Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSalud Restaurant (PA2005-027) 211 62nd StCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 5 July 21, 2005 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner jmm urillo(&city. newport- beach.ca.us (949) 644 -3209 SUBJECT: Planning Director's Use Permit No. 2005 -005 Salud Restaurant, 211 62nd Street (PA 2005 -027) APPLICANT: Michael Hoskinson, Property Owner APPELLANT: Nicholas Hamilton, 215 62nd Street BACKGROUND On June 6, 2005, the Planning Director approved Use Permit No. 2005 -005 to change an existing take -out restaurant to a full - service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment. Additionally, the use permit approval consists of a change in hours of operation to change the closing hour from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm and to allow the addition of the second -floor office that would be utilized by restaurant personnel. The additional floor area requested necessitates an approval to allow the overall project to exceed the permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50 up to a maximum FAR of 0.62 for the proposed enlarged building. The existing take -out restaurant was originally approved under Use Permit No. 2081 by the Planning Commission on May 6, 1982. The use permit authorized the establishment of a take -out restaurant and was later amended on March 24, 1984 to add incidental beer and wine service. In conjunction with the original use permit approval, the Planning Commission also approved 2. of the on -site parking spaces for the take -out restaurant and waived 20 parking spaces. Additionally, the use permit required that no additional parking spaces need be provided beyond the total of 8 spaces provided for the entire site. The use permit also allowed interior seating for 29 persons (unless otherwise restricted by the Fire Department), and permitted the hours of operation to be 11:00 am to 10:00 pm. The Kind Grind Restaurant, which is located next door to the subject restaurant, was originally established as an ice cream shop by Use Permit No. 2036, on November 19, 1981. The facility is located in the subject building and will remain in its current location. N Salud Restaurant July 21, 2005 Page 3 Site /Proiect Overview Located at the southwest corner of Newport Shores Drive and 62nd Street in the Newport Shores Speck Area Plan, the subject property consists of two rectangular lots. The site is bounded on the east and north by streets. The Best Western Hotel abuts the project site to the west. The Spaghetti Bender restaurant, a one story building, is located to the south on an adjacent lot. The property is designated Retail & Service Commercial by the General Plan Land Use Element and has a zoning designation of SP #4 (Newport Shores Specific Plan Area) with a Commercial land use designation. The subject property is within the 26135 Height Limitation Zone established by the Zoning Code and has no required setbacks as the property abuts commercial properties and streets. The project consists of changing the existing Thai take -out restaurant to a full- service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment, located within an existing 2,290 sq. ft. retail commercial building. The building currently comprises three suites; The Kind Grind, a take -out coffeehouse, currently occupies the westernmost suite, and the two other units were previously occupied the Thai take -out restaurant and a nail salon. The proposed full - service, small -scale restaurant will be comprised of the current 1,090 sq. ft. tenant space, plus a ground floor expansion of 660 sq. ft. into the adjacent tenant space (former nail salon) for a total ground floor area of 1,750 sq. ft. Additionally, the proposal includes the construction of a second -floor office addition of 683 sq. ft., which will increase the overall restaurant gross floor area to 2,433 sq. ft. The proposed restaurant will consist of 635 sq. ft. of interior net public area. The interior consists of traditional dining room seating (6 portable /16 fixed seats) and bar (3 seats). The remaining first floor will consist of a small register area, approximately 200 sq. ft. of food preparation area, an approximately 325 sq. ft. kitchen, and restroom facilities. The second floor addition will consist of an approximately 538 sq. ft. office area, a restroom facility, and approximately 87 sq. ft. of storage area. The height of the proposed addition will remain below the 26 foot height limit. Access to the second floor will be taken from exterior stairs proposed on the northwest side of building and across a roof top walkway. No interior access from the first floor of the restaurant is proposed. A mechanical equipment area is proposed on the easterly side of the building, adjacent to the second floor office, which will be screened from view. Additional construction includes significant exterior architectural improvements. The restaurant is proposed to be open for lunch and dinner with the business hours of 11:00 am to 11:00 pm. The service of "beer and wine" was previously approved under the existing Use Permit No. 2081 in conjunction with the service of food as the principal use of the facility, and the applicant has not requested any change to the alcoholic beverage license. 5 Salud Restaurant July 21, 2005 Page 4 The Planning Director's Use Permit was appealed on June 20, 2005, by Mr. Nicholas Hamilton and he requests that the Planning Commission deny the use permit. He objects to the increased floor area and would prefer that the site provide additional parking more closer to conformance with the Zoning Code. Mr. Hamilton is a neighbor who resides at 215 62nd Street, located directly across the street and north of the site. Mr. Hamilton has provided a lengthy and detailed letter (16 pages) citing several reasons for his concerns that led him to file the appeal (Exhibit 2). Mr. Hamilton's primary concerns are that the proposed use is non - conforming and that that allowing the project to be re- developed beyond what presently exists will actually be more detrimental to him and other properties within the vicinity with respect to the following: • Allowance to exceed base Floor Area Ratio • Insufficient parking to meet a potential increased demand • Inadequate restrictions of 2nd floor office use • Impacts to enjoyment of air, light, and open space • Impacts to ocean views • Noise impacts associated with expansion of hours of operation Nonconforming Status Throughout Mr. Hamilton's appeal letter, the existing take -out restaurant, the proposed full - service, small -scale restaurant, and the building structure itself are referred to as "nonconforming" (due to insufficient parking), and therefore should be subject to the provisions of Section 20.62.060(B) of the "Nonconforming Structures and Uses" of the Municipal Code. If considered nonconforming due to parking, the project would then require approval of a Use Permit for the waiver or reduction of the parking requirements, provided the findings can be made. It is important to note that the existing take -out restaurant and the structure itself are not considered nonconforming. Section 20.62.030 (Determination of Nonconformity), states that "...Any