Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc minutes 060707Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Draft Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 17 DRAP T file: //F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC MinutesUnn06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren: All Present STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None is None FT%TING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on June 1, 2007. HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of May 3, 2007. Continue to Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by 06/21/2007 Commissioner Peotter to Continue this item to 0612112007. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Absence: None SUBJECT: 3 Thirty 3 Waterfront (PA2007 -004) ITEM NO. 2 333 Bayside Drive PA2007 -004 An application for an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit to allow the truction and operation of a 636 square foot outdoor dining area in nction with the existing full - service restaurant. Patrick Alford, Senior Planner, noted that Outdoor Dining Permits are normally approved at staff level, but in this instance due to an issue regarding waterfront restaurants, this item has been brought to the Planning file: //F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC MinutesUnn06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 Page 2 of 17 mmission for determination. The issue involves a policy directive on terfront restaurants that requires an acoustical study using the City's ise Control Or finance. Staff is concerned that there is a gap between wt requi met►f d the findings needed to approve an Accessory Outdoor that it be detrimental to the health, safety, cifically not ag;mfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the ighborhood. The study shows the project would not exceed the noise indards for residential areas; however, staff is concerned about the pacts dealing with the nature of the noise and the possibility of single ent noise rising to the level of disturbing the peace of the community. An lependent review of the acoustical study was done by Fred Greve o Wre Greve Associates who found that the noise while not loud, would be rceived by the adjacent neighborhood and considered an annoyance. erefore, staff does not feel the finding for an Accessory Outdoor Dining rmit, namely the finding that the establishment would not be detrimental the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of people residing the neighborhood, could be made. iairman Cole noted that this item was brought to the Planning >mmission because staff did not feel that this was a clear issue. r. Lepo noted that upon review of the minutes of the 1998 Planning )mmission meeting regarding a discussion on the need for an acoustical .idy, there was nothing in the record giving direction regarding the noise ialysis and the outdoor dining required findings. Staff is asking for you gut on what would be an appropriate standard. In this instance, sta • kes the position that the outdoor dining ordinance is the prevailing ^ection on this. Typically there have been buildings between the outdoor ning and nearby residences. 3mmissioner McDaniel asked how many times this had been approved. r. Lepo answered that this had been approved twice by staff in the past. :)mmissioner Hawkins noted the interior noise levels per General Plan )licy N1.1 require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise ivironment through use of Table N2 and enforce the interior and exterior )ise standards shown in Table N3. He asked how this project will comp) ith both the interior and exterior noise standards that are on Table N3. r. Lepo answered those noise standards require 55 CNEL at the property ie for residential districts that reduces to 50 CNEL at night time and this )plication would be consistent with that particular policy. The interior quirement in the California Building Code for 40 -45 CNEL is typically for .w construction with the windows closed. ommissioner Hawkins clarified that staff is interpreting the interior noise Acy is for new residential construction compliance. • r. Lepo noted the 45 CNEL interior standard is typically for ne >nstruction and is from the California Code but it would also apply to ne >es where there are existing sensitive uses. file:/ /F: \Users\PLNMShared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\rmi06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 Page 3 of 17 ICommissioner Hillgren asked about the parking. po noted that the proviso for the outdoor dining, as long as it is not nent weather -tight enclosure, allows up to 25% or 1,000 square fe net area without providing additional parking. ommissioner Hillgren asked about the acoustical study. Referring to table„ he asked about the time of day this would refer to. Lepo stated both Mr. Wieland and Mr. Greve could answer that. missioner Eaton asked if the floor plan attached in the 2006 the same as provided in this staff report. He asked what has ( seen the approval of 2006 and the recommended denial tonight. Lepo answered the difference is his interpretation of the standards ly in this matter. Reading the Outdoor Dining provision of peace e ifort, it