violation.
Condition 10 - It is pretty clear that the Planning Commission and the
Council did not want to promote a nightclub or bar there. Again this
back to this being a restaurant. The reason for the use permit is to er
things like this are being taken care of such as parking and land use. T
is a serious parking problem in the neighborhood when there are
promotions during play off season or super bowl. That is what -the Co
Commission; was concerned about. .
Commission inquiry he noted that condition 6 needs to be enforced and doesr
ed to be clarified. It is clear to me it is a daily condition that has been impose
the Coastal Commission and needs to be enforced like all the conditions. N
ue is not with the operation and what it does or who the people are, my issue.
:h the use permit and being in compliance like every other business like n
siness that operates under a use permit. We are in compliance and we expe
eryone else to be too. That is what a use permit is for. The late night creates
of the problems and I think it can be organized by making them adhere to the
e permit. I think this is: really an important thing and applies to late night z
oil. It is really about the parking and that is why that condition is imposed ar
ads to be adhered to. It creates conflicts with other business owners during tt
rmal business hours and creates conflicts with other public people parking
Aley, resident, noted that she frequents the brewery. She stated she I
been able to get food after 12 p.m. She has not seen any of thf
s after 12:00 p.m. when she has been there that have been portrayed
o speakers.
Hogan, a manager in charge of the kitchen at the establishment, noted:
He was on duty the night of August 5th when two patrons came in and
they were not allowed to get food.
That night there were
Saturday. Even with
down.
3 events in So Cal and we were the slowest on
that, there is no way I would have shut the kit
We are supposed to be open and we are.
ary
Page 39 of 49
file: / /C:1Documents and SettingsU Campbe111Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
• He is one of the last ones to leave and on the weekends leaves at 1:30 or
and the parking lot is silent. Whatever happens after that is out of of
control. We can lock the parking lot but we don't want to be liable and
patrons need to leave their car and get a taxi, then we promote that. Thei
is a municipal lot in the back that can be used as well.
• There were 41 calls recorded for this procedure, how many of them
during our business hours?
. 65% of the arrests were due to alcohol, how many of them were on the
of July and do they involve us in any way?
• Nobody orders food from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. After 2:00 a.m., Jack in the
is packed, there is a line wrapped around the building. Denny's is star
room only.
. A crime to me sounds like a someone not reporting they are seeing a
going on.
Ace Chairman Eaton asked are there times the kitchen is closed before
losing bme of the entire premises.
Mr. Hogan answered no, the kitchen is open until the Brewery is closed... You
rder a steak at 12:15 a.m. At Commission inquiry, he noted that we can
orce people to order food. Once they are out they are hungry, but they c
usually eat between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m.
Moore, resident on the boardwalk for 30 years, noted:
. He has an alley in the back of his home and he chose to live on
boardwalk.
• Drunks come down that alley every night.
• They are there because there are a lot of bars in the area, not just
of the Brewery.
. He has been a patron of the Brewery and has eaten there after 11:00 p.m.
. He has never seen any problems in the parking lot.
Low, local resident, noted:
. Referenced the work done by staff and the time put in by the Commission.
. He presented a packet of communications, which had been distributed
the Commissioners in their packets.
. He presented copies of a CD of the May hearing.
• There have been a lot of points of view of what people have seen or
file: / /C:\Documents and Settingsl JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm
Page 40 of 49
12/20/2006 33
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
seen. The issues that are in the communication that went to the City, 11-
heard no substantial testimony that proves any of the communications
inaccurate. I submit that the complaints by the residents are what they
and are part of the record.
We are talking about compatibility. We understand we live in a mixed use
neighborhood and understand what that is. When we look to find equity of
rights in that mixed use neighborhood, that is what we are talking about.
Not whether they are good or bad, what's fair, what's right, what's
appropriate, what isn't appropriate. That is why we ask you and we entrusl
upon you to make wise decisions on how to deal with our neighborhood.
Chairman Eaton asked:
• Are you associated with the Cannery Village Concerned group?
• How big is that group and how wide an area do they live in?
• Are they primarily residents?
• Do you see any relationship between. condition 6 and the late nigh
nuisance problem or is that a case of the parking problem in the village as!:
whole?
Low answered yes, he is a member. It is not so much as a forma
mbership but that group probably has 50 -60 persons that are involved and
rut 80% of those are inside the Cannery Village. There are a few who live or
periphery of Cannery Village but they may be on the other side of Newpor
ilevard. Certainly it is dominated by folks who live or own property in the
inery Village. Specifically condition 6, as dictated by the Coastal Commission
a to free up parking during the day because they determined that the demanc
parking occurred during the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. They felt that after 6 p.m
)pie leave who may have been working there or go home from the beach an(
re is more parking there. Condition 6 does not address evening issues, I thinl
t the Coastal Commission was trying to make it available to the Brewery in the
nings or other businesses or persons who use it in the evenings. There was a
iflict during the day when other persons were attempting to utilize that limiter
missioner McDaniel noted that the information that comes from this grou
.n't always get signed. I have a problem when people send correspondeni
no signature, it doesn't' have a lot of credibility without the signatures. Peop
don't stand up and to be counted, I don't care.
r. Low noted that everyone in that group are willing to be disclosed.