appeared to override the Noise Ordinance. Also included are I ites from the 1998 report which has no clear direction. He determir this needed to be brought to the Planning Commission for discuss judgment, which will set a precedent for all future cases. immissioner Eaton noted the facility seems to be fully enclosed on thr( es with a roof and almost becomes a full -on dining operation without rking requirement. What would be the limit on what is allowed f Ldoor dining? What about operable windows? -epo answered the Code applicable to outdoor dining specifically sa; cannot have a weather -tight enclosure. Weather -tight would be for ianent structure under the Building Code that could be heated ai E)d as well as be weather - tight. nmissioner Eaton asked when this was adopted. Mr. Lepo answi f did not look into that. Discussion continued on compliance ifornia Codes regarding heating and cooling and the nature of the h roofing material. imissioner Hawkins noted the assumption is that there is a roof th Id comply with the Building Code and windows on three sides. Doi turn this into a part of the restaurant structure as opposed to ancilla rior dining? Lepo answered it is not weather - tight, and that is the term used in )mmissioner Peotter discussed the draft resolution for denial even thou meets the Noise Ordinance, and the wording to possibly replace tl noking area. Why isn't there a resolution for approval so we have N OFLepo added that a resolution for approval would make the finding fo number 2 of the Outdoor Dining Ordinance that the configuration of thei structure of the outdoor dining area will allow the Commission to make the finding that the operation would not disturb the peace and comfort of th file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 Page 4 of 17 ,idents nearby. That is the finding that needs to be made for the Outdoor ling which is different from complying with the Noise Ordinance. . Garcia, Senior Planner noted with regards to the configuration of the tdoor dining in relation to the original submittal in 1995, the plans are sically the same. The only change was the dimension perpendicular to a bay that has been reduced; however, the width remains at about 28 A. The elevations included are the same and the roof structure is a truss Stem with fabric in between the trusses. It is not weather tight. The front the bay is a solid wall with operable windows. With the original 1995 plication staff had recommended solid walls like Mama Gina's has. The plicant met with the Planning Director at that time and they discussed the idows being opened during the day. We then included conditions that luired they be closed at 7 p.m. with tamper -proof latches so that patron uld not operate them. iairman Cole affirmed that in the evening with that condition the only and would then come out from the areas in the roof that were open. iairman Cole clarified that parking is not an issue for deliberation and no ditional conditions can be made. Staff agreed noting that would be ntrary to the intent of the Outdoor Dining Ordinance. ff Reuter, applicant noted the following: All smokers are to be outside the restaurant per California laws; Small patio to be enclosed except the roof for the smokers; • If this application is not approved, those smokers will continue to be out in the parking lot; Beneficial for everyone to have an enclosed patio area with no music, no television, no barstools, no microphone system, simply outdoor sit -down dining; We have moved the valet parking to the other side of the building so that the building blocks the noise; By moving the smokers upstairs, the noise will be contained in an enclosed environment; Introduced a petition signed by numerous patrons and noted the signees from Linda Isle. He noted the legend used on the petition with green for the patio and yellow not wanting the patio; Existing noise also comes from boats that are in front of the restaurant; unless the Harbor Patrol is called, the noise will not quiet down; This small patio will take care of a majority of the sound. ,mmissioner McDaniel noted this had been approved twice in the pas d asked why didn't somebody build then? If this is approved, what is our arantee that it will be built this time? What kind of parking is available? �w long has a restaurant been at this location? What is the distance from restaurant to the residents across the water? • Reuter answered: Following the original approval there was a disagreement on who would pay for the improvements between the tenant and th landlord. It was re- instated for a second and a third period where the file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 permit was extended. When we went to use the permit, we were t by staff there were new issues that needed to be addressed and we have to start over. This is a $750,000 project to enclose the smokers below and solve the problem and the landlord has agreed to fund the patio. Parking is not an issue. We have an agreement with the office n door to use their parking at night. Additionally, we have hired Ma Gina's valet company and provide no charge for parking. That location has been a restaurant for over 40 years. The distance between the restaurant and the residents across water is about 215 feet. Dmmissioner Hawkins noted there is no recorded parking agreement, verbal agreement that could be revoked at any time. Reuter answered, yes but this is not an issue. If it became an is: landlord of the shopping center across the street has offered to rent dnq lot. imissioner Hawkins confirmed for the record that the petition ten Linda Isle residents' signatures. Discussion continued on: No smoking outside the patio area with enforcement as a possi condition; •Withdrawal when application was appealed by the Linda I residents in early 2007; Noise problems; Potential for a new policy for no re -entry to lessen the impact noise once patrons leave the facility; Food service until closing; Security; Application is to provide a smoking area for patrons as well as Saturdays and Sundays during the day to provide an outdoor din experience; Potential conditions to retain this as a smoking area only, and completely enclose the area so as to become dining only; Removal of a table at night in this area to provide room for smokers to mill about; Possible reduction of the seating capacity in the application; State Code requirements for an open smoking area being met; Hostess seating and informing patrons of smoking area. Mr. David Wieland of Wieland Associates, noted: Numbers cited 55.1 dBA to 70.4 dBA in the table located on page of the staff report are ambient noise sources, such as traffic c streets and aircraft overhead; The restaurant currently generates maximum noise levels of 50 dE •to 66 dBA compared with the standard which is 75 dBA; Explained the noise tables using the old noise levels and the ne noise levels and the differences; Interior standards referred to are the transportation noise standarc CNEL and are used to mitigate traffic noise; City has interior noise standards in the Municipal Code, Chapt Page 5 of 17 fil e : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 Page 6 of 17 2.26; however, the standards are specifically for a residential unit impacting a residential unit and do not address a commercial noise source impacting a residential noise source and therefore, was no considered in his report. • blic comment opened. Dubrow, local resident noted: Yankee Tavern noise was contained within the building and since Thirty 3 has taken over, there has been unbelievable noise generation from both parking and smoking areas; Smoking area is relatively confined and will accommodate only about 8 or 10 people; Noise will generate across the 215 feet and during the summer we like to open our windows and enjoy our backyards and do not wan the extra noise being generated by that restaurant to interfere with their outdoor enjoyment; Only this side of the island will be impacted by the noise with the sail cloth roof and openings; To add to the already current noise problems with the raised tone oll people who have been drinking we don't think is right; The noise is coming from the parking lot and smoking area; More people will make the current problem worse; Complaints have been made both to the restauranteur and to the Police Department; Noise from the valet includes people yelling for their cars, talking in loud voices at a raised level, people yelling to each other such as to • be heard across the bay; Noise also comes from the boaters, particularly the loud music; Moving the valet portion has diminished the noise somewhat, but there is still noise; Noise levels happen with spikes that disturb people. ,mmissioner McDaniel noted that this level of noise seems to be within s level of tolerances that are allowed for noise. �nald McCalla, local resident noted the following concerns in opposition to proposed project: Neighbors do not object to the outdoor dining during the day but are concerned about what happens later in the evening with the noise; Closing hour on weekends is 11 p.m. and we are awakened with noise events when the valet is not quick enough or the smokers are particularly vocal and try to talk over each other; 3 Thirty 3 is a martini bar; Have called the restaurant to complain about the noise and the interior noise was so loud that the bartender couldn't hear me on the telephone; We appreciate that the valet stand was moved as it has significant) lessened noise generation; These noises don't happen every night but when it does you're u • and we don't know what to do and it is frustrating; A sail cloth will not contain the kind of yelling that we are talking about; Can't believe that a commercial use is allowed to make more noise file: / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 than a residential use to another residence. ,nmission inquiry he noted a mostly enclosed improvement would the noise any better than with an open roof. The building itself is ated and the noise that we hear is from the outside. The for :ion, The Yankee Tavern, closed at 10 p.m. not at 2 a.m. This a problem at all. McDaniel noted if this isn't approved, what you have now the same. McCalla answered he would rather have what is there now than c t he thinks he is going to get. The proposed project will not be better. iissioner Hawkins asked if the closing hours were altered such would there still be opposition to this application? McCalla