Madlock, Vice President of Newport Beach Brewing Company since
ion, noted:
• The Type 75 license was not in existence when we first opened the brem
and asked for the conditional use permit. What was allowable was just
Type 22 which was a small beer manufacturer's license. The Type 75 ca
Page 41 of 49
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\ JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 ?Ja
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 42 of 49
along later due to the fact that there was some old laws prohibiting brev
beer on the same premises where you could buy hard alcohol. It was
available or we would have asked for it at the beginning.
The parking issue and closing off part of the restaurant, it was
understanding that during the weekdays we left 13 spots for the of
spaces above the brewery. We were under the impression that beca
the offices were closed on the weekends, that was the reason why
Coastal Commission was not pushing us on having any area closed
during the weekends.
mmissioner McDaniel, referring to the August 5th City Council minutes, it wa
led that the Councilmembers clarified that this Type 75 license application wa
be able to provide for your eating customers. The ancillary thing keeps comin
here. When I read these minutes, it appears to me you asked for this becaus
ur customers are sophisticated and don't want to drink just a beer they ma
int to have a cocktail and you were trying to increase your sale of food. Am
ong in that?
Madlock answered we wanted all higher sales. Of course we want to sell a
food. Wa find that. many, customers that we had prior to getting the hard
hol license - were not frequenting our establishment. We were told that many s
)le wanted'martinis," margaritas, etc. Not all people want to order wine an
and that was' the basis.of why we went in for the Type 75 license.
rnmissioner McDaniel noted that it was stated that 'they wanted to complen
it enhanced food, wine and special menu, and capture a more diverse clien
acquiring this license. I read this so that you wanted "to increase your f
Ds and sell them a margarita too, but you wanted this license to assist with
d sale. Ancillary keeps coming up and we don't want you to be a bar, we v
i to be a restaurant that serves drinks.
Madlock noted we have never served a cover charge and we wanted to
cholas Wilson, resident, noted that the testimony of most of the speakers
:ems the biggest problem is the parking lot. The majority of the compla
mcerns noise and the parking lot. It is clearly unfair to single out one restaura
r the problems in that parking lot considering that is the largest public parking I
a proximity to seven restaurants within a two block radius. There is a shortai
restaurants that do serve late in the evenings. There are those of us who <
)t work 9 - 5 and we appreciate being able to get a beer and something to eat
non - regular eating hour.
Huffine, resident of Costa, noted her support of the restaurant noting this
extended family and as a regular patron have seen the efforts put forth by t
iers to be good neighbors.
comment was closed.
ssioner Henn referred to the Coastal Commission findings of 1993.
3e regarding how much of the restaurant is to be open during what c
to be clear and consistent with the motivations with what I know to be
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\J Campbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
astal Commission. There is no wording whatsoever about daily, it says,
open before 5:00 p.m. (referring to the 1500 foot restriction). Doesn't say d
;sn't say Monday through Friday. I don't know how the City could interpret
say Monday through Friday when the permit was issued. As far as I
rcemed that is clear to me.
Toerge noted his agreement with Commissioner Henn.
Chairman Eaton noted his agreement also. He added that the de
riction does as well (referring to handwritten 86). It says daily. With regard
comment on the 13 spaces on the upper floor, hand written page 63 the st
)rt from the Coastal Commission notes that there are 43 spaces provid
ng the day with the restriction and that provides for the 13 on the seco
r. I don't think that related to not having the weekday restriction at all. If It
dition needs to be clarified my recommendation is to remove the referen
iday through Friday reference.
McDaniel noted that he agrees.
Commission was in agreement.
3mmissioner McDaniel noted:
• He has had to ask a lot of questions as the Commission handles zoning
blood, vomit and fights.
. The ancillary issue is clear and that the request for this Type 75 license
alcohol was made so that the restaurant to better serve its restaur
customers.
. The Planning Commission and the City Council made it clear that this
supposed to be a restaurant and I believe it was given to better help
place service its customers for food.
• There has been testimony from people who work there saying between 11
and 1 a.m. 90% of what goes on there is not food, it is alcohol; I can't make
them eat, I'm okay with that, but the purpose of this condition and approva
was so those people who did want to eat could have alcohol, not so that
you could just serve alcohol.
• Another employee said nobody eats between 11 and 2 a.m., Denny's isr
busy, they eat after that. So this condition is not being served by this and
is a bar between those hours as people don't eat there by their ov
admission and they are saying food is not served because you can't mat
people eat.
• They are not serving food, they are serving alcohol so I think there is
violation of that portion of the use permit.
• Clearly the daily issue we just talked about.
• Nuisances - we have tried to pin down where those are coming from.
Page 43 of 49
file:HC:\Documents and Settingsl JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 3
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
Clearly they are not all coming from this place and so what do we do from
zoning issue to try help solve that? That becomes more difficult for me.
We can ask the operator to assist by covering the trash and they are to
about doing that because they want to be a good neighbor. I'd like to
at giving the owners some opportunity to fix these issues before we
any significant changes to this.
. 1 am not sure if it matters to me if they serve alcohol
are doing it in a manner where it doesn't cause
because that is what I have to talk about.
or not as long as
public safety is
My view is to get some consensus how the operator voluntarily take care
some of these issues. Maybe call this back in 6 months for a review and
they are not operating responsibility than anything that they do after 11 p.r
is not a restaurant and we should deal with it then.
[ommissioner Henn, noted:
. Condition 10 - it seems this language was uniquely constructed.
standard language for the .provi §ion. of a hard. liquor .license
establishment that is primarily be a restaurant.
r. Campbell answered this language was uniquely crafted at that time. We do
milar condition today, in essence to define what the use is and what the use ca
)t be. One of the issues we are struggling with this condition is staff. has look(
these conditions and balanced the use based upon the entirety of the us
hich is restaurant a majority of the time and a. bar as a minority of the time ar
•incipally it is a restaurant. Based upon that. and that past practice is why v
ruggle with does this condition prohibit the bar after 11:00 p.m., and the answ
we haven't looked at it in that light until now.
7r. Harp added that in talking with City Attorney Clauson, the intent was for this
perate as a restaurant but serve alcohol and not as a bar. Looking at t
3nguage in condition 10 its says food products sold or served to the s.
icidentally to the sale or service of alcohol beverages shall not be deemed
onstituting regular meal service. It seems to me that provision is pretty clear a
don't see any ambiguity some others see.
Toerge noted:
This situation is broken. You don't get the kind of resident appeal that
are getting tonight if something is not broken.
The Planning Commission is going to have to get use to these kinds
discussion as more and more properties are zoned mixed use, although
we do that we will probably get better about applying conditions.
There is a real conflict in these conditions because I do read condition
that the serving of alcohol is to be done in correspondence with regi
meal service hours. I've testimony about doctors and others who like to
late and I understand that, but that is not regular meal service hours
file:HC:1Documents and SettingsU Campbell\Dcsktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm
Page 44 of 49
12/20/2006 31
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 45 of 49
that is what we are talking about. What are those? I don't know, but th,
are not at midnight or at 11 p.m. or 1 a.m., that is not in my opinion. That
very clear to me. We can debate the issue of ancillary as this Commissi4
has in the past reviewed a number of applications for alcoholic beveral
service ancillary with food and I don't know of any of them that are opi
past 9:30 or 10:00 that we have approved where an establishment mig
want to serve beer or wine or even a cocktail with their food.
What I don't understand is how our predecessors could have allowed
property to be open with this condition that alcoholic beverage could
served with regular meal service hours.
Harp noted when he had spoken with Ms. Clauson regarding this issue, h
ilanation based on her recollection was that the intent of the operation was
like Charlie's Chili or some of the other places that do serve food late at nig
I the intent was to have a meal and also have alcohol with it. When they g
amended permit the minutes stated that the clientele shifted from people
it twenties to people in their sixties. It is consistent with people coming in for
al and having a drink with their meal.
Commissioner Toerge stated that merging conditions. 9 and 10 the ancillary ...
ervice of alcohol with food it makes it more clear: I de�iriitely think `an amended
o this use permit is due and we owe it to the res'idents'''this issue I came 'before.
us in May and the issue is still here; there seems little done to address the issues:.
and from my standpoint I think the ours of operation should be reduced and I am.
not sure 11:00 p.m. is the right one but I know no later is the right one if they wan
to continue to serve alcohol with food. I will be recommending revocation unless
he owner wants to agree to some other conditions.
McDaniel asked about a 6 month time line.
Toerge answered no.
. Harp stated they had met with the Newport Brewery counsel as well as
nagement directly after the last Planning Commission meeting. Basically
phasis at that meeting was come up with a way to get control of your busir
the interim, implement those procedures and come back to the Plan
mmission with a plan. They haven't seem to really have done much in the
F days, so that is something to take into consideration.
issioner Peotter asked about exhibit 5 that is the additional conditic
by Newport Beach Brewing Company. Have they implemented any
or is this something that they would do?