answered as long as it was controlled; however, the is the worst time. in opposition to the project for similarly stated issues: Benvenuti, local resident, added that he has been awakened mai during the night; home is completely sound attenuated as his home the flight path; concerned about enforcement of the change of hou iration; they deserve to run a successful business but not at our co: �m not with the smokers but with people during valet operations. idy McCalla, local resident, added she prefers the problems they hav( e rather than face something that could possibly be more profound. Inge in the hours will not be a barrier to the noise coming from thf king lot. If it did end at dusk that would be more agreeable if this is wha are going to have to face but would rather not face it at all. 1h Randolph, local resident, added that the change in hours would 1 smokers back outside so the same noise problem would occur, so ild not make a difference; sound test was done from his back yard ad he what the projected sound would be after adding people or Lloyd, local resident, added she has a summer home used for ation and fun and wants to be able to enjoy it but can't due ann Benvenuti, local resident, added that putting an additional 48 peon that small an area patio 215 feet away from her bedroom, the additior and is going to resonate; has called the police many times; restaurant autiful but is much nosier now; according to the proposed plan this will ed above the existing parking places and will be a second level bar w tonal sound coming across the water; lines form to enter ft > aurant during the summer; sound tests were done during the wins mths and the result would be significantly different if done during t mmer months; service out to the new patio area will result in not minq from inside the restaurant when the doors are opened as Page 7 of 17 file : //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn06- 07- 07.htm 06/1512007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 Page 8 of 17 he noise from the additional 48 patio patrons. Discussion continued on possible conditions related to hours and materials used if this project was approved. • Frank Battaile, lawyer representing the Benvenutis, McCallas and Mr. ubrow noted: There is an interior noise standard and nothing in the Chapter state it applies to residential noise impacting other residences; it is the same noise standard that applies to any kind of noise from any kind of construction; The noise study does not mention the interior noise standards; they is no way you can approve this until they have attempted to address the interior noise standard; The staff report notes that a finding has to be made that the establishment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of these residents; meeting average noise standards, you can't make this required finding due to the spikes in the noise; Referring to page 93 in the packet, he referenced the data from a previous study done last spring; noise measurements were taken inside the restaurant; discussion continued on decibels and time; Referring to page 67 he discussed the dBA listings; A review of Wieland Associates Noise Analysis Report was done by Sam Lane, Ph.D. that notes the number 90 dBA is consistent) referred to and should be taken into account especially as the noise is taken outside The residents have a genuine problem and ask for assistance from • the Commission. t Commission inquiry he noted that there may be a way if the hours are hanged plus other conditions such as absolutely closing the downstairs smoking area so that all of them would move would help to alleviate the residents' concems. ommissioner Hawkins, referring to Code Section 10.26.030 interior noise tandards, read "the following noise standard, unless otherwise indicated, shall apply to all residential property within all noise zones." It looks as i he interior noise levels are exactly as the expert stated, residential on residential. The General Plan standards are somewhat at odds with that Code. Mr. Battaile opined the Zoning Code section applies to all residential property and doesn't say anything about limiting it as far as what the sours f the noise is. The Ordinance does not say anything about the source. The General Plan seems to say that is not a limitation. Discussion continued on where the measurements should be made, criteria, conditions, standards of acoustical measurements, common nois practices. Am �ppearing in support of the project: Gary Diehl, local resident noted his support for the application stating it i file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn06- 07- 07.1ttm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 to be able to have an outdoor dining experience. Problems noted ous speakers seem to be coming from an area that is not going ge at all. This patio should be the point at hand and it will not Salyer, local resident noted: The City hired an expert, Mr. Greve, who has laid out the concer on noise emanating from this patio; The levels he estimates (page 10) for the maximum noise levels the residences due to the outdoor dining activities will generally around 47 dBA. During loud events, peak noise levels from pa dining could be as high