Campbell noted the security guards are there but there has been no secur
i presented. The bottle recycling program has not been implemented, t
h dumpster area I have been told they are exploring the concept; the alcot
ling I have been told that is being done, but there is no proof to date; nr
anoe, upon tonight's testimony it hasn't been implemented and the tow up
e is something they are considering; and the back page is a suggestion
ige condition 9 and 10. No particular other improvements have been made.
missioner Henn noted he is not interested in waiting another 6 months to
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\ JCampbell \Desk-top\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 D
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 46 of 49
there is voluntary improvements. If people want us to.make the decision, I a
ad to do that. I suggest to continue this for one month to allow time for tt
Igrieved parties and the owners of the business to sit down and hammer out
Aution that they can live with. I prefer not to make the decision, I prefer 0
irties to come to some decisions. They might have tried that and failed and
at is the case, I am glad to make the decision as part of the Commission.
mmissioner Peotter noted that sitting across the table is not going to do n
there appears to have been a lot of months of bad blood. I would be requ
m to implement what the have said in exhibit 5 within the next 30 days.
i give them 60 days with the implementation and then sit down with
Irieved parties if it is working or not. Otherwise, chop their hours and be e
h it.
Henn noted exhibit 5 doesn't go far enough.
ner Peotter noted we can add to it such as an no age restriction, etc.
followed on some additional implementation procedures.
Vice Chairman Eaton noted we should not try and do something tonight or at the
next meeting because the Our Lady Queen of Angels -will be at the next meeting.
He agrees to a continuance for a month.. Both sides,a'rsd' city staff, should meett
see what-agreement there can be in terms of meaningful improvements bufforth
staff 10 come back to the Commission and present us With what we can '.do in
modifying conditions then have a review in 6 months to see how those modified
conditions are working. The other reason not continue the whole thing °Jor:6
months is that either side may be anxious to get this up to City Council and we
hould not stall them for that period of time. During this month we need to
structure some revisions to the conditions that we might have a shot at working for
he neighborhood. Cutting back the hours is the drastic solution that we would
hope to avoid. I would like to have staff look at the certification programs have a
component that. provide guidance to employees when to stop serving to .
individuals when they have become too drunk for their own good. If it does, ho
an we get verification that the employees have gone through this training and
an we get some assurance from managerial employees that they have instructed
heir staff to implement that. The ultimate problem seems to be outside the
premises. The problem inside the premises they are containing and the neighbor
are not as affected. Some of the behavior outside the premises is probably no
coming from the patrons of this premise unless they are going on to other bar
because at 2:00 a.m., I am sure patrons of this establishment are probably gone.
It is a neighborhood problem of which this establishment may be contributing a
portion and I would like to see if there is a way to get something back to us in a
month that will offer some revised conditions including specifically condition 6 and
something specifically stating the kitchen shall remain open the entire time and a
Way to get the employee alcohol training implemented.
Craig Frizzell, Detective Division Commander of the Newport Beach Police
)artment, noted that there are several types of training programs. I know the
ning but I don't know if there is any type of certification, but we can find out.
can work this out with the owner within a month's time.
nmissioner Henn noted that the neighborhood groups need to be inv
ng this time. He noted that the people who own and operate this recta
not mal- intent. I think they are trying to operate a good business. I also
file: / /C:1Documents and Settingsl JCampbell \Desktop\mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 3')1
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 47 of 49
hink that the neighbors that are aggrieved are blowing up their claims routine)
here to make it seem much worse than it is, I don't believe that either. In fact, I
really don't care as our function is not to find out who is telling the truth and who is
exaggerating; our function is to try and find out what the use permit is and whether
he restaurant is being operated in accordance with that and therefore whether the
drunk people in the parking lot are patrons of this restaurant isn't the important
issue. The important issue is what is the use permit and is it being operated
rrectly in accordance with it. I want to make sure that everyone understand
that this is an objective decision before us. The testimony tonight is not germane
to the decision.
Mr. Harp noted that on the motion it needs to be clarified as to the manner you
ant this to come back to you as there are different procedures for modification
and revocation.
Vice Chairman Eaton noted he is talking about a modification, not a revocation
et.
Commissioner Toerge noted he does not want to take revocation off the table, to
have the :owners act. He prefers to continue the hearing and keep the option
pen
r ?Harp noted that revocation: is not on the table but if you want to add it, btaf'Will
need to comply with the procedures set forth for revocation. By opening up the
door for revocation, does not mean you have to take that action. We can combine
it with modification, additional terms and revocation.
ommissioner Toerge noted he is not prepared to make a motion to revoke th
icense today, but he might be next time. It is an option we have and it should be
maintained and it should be there. This is a serious issue and we need to
maintain that option as I think it will motivate the parties to reach the resolution. I
am not sure we will get there if revocation is not an option.
ommissioner Peotter clarified that you are suggesting that this item be continued
and brought back with revised conditions that are hammered out by staff who will
have had input by the neighbors and the owners.
ommissioner Toerge noted his agreement; however, the meeting should be
noticed in such a way that if the information we get at that meeting compels one or
more of us to revoke it that we have the opportunity to make that motion. What
r ou are saying is the right tact, but it presupposes that there is going to be som mpromise and I am not convinced there is. If there is no compromise then I
n to revoke.
Following a brief discussion it was decided that revocation should also be on the
otice for the next meeting.
Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to September
1st and ask that the item be noticed in such a way that we have the opportuni
o engage in further discussion to make modifications to the use permit and /o
evoke the amended use permit that granted them the right for this expanded
alcohol sales on the premises.
file: / /C:1Documents and Settings\ JCampbe111Desktop1mn08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006
0
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 48 of 49
Mr. Harp affirmed the Commission wanted staff to prepare potential modified
and/or additional conditions.
Vice Chairman Eaton agreed and added that there was consensus that the
weekday provision be removed from condition 6.
The maker of the motion agreed to add that to the motion.
ommissioner Henn noted that the neighborhood people should not take this as
arte blanche to be intransigent and unwilling to discuss and unwilling to
ompromise on their positions either. What the Commission is looking for is a
ompromise and I think that is included on all parties.
yes: Peotter, Eaton, McDaniel, Toerge and Henn
Noes: None
Absent: Cole
Recused: Hawkins
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that the agenda for August ,8t
was the City Council initiated an amendment to the Planned Community
'Belcourt to prohibit additional subdivisions, which will be coming` to th
Planning Commission.
b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic
Development Committee - Commissioner Henn noted the topic o
discussion was the cost related to Greenlight It. EDC will be recommendin
to the Council a revised summary of the associated costs.
c. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coasta
Committee - Commissioner Toerge noted at the meeting of August 14th the
approach in terms of the volume of the information included in the
Implementation Plan were discussed. We decided we needed a summa
of how the items serve each of the policies in the Local Coastal Plan itself.
We discussed the topic of the Corona del Mar bluff development guidelines
which is significantly different than other bluffs in the City.
d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at
subsequent meeting - Vice Chairman Eaton asked when the topic of the
rules and procedures of the Planning Commission will be up for review an
whether the Zoning Committee will be reactivated. Ms. Wood noted tha
staff is working on the rules and procedures and that the Zoning Committee
may be reactivated when the General Plan is approved.
e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a futur
agenda for action and staff report - none.
file: / /C:1Documents and Settingsl JCarnpbell \Desktop\nm08- 17- 06.htm 12/20/2006 k�`
Exhibit No. 2
Code Enforcement memorandum
9w-
August 17, 2006
Newport Beach Planning Commission
Subject: Newport Beach Brewing Company
2920 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92263
On January 26, 2006, I received a complaint letter from residents of Cannery Village
regarding the Newport Beach Brewing Company (NBBC). In the letter, they expressed
their concern that NBBC was violating conditions in its use permit. The complaints filed
were in regards to: (1) the NBBC patrons' behavior in the parking lot at night and early
morning; (2) nuisance(s) from noise caused by property maintenance activities; and'(3)
full use of the restaurant before 5 PM. Based on these complaints, a code enforcement
case was opened and an investigation was conducted to determine what/if any violations
did exist.
In response to the concerns that the patrons were extremely loud and noisy, I made three
visits to NBBC at night. On the first night, February 2, 2006, I arrived at approximately
9:45 PM. I walked around the parking lot which was relatively clean. I walked around
the bar to listen for music or voices coming, from the bar. No music or voices could be
heard from the front of the bar. Voices could be faintly heard coming from the patio area.
There was no cue -up line when I entered and when I exited the NBBC. I stayed for
approximately a half -hour. I went back on February 4, 2006 arriving at approximately
9:45 PM. My observations were the same as the prior visit. The parking lot was clean
and relatively quiet. There was no cue -up line when I arrived. The bar, however, was
much busier than my first visit. Once again, I stayed for approximately a half hour. I
made a final visit on February 10th, 2006. On this night, there were patrons in the cue -up
line that were quite noisy. There were also 2 female patrons in the parking lot screaming
at each other. I spoke with the on -duty manager, Jerry Kolbly, and discussed with him
my concerns about the noise in the parking lots coming from his patrons. He agreed to
place extra security in the parking lot and advise individuals in the parking lot to keep
their voices down. I also discussed some of the other complaints from the letter with
Jerry. We discussed the trash in the parking lot, noise from the bar, and the early morning
property maintenance. Jerry agreed to have his staff monitor the parking lot for trash,
clear patrons from the parking lot after the bar closed, keep the door to the bar closed so
that noise volume would be reduced, and speak to the individuals who were doing clean
up to quiet down so as not to disturb the neighbors. Since that conversation with Jerry,
a3
I have only received one other complaint about noise from people in the parking lot. The
complaint was related to drunks screaming in the alley way in the early morning hours.
In response to the complaints of noise from property maintenance activities, I spoke with
Kolbly again and asked him to have deliveries made after 8:00 AM. I also asked him to
have property maintenance activities conducted after 8:00 AM. He agreed to do so.
After that conversation, I did receive complaints along with photos of early morning
deliveries and bottles being picked up.