as 57 dBA. Both levels are clearly w below the City's guidelines; The report on the noise that exists today is lower than the aircr that fly over, motorcycles, and cars; these noises are higher th what is projected to come from the patio dining area; Focusing on the noise levels you have to use what your expert giv you. • comment was closed. Greve of Mestre Greve Associates, noted: The City has interior standards as part of the Noise Ordinance; Standard requires that the indoor noise levels not be greater than dBA at the nighttime period what starts at 10:00 p.m., nor grey than 45dBA during the daytime hours; these are measured v windows open; The outside noise criteria is usually more stringent as m dwellings, even with windows open, you get an outside /inside no reduction of about 12dBA; The noise standard that would apply during the daytime or evening would be the 55dBA outside and 45dBA inside and the m stringent is the 55dBA outside. Commission inquiry, he noted: • The proposed project will satisfy the interior noise requirements w the conditions of no music, windows closed around the perimeter the balcony areas, etc. resulting in less noise levels for the inter and exterior levels at the residences; The level of annoyance is often a very subjective response and r based on how loud the noise is; Historically in the City these outdoor dining areas have received a of complaints along the bay area; the Noise Ordinance by its probably wasn't stringent enough in controlling these sources a the Planning Commission recognized this in the past; Some crowds are noisier than others; for the typical crowd we saying that the noise levels would be less; in the evening, the not levels from Pacific Coast Highway decrease and the ambient not levels drop particularly after 9:00 p.m. and appears that noise tf occurs on the outside patio area is going to be heard over at t residences, not continuously as there will be interruptions due traffic, etc. but will be heard on a regular basis, and that will Page 9 of 17 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning COmmission\PC Minutes\nM06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 Page 10 of 17 annoying to the residences; When you cut down the size of the patio area you will have fewer people generating noise tending to have less of a synergistic effect noise; that result could be achieved with a reduction of 50% and would take it down to a small and intimate setting and could keep the • loud events down and reduce the noise heard over at the residences; The noise generated from the patio area will travel up and bend around the top of the noise barrier and go to the residences; when it bends around it loses some of its acoustical energy; putting a solid roof on there, it will be like having the noise inside a building, and reduce the noise to 20 -22 dBA; The ambient noise levels would drop if the hours were curtailed and the size was reduced; No noise level measurements were taken on interior noises heard during food service to outside dining area but it is anticipated to be fairly small unless it is a very big door; Suggested mitigation measures for outside noise could be moving a smoking area to the opposite side of the building from the residents and the building used as a noise barrier as well as some sort of Plexiglas or noise barrier to stop noise from parking lot area toward the residences; Cumulative affects would happen if peak noise events happen at the same time. The noise levels projected to occur from the outdoor patio area are sufficiently below those that are occurring in the parking lot and would not add significantly together; You don't get the same reduction of noise as traveling across a grass field and that is accounted for in the noise projections. • :ommissioner Toerge noted that in previous applications, noise coming rom the inside during service to outside dining areas has been quite - ignificant. He asked the interior seating capacity. This is an older Use 'ermit that was approved 20 -25 years ago and they have the right to d what they are doing there. The evolution from the "Yankee Tavern" to a ,outh oriented clientele may be louder and more boisterous. This is a 40% :xpansion application of an existing business that is currently causing ome detrimental occurrences in the area. It defies logic that would cause :ss noise, even with the barricades and the smoking issues. It will be mited by its capacity and not by lack of clientele as it becomes more lopular. The service personnel going in and out of the location weren't evaluated in the noise study and knowing how loud it can be during the :vening with the door opening consistently has to be evaluated. However, will add to the noise and will be a significant impact. He cannot make the riding that this application would not be detrimental to the peace and omfort of those residences and will be supporting staffs recommendation f denial. :ommissioner Hawkins noted the staff report indicates the net public area a little over 2500 square feet and 40% would be over 1000. • 4r. Reuter noted that they have 111 seats but they are allowed to have up 184 seats. It would be a 12% not 40% increase. Lssistant City Attorney Harp noted that interior