After receiving the January 2006 letter, I also began to make regular inspections of the
parking lot and surrounding area to determine if litter and trash were being left. I drove
by the parking lot as part of my daily visual drive -thru of Balboa Peninsula. It was my
determination that the parking lot and surrounding areas were kept relatively clean. I did
advise Kolbly to have his staff monitor the parking lot, especially at night and early
morning and the trash enclosure. As noted above, I had previously mentioned this to Mr.
Kolbly when speaking to him on the night of February 10`s- I brought the issue up to
ensure Mr. Kolbly was aware of the complaint and so that he could continue to monitor
the parking lot and trash enclosure. Mr. Kolbly stated that he had staff already
monitoring the parking lot but he would speak with them to make sure theykept a closer.
watch.
Lastly, it was noted in the complaint letter that the NBBC operates in a net public area
greater than 1,500 square feet prior to 5 PM daily. I made a visit to the NBBC on
February 22nd and observed that a portion of the bar was cordoned off and closed. On
that day, the portion of the bar that was closed off was just to the right of the patio. I
reported this observation to Jim Campbell, Newport Beach Planning Department.
Matt Cosylion
Code & Water Quality Enforcement Officer
cc: Jim Campbell, Senior Planner
Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney
Jerry Kolbly, NBBC
M
Exhibit No. 3
Police Department Investigation report
45
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
POLICE DEPARTMENT
November 3, 2006
TO: Sgt. R. Vallercamp
FROM: Detective D. Stark
SUBJECT: INVESTIGATIVE REPORT- NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY
Case Initiation:
On 8/22/06, Assistant City Attorney Aaron Harp asked NBPD to assist his office and the
Planning Commission in regards to the Newport Beach Brewing Company (hereinafter.referred
to as NBBC). Mr. Harp identified nine different questions regarding the NBBC abiding by
their Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and asked the Police Department to investigate.
Investigative Results:
The Special Investigations Unit of the NBPD reviewed Patrol related calls from the CAD
System and coordinated with Patrol Officers and shift supervisors to increase their awareness
and the need for documentation of incidents that involve the NBBC. There have not been any
Patrol related problems noted in the last two months. Most Patrol Officers commented that the
NBBC is rarely a problem.
Undercover detectives from Special Investigations visited the NBBC and conducted
surveillances of the surrounding area on six separate occasions to help answer the following
questions.
Questions l - 9:
Question 41 dealt with the possibility of the NBBC being operated as a bar (rather than a
restaurant) on specific days and at specific times, especially between 2200 hours and 0100
hours on Friday and Saturday Nights.
The answer to this is very subjective and probably inconclusive. The NBBC did have on- duty
security employees working. Security employees were present the entire time during each
evening visit by Detectives (8- 31 -06, 9 -1 -06, 9 -2 -06, 9 -3 -06, 9 -8 -06) One security employee
was monitoring the entrance and one or two others were circulating throughout the restaurant.
On 9/8/06, we had a Police Cadet who was 20 years old attempt to enter by herself after 2200
`I
hours. When the door security employee learned she was under 21, he apologized and said,
"We don't let anyone under 21 inside after 2200 hours unless you're with a parent or other
adult." The staff kept the crowd/occupancy at a reasonable level. Even after waiting in line to
enter (after 2300 hours on a Friday night), we found several tables available to sit at. They
served their full menu (appetizers and entrees) until they closed at midnight. They did not have
live entertainment, DJ's or dancing.
Question #2 inquired about the noise being generated by the restaurant.
Investigating officers observed the entire exterior perimeter of the restaurant throughout the
evening and night on five separate dates (Thursday, 8/31/06, Friday, 9/1/06, Saturday, 9/2/06,
Sunday, 9/3/06, and Friday, 9/8/06). The only noise came from the patio area which bordered
Newport Boulevard. The noise was from patrons talking (not from amplified music). The
noise would be drowned out when multiple cars passed the location. The rear or bay side of
the NBBC remained quiet and trouble free during the restaurant's hours of operation.
The only door that remained open was the patio door which faced Newport Boulevard. All
windows were kept closed and on one occasion (9/2/06 at about 2200 hours); when a patron
opened the window, the security staff immediately, responded and closed the window The rear
(bay side) doors, when being used as the entrance /exit, were kept closed except during
ingress/egress of patrons.
Question #3 asked if the NBBC had the proper signs posted inside the establishment.
The Occupancy was clearly displayed on a large sign above the rear door (facing the bay)
reading "Occupancy 160." This number is consistent with the occupancy certificate in our
ABC file. Additionally, there were several signs clearly posted on the interior, side and rear of
the exterior, requesting quiet and respect for the neighbors.
Question #4 dealt with the exterior of the NBBC including the parking lot, sidewalk,
alleys and surrounding areas.
None of the detectives noticed any significant noise or disturbances attributable to the NBBC.
During the late night hours, after the NBBC was closed, we noted several groups of people
returning to their cars from the area of the intersection at Newport Boulevard and 30th Street.
These people would often have loud conversations, however, there was no loitering, drinking,
public urination or other activities observed. The NBBC security staff was observed outside,
monitoring their portion of the parking lot during and after closing time with a flashlight.
Considering the exterior signs, closed windows, movement of the entrance after hours and
patrolling of the rear parking lot, I would say that the NBBC is making a concerted effort to
reduce noise and related problems for their neighbors.
Question #5 asked if the Brewery Employees had received the proper certifications.
On 9/6/06, Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Investigator D. Shaver gave LEAD Program
training (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs) to 17 NBBC employees. The LEAD
�1
Program is a voluntary prevention and education program for California retail alcohol sales
licensees, their employees and applicants. The program length is 3 1/2 hours and the mission
is to provide training on alcohol responsibility and the law. Another training class was
offered on October 4th and 2 more employees attended. The 3 remaining employees who
have not attended this class have been taken off the schedule until they complete the training.
Question #6 dealt with "Calls For Service." Since previous reports have been compiled
prior to 8/10/06, this report will address calls after 8/10/06.
Five calls for service were associated with the NBBC address from 8/10/06 to the present. One
was a traffic stop by a Patrol Officer (unrelated to the NBBC). Another was a noise complaint
by an anonymous caller which Patrol Officers cleared as unfounded.
On 8/19/06 at about 0058 hours, Jill Marcowitz called to report a large group of people yelling
and screaming in the parking lot. Patrol Officers were dispatched at 0124 hours and arrived a
minute later. The Officers cleared after advising that the NBBC was shutting down. It is
unknown if the disturbance was still occurring when officers arrived.
On 9/12/06 at about 0337 hours, Bruce Low called in a: noise disturbance regarding a grease
recovery vehicle that was parked in the alley on the east side of the N13BC and actively
pumping out grease. A Patrol Officer responded at 0339 hours. I spoke with the responding
officer (Dugan) who explained that he arrived as the grease truck had finished pumping. The
noise made by the truck when he was present was minimal. Officer Dugan remained for about
4 minutes until the truck left. I was also forwarded an email regarding this disturbance written
by resident Bruce Low which included photos.
On 9/16/06, an anonymous male cell phone caller reported being assaulted by NBBC security.
Patrol Officers responded and no assault was substantiated. The units observed that the caller
was intoxicated and he left the area. The Officers cleared the scene logging an assist.
Question 47 asks about the line to enter the restaurant.
On the days when investigators entered the NBBC before 2130 hours, the entrance was on the
bay /parking lot side of the restaurant. Depending on the night, sometime around 2130 to 2200
hours, the entrance would be moved to the Newport Boulevard side of the restaurant. Signs
would be placed on the rear entrance doors telling patrons that the entrance was at the front of
the building. They would also place a three foot tall folding sign on the ground in front of the
rear entrance saying the same thing. Signs would also be affixed to the inside of the rear doors
saying, "NOT AN EXIT."
The NBBC would place line delineators along Newport Boulevard to organize and control
patrons waiting in line. A restaurant security employee was at the front of the line monitoring
the occupancy and checking ID's. Lines were observed on several occasions, usually after
2300 hours on Friday and Saturday nights. On a Friday night (9/8/06) at 2300 hours, I waited
in line for about five minutes prior to entry. When I was let inside, there were still three
unoccupied tables.
4
Question #8 asked if litter was present in the parking lot.
Undercover detectives visited the NBBC six times and numerous parking lot and perimeter
checks were conducted. No one observed any trash or other discarded items that would draw
their attention.
Question #9 addressed CUP condition #6, a provision that a portion of the restaurant
remain closed prior to 5 p.m. (reduction in Net Public Area).
Detectives also visited the NBBC during the lunch hour on Wednesday, 8/30/06 at about 1130
hours. They noted that the area in the restaurant adjacent to the brew kettles was the only
section open for the small lunch crowd. The other areas of the bar and restaurant were closed.
On Sunday 10/08/06, Detectives visited the NBBC, arriving at about 1230 hours. They noted
that the restaurant was completely open with patrons occupying tables in all areas (no sections
were closed off). When they arrived, they estimated that the restaurant was 70% full and when
they left at 1430 hours it was 90% full. The. primary attraction that day was NFL Football.
The rear; parking lot entrance doors remained closed when not being used foc: ingress /egress
and no unreasonable noise was emanating from the establishment.
qc�
CONDITIONS:
2.
Exhibit No. 4
Recommended changes to the conditions of approval
The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below.
3. The applicant shall provide a minimum of one parking space for each 50 square
feet of net public area before 5:00 p.m. and one parking space for each 40 square
feet of net public area after 5:00 p.m. in conjunction with the restaurant/brewpub.
4. Deleted
Council, gua nimurn a .1. parking spaGes shall be provide
The property owner shall pay for 29 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village
Municipal Parking Lot on an annual basis for the nighttime operation (after 5:00
p.m.) of the restaurant/brewpub use as agreed upon by the Sales Agreement
between the City of Newport Beach and the property owner.