noise ordinance position is file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Plwming Commission\PC Minutes\mn06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 it applies to commercially generated noise on residences. The specia dard from 100 feet doesn't apply but Mr. Greve's assessment wa( irate. Chapter 10.26.030 applies to any noise sources. Wimissioner Hawkins noted maybe we could condition this applicati( mg the perimeter on the bulkhead. Being awakened during the late nig urs with noise generated is problematic. He suggested a discussion ( citation on size of outdoor structure, hours of operation and other noi: enuation for the existing parking lot problem. nmissioner McDaniel noted this had been previously approved and ni is an opportunity to possibly give some relief. The applicant believ the noise is coming from the smoking area and it doesn't seem to case as the previous speakers have stated it comes from the parki I agree with getting some sound attenuation and relief from what e now; it will be good for everyone. There also needs to be some bet unity handling those people in the parking lot and if that means nge the hours of operation, I am open to making changes to make ti k for everyone; otherwise, I would be against this application as I ( vinced that this issue is not just the smoking. immissioner Hillgren noted his agreement and that the proposed desit quite handsome so the potential addition is a good opportunity. H ncern is the parking. Is the patio not enclosed so we don't have to a( ditional parking and so not have it counted as interior space, is that < f e? Or, is it really to solve smoking issue, which strikes me now as escreen that has us a little confused. We are a City where we doi smoking on the beaches so the concept of now having a smokir :a by outdoor dining doesn't hit me as great planning. r. Harp noted that smoking is banned on the beaches and the interior iy business including restaurants. There are some exceptions to the ru ich as a family -owned business but it gets complicated and depends ( a ownership and who is working there. Those State Laws were enact( imarily to protect workers in the restaurants from the second hand smol the customers. My understanding is that outdoor smoking, as long as not enclosed, is fine. immissioner Hillgren noted that the applicant is willing to spend o ,000 per square foot on the addition, but this is an opportunity to sc smoking issue and perhaps spend some of the money for sot enuation outdoors as that seems to be where the issues are. It would :e to set up something that would allow a peaceful coexistence betw( two and by doing that it would be better for all. Chairman Cole noted a list of the suggestions so far: Making closing hours earlier; Building a sound barrier of some sort below in the smoking area; •Reducing the capacity of the expansion either in size and /or se; capacity; Increase security; Move smoking area. Reuter answered that: Page 11 of 17 file: //F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 Page 12 of 17 He would agree that from the bottom side of the patio down to the bulkhead to be enclosed off with safety glass but none of the othe area along the bulkhead as it would be a major financial expenditure; Not willing to reduce the size of the patio; • Would remove two tables to reduce seating on the patio; Would make the patio covering permanent; Can't move the smoking area to the valet area due to congestion; Not willing to reduce the hours. 4r. Lepo noted that the roof cannot be permanent on the patio area. Qr. Harp noted that the Use Permit is not part of the deliberation before the 'tanning Commission so whatever conditions are suggested and agreed pon would only relate to the outdoor dining area. �t Commission inquiry, Mr. Reuter noted his belief is that the noise is oming from the smoking area. He controls the security and we do the best to can to control the smokers as they are right next to the bulkhead and ie patrons in the parking lot are at least 20 feet into the parking lot. The uilding blocks at least 90% of the valet people. There are 100% of the mokers at the bulkhead. :ommissioner McDaniel noted the neighbors say noise is coming from eople standing in line waiting to get in and people trying to get their cars houting at each other. There has to be some relief in this issue. Ir. Reuter answered he will do whatever the Commission wants such as • dditional security, etc. If the Commission wants, all the smokers can be by ie valet or upstairs in the room. :ommissioner Eaton noted that this project as previously approved had ours on the patio to 10 p.m. during the week and 11 p.m. Friday and laturday. He asked if these could be reduced. 