6. The net public area of the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime use
Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,500 square feet.
The balance of the net public area shall be physically closed off to the public by a
fixed barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m. daily.
7. The hours of operation for the restaurant/brewpub shall be limited to the hours
between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and between 6:00
a.m. and 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
8. All employees shall park either in the privately owned off -site parking area or in one
of the municipal parking lots in the area.
9. The operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be
ancillary to the pr4ery-food service operation of the restaurant -(e.g. the brewery
and the service of alcoholic beverages may not be conducted without the
gross sales of food during the same period The operator shall at all times maintain
records which reflect separately the gross sales of food and the gross sales of
alcoholic beverages. Said records shall be kept no less freguently that on a
quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Planning Director on demand.
56
10. The principal use authorized by this Use Permit is T; Gv ! f *this Use 2efn ?!
is -for restaurant/brewpub. The accessory operation of a bar is permitted provided
that the kitchen remains open for the service of meals and that a full menu is
provided. This Use Permit aPA -shall not be construed as the approval of a bar,
cocktail lounge, or other use with the principal purpose of serving alcoholic
beverages during hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours {feed
pFeduGts sold OF sewed inoidentally tG the sale OF seFv*re Gf alGeholir. beverages
sha" Rat be deemed as raenstitutiRg 'ameal servire nor as the approval of a
cabaret, nightclub, or other use with the principal purpose of providing live
entertainment and /or dancing. The kitchen of the restaurant/brewpub shall be in
operation to serve meals at all times that the business is open. A full meal menu
(including the service of those meals ordered) shall be made available. Menus and
condiments shall be available at the tables at all times.
11. No outdoor loudspeakers or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with
the proposed location.
12. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow
direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless
otherwise approved by the Building Department.
13. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the
satisfaction of the Building Department.
14. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from surrounding
public streets and alleys and adjoining properties. The existing trash enclosure
shall be covered and the doors or gates to the enclosure shall be modified to be
self - closing and self - locking for security.
■ -
and underground utilities shal -waived-.
16. Should prerecorded music be played within the restaurant facility, such music shall
be confined to the interior of the building, and all doors and windows shall be kept
closed while such music is played.
17. A special events permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the
normal operational characteristics of this restaurant business that would attract
large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site
media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to require such permits.
18. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any
future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by
either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing company.
19. The parking lot entrance to the building shall not be used as an entrance after 9PM
when a queue forms.
J
20. The operator shall_ discourage loitering on site at all times the establishment is
open or employees or owners are present
21. The operator shall conspicuously post and maintain signs indicating to patrons to
be courteous to residential neighbors while outside the establishment
22. The applicant shall prepare a detailed security operations plan within 45 days of
approval of this amendment to the Use Permit The security operations plan shall
be subject to the review and approval of the Police Department and Planning
use conflicts. When security services are required pursuant to the security
operations plan, security shall be provided whenever necessary and a minimum of
1 hour after the posted closing hour.
23. Deliveries and property maintenance activities shall not be conducted between
8PM and 8AM daily. Property maintenance activities include and is not limited to
trash pickup, recycling disposal and pickup, grease trap cleaning cooking oil
recycling brewery servicing deliveries cleaning or general building maintenance
24. The use shall maintain a Type 23 or a Type 75 license to sell alcoholic beverages
from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. No other license type
shall be permitted without review and approval by the Planning Commission.
25. Live entertainment and dancing shall be prohibited without an amendment to this
Use Permit and a Live Entertainment Permit and/or a Cafe Dance permit issued by
the City Manager's Office.
26. The operator shall not prohibit persons under the age of 21 from entering the
establishment.
27. This Use Permit shall �e reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public
determination that the use directly causes or is contributing to conditions found to
be detrimental to the community (this provision shall not be construed to diminish
the City's ability to enforce this use Permit or any aspect of the Municipal Code)
STANDARD CITY REQUIREMENTS:
A. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards,
unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
B. Signs and displays shall not obstruct the sales counter, cash register, seller and
customer from view from the exterior.
C. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC.
5a-
D. The applicant shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable
conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks, alleys and areas
surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties must be taken
during business hours if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic
beverage outlet.
E. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and
graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash,
litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20
feet of the premises.
F. All owners, managers and employees serving and /or selling alcoholic beverages
shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible
methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet
the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the
California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other
certifying /licensing body, which the State may designate. The operator shall
days of the approval of this amendment and new employees shall successfully
shall comply ... ith Olee i—e-1-u-imem. ents of this seGtion within 180 days of the
complete the training within 30 days of initially starting_ work.
sate ef- essupansy:
G. The project w!4-shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code for commercial kitchen grease disposal.
H. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code.
This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the
terms of this chapter shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless
a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date.
J. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building
permits.
K. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use
Permit upon a determination that this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to
the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
53
Exhibit No. 5
Draft Resolution
(to be submitted under separate cover)