1r. Reuter answered he doesn't know how it will pencil out. The patio will elp the lunch crowd, but he needs a certain amount of hours to pay the ebt. Dinner is over at 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and Friday and Saturday at 11 p.m. We are a full service restaurant and always intended ie patio to be a dinner place. lotion was made by Commissioner Peotter to direct staff to come back tith a resolution of approval using the staff report approved on February 5, 2006, using the 22 conditions of approval and adding conditions for o smoking outside on property and valet service on street side of the uilding. lotion failed due to lack of a second. :ommissioner Eaton noted that this is a significant expansion of the dining rea particularly with the number of seats and the additional related noise • rill increase. The problem is the late evening hours and he would approve its if it had a limit of 9 p.m. closing. lotion was made by Commissioner Toerge that the Planning Commissio file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Plwming Commission\PC Minutes\nui06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit 2007 -001 based upon the .t is too great and it does not meet the findings necessary. failed due to lack of a second. ommissioner McDaniel suggested trying to approve this with the appre 2006 adding that the conditions for glass on the patio area and closed smokers; Harp noted that the applicant could agree to have the Use nded to bring it up to today's standards. ssioner McDaniel agreed and continued that the outdoor patio dii be closed at 9 p.m. every day. Commissioner Peotter seconded Harp noted that the conditions from the Use Permit allow for that type c lification because the on -site vehicle circulation and pedestria .elation are subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. on is to use the February 2006 staff approval conditions and have s e back with a resolution for approval with further conditions includ ng the outdoor patio at 9 p.m. every day, the glass enclosure below i facility, and four feet of angled glass above the proposed portion roof subject to the Acoustical engineer's review, and moving king area by the valet parking area, and reducing the seating capa iissioner Hillgren noted it would be appropriate to have the c the front edge to mitigate the sound from folks congregating it g lot. If the patio closes at 9 p.m. it is not necessary to have final four feet of glass at the roof as we have managed this thr< ions. Perhaps an option would be closing at 10 p.m. if we are at ate the sound by the glass on the front wall. imissioner McDaniel noted that the applicant may want to come bac ask to extend their hours and so if we get it now, it would be better. M t would be to include the glass across the entire 100 foot parking area. iissioner Peotter suggested having the dining portion of the at 9 but allow them to use that patio area as a smoking area w hol service. This way they would not be standing in the parking and the patio area is more or less sound attenuated. McDaniel noted he would agree to this. imissioner Toerge noted that we know the bulk of these alleged Code itions, we don't have inspectors or code enforcement available at nigh the police can't handle these. This is what the residents are asking tc Curtailed. When the conditions mount up to such a point that is futil( becomes unenforceable then we have to look at the project. ,nissioner Hillgren noted he could not support the patio as a after hours. Page 13 of 17 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\nm06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 Cole asked for consensus: - 9 p.m. stop service and close patio at 9:30 p.m.; I glass roof needed above the partition enclosure; seats; iss below the new addition; oking area by valet area iissioner Hawkins noted he could not support the motion as borhood issue is very difficult and we cannot condition this so that will be ameliorated. ian Cole noted that staff will come back with a resolution for conditions: - 9 p.m. stop service and close patio at 9 :30 p.m.; seats iss below the new addition coking area by valet area attenuated by the building r. Reuter noted he would like to see the hour close at 10 p.m. seven week with service stopped at 9 p.m. Hawkins, Toerge : Review of Preliminary Capital Improvement Program aiminary Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 Capital Improvement Pr isistency with the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and nning policy documents. Planner Patrick Alford noted the City Charter gives the duty to ng Commission to make recommendations to the City Council >ed public works projects. The preliminary Capital Improvers im is now being considered and it would be appropriate to review, m against the City's policies namely the various elements of al Plan and the LCP Coastal Land Use Plan. A table has b, ed for consideration that ties with these policies. Staffs rev no inconsistencies with the General Plan or the LCP Land Use P er, there are new policies that haven't been adopted that c< e guidance on how these projects could be carried out. Toerge referred to: Bridge seismic retrofit construction - there are two bridges ind it calls out for three bridges; where is the third? Will this issue ire the Planning Commission? Mr. Brine answered that there are two bridges on Jamboree. and ft third is the Goldenrod Avenue pedestrian bridge over Bayside Drive. Mr. Lepo answered it is not a Planning issue. Only Recommended for approval by City Council Page 14 of 17 n U • • file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\xnn06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 - Coast Highway sidewalk, Morning Canyon Road to Seaward - is or an improvement to existing? Irine answered that the project recently completed was done ng Canyon to Cameo Shores and this is a project between Sec Morning Canyon on the same side of the street as pre Iris Avenue and Coast Highway traffic signal - not determined to ing or signalized and is a budget item. Not in favor of a signal •s a potential flashing traffic crossing. imissooner Hawkins asked if any environmental review had been the was answer was no. Traffic signal projects do not require it. Cole asked about the timeframe for these projects. Brine answered these are budget items for 2007 -2008 and there ;dules for each project. The intent is to complete them in this missioner Eaton noted the Commission should address consistent City policy only. He commented that the General Plan does call f1 onmental documentation on the Semeniuk Slough because it is onmental study area and has been assured by staff that the Publ z will do that, on was made by Commissioner Eaton and seconded missioner Hawkins that the implementation of the Capital Improveme ram was determined to be consistent with City policy documents and nmended to City Council provided that a biological study is conduct' the Semeniuk Slough dredging project consistent with tl onmental Study Area designation of the site. None None •x,r Albertson's Market NO. on compliance with Use Permit conditions of approval. I Only stant Planner Russell Bunim gave an overview of his memo regarc plaints on deliveries and employee parking. The owner of the ma not been complying with these conditions. Staff has spoken with ager and he will address them by obtaining parking permits loyees who need them; he will tell his receiver not to accept deli, re 7 a.m. and not allow maintenance workers to start before 7 i will keep the chain locked on the service bay. Staff believes that rtson's manager is aware of the conditions and intends to comply, Toerge noted that this serves as evidence that the Page 15 of 17 file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 )osition of conditions does not necessarily cure or solve the impact: ,ociated with an expanded or modified use permit. These violations hac be called out by a resident. He suggested that rather rely on the idents to call this back again, that we give this applicant a reasonable ount of time to comply and then perform the same activity again, look a' record to see if they have bought the permits, have the code orcement look at the timing of deliveries and to check for compliance. months would be an appropriate time. n continued on truck deliveries, follow -up in a year. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded loner Toerge to receive and file with a check -up in a year. Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City -Council Follow_Up Mr. Lepo noted that at the last meeting, the City Council continu the revocation and /or modification of operation of the Newp Brewery Company to July 10th; a special meeting was held on M 30th for the purpose of considering the extension of the moratoria on group homes, sober homes, probation, halfway houses, transitory, uses as well as short-term vacation rentals. Based on t evidence presented it was decided to extend the moratorium I release from the moratorium the short -term vacation rentals as the are provisions in the Ordinance regulating these rentals. The C will take additional action on the moratorium and bring back revision to Title 20 to the Planning Commission for consideration the next meeting on the 21st to look at the potential for regulati those various uses with a use permit. Report from Planning Commission's representative to Development Committee Commissioner Hawkins reported that there has been no meeting there will be one on the 20th and discussion will be on the Strat Development Plan. Rep—ort from .the. Planning—Commission's _representative to _ General Plan /Local Coastal. Program Implementation Committee Commissioner Eaton reported on the issues of grade, height and I Technical Advisory Committee suggested possible ways to addre those issues. We have referred those suggestions to staff and I consulting team for their review. Commissioner Toerge noted at another meeting they addressed I community character issue that is in the General Plan. Employi design guidelines or standards was discussed. Discussi Page 16 of 17 0 • file : / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\tnn06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/2007 continued. d. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to th • Intensive Residential Occunan�Committee Commissioner Toerge noted there had been no meeting. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report o atsubseauent meeting None. f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wis4 to place on future agenda for action and staff report Discussion on the dates and reports on the moratorium. It wa requested that an expert in the field be present. Project status None. 1. Re jests for excused absences None. OURNMENT IN MEMORY OF ROSEMARIE HAWKINS: 10:05 p.m. DJOURNMENT ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • Page 17 of 17 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn06- 07- 07.htm 06/15/2007