use, building, structure, or lot found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code shall be deemed to be nonconforming': In approving the original use, Use Permit No. 2081 (Amended), the Planning Commission approved 2 on -site parking spaces for the take -out restaurant and waived 20 required parking spaces. Additionally, the use permit required that no additional parking spaces shall be provided beyond the total of 8 parking spaces located on -site. Since the parking waiver was granted by the Planning Commission in conformance with the provisions of the Zoning Code at the A, Salud Restaurant July 21, 2005 Page 5 time, the proposed use is consistent with the Zoning Code and is not deemed a nonconforming use. Therefore, since the use is not deemed nonconforming, the provisions of Section 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) do not apply. Floor Area Ratio In Mr. Hamilton's appeal letter, he cites that the second floor office addition will actually be more detrimental to his and similar properties in the vicinity because it exceeds the permitted FAR and Weighted FAR under the Zoning Code. Section 20.63.040 of the "Floor Area Ratios and Building Bulk" of the Municipal Code permits the Planning Director to approve a use permit to exceed the base development allocation up to the maximum floor area ratio established for the statistical area in which the project is proposed if the following findings can be made: • That the mix of existing and approved development within the statistical area in which the project is proposed does not exceed the base development allocation established for that statistical area. • That the statistical area in which the project is proposed does not contain any undeveloped or underdeveloped properties of sufcient size which, if developed within the land use intensities established by the Land Use Element of the General Plan, would cause the base development allocation for that statistical area to be exceeded. Mr. Hamilton believes that the facts to support the findings were inaccurate and therefore the Planning Director erred and that Variance should have been considered. Mr. Hamilton's belief was based upon conversations he had with staff prior to approval of the use permit during which information was exchanged that would contradict the findings made. Staff can only suspect that there was a miscommunication or a misunderstanding of what was being communicated. Staff further believes there is sufficient facts to support the findings to approval the use permit to all the additional floor area. • In 1987, the Land Use Element of the General Plan projected a growth of 17,550 sq. ft. for Statistical Area B -1 (Newport Shores SAP) which is more than adequate to accommodate the 683 sq. ft. (683 x 1.0 weighted variable FAR) increase in entitlement caused by the proposed second floor office addition. • The Newport Shores statistical area does in fact consist of several smaller underdeveloped properties, which contributes to the potential growth of 17,550 sq. ft. entitled for the statistical area. 1 Salud Restaurant July 21, 2005 Page 6 Since 1987, there has not been any commercial developments of significant size that would cause the base development allocation for the statistical area to be exceeded. • Although there are several smaller underdeveloped properties in the area, there are no undeveloped or underdeveloped properties of sufficient size, which if developed, would cause the base development allocation for the statistical area to be exceeded. Parking The existing site currently provides a total of 8 parking spaces on -site; 2 spaces have been allocated to The Kind Grind under the approval of Use Permit No. 2036 and 2 parking spaces have been allocated to the existing take -out restaurant under Use Permit No. 2081. The remaining 4 parking spaces were unallocated and remain available for the site. The proposed project will cause the reduction of 1 on -site parking space due to the addition of 1 handicap parking space, thereby reducing the overall number of on -site parking spaces to 7 spaces. The elimination of a parking space to provide disabled parking has been administratively approved numerous times by staff. In the appeal, Mr. Hamilton cites that the project will be detrimental to his and similar properties in the area because it does not provide the number of code required parking spaces and that the proposed full- service, small -scale restaurant use will intensify the need for on -site parking in comparison to past and current uses of the site. The number of parking spaces that would be required for the existing take -out restaurant is 22 spaces, based on the parking requirement of 1 space per 50 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 1 space per employee. However, as previously mentioned, the existing take out restaurant was granted a parking waiver by the Planning Commission for 20 parking spaces under the approval of Use Permit No. 2081. Additionally, the use permit conditioned the restaurant to provide only 2 on -site parking spaces, and further required the use to provide no more than a total of 8 spaces for the entire site. The number of required parking spaces for the proposed full - service, small -scale restaurant would be a total of 9 spaces, based on the parking requirement of 1 space per 75 sq. ft. of net public area. With the 2 parking spaces required for The Kind Grind, the remaining 5 on -site parking spaces will be available for the proposed project. Therefore, the number of waived spaces is reduced from 20 parking spaces to only 4 parking spaces. U Salud Restaurant July 21, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Hamilton has also cited that the proposed full - service, small -scale restaurant use will actually intensify the need for on -site parking in comparison to past and current uses of the site. This concern is based on comments received from the Public Works Department and Traffic Engineering (Exhibit 3), in response to the 'Project Review Request ", stating that the proposed development will intensify the need for on -site parking. Traffic Engineering stated that typically, patrons of full service restaurants tend to stay longer and occupy parking stalls for an extended period of time, whereas, take- out facilities have a high parking turnover. Staff considered this comment and believes that in comparing a typical take -out restaurant with little or no seating, with a typical full - service, small -scale restaurant, that the parking demand in terms of turnover would in fact be intensified. However, the existing take -out restaurant is not typical as it had interior dining component with 29 seats. The proposed restaurant use will actually reduce the total number of seats from 29 seats to 25 seats. Although the take -out component has been removed as the primary function of the proposed restaurant, it is safe to assume that take -out sales will remain a service of the proposed restaurant as most restaurants provide some take out service. Therefore, the previous take -out use and proposed full - service, small -scale restaurant use will function relatively similar in terms of operation and parking demand, but the proposed restaurant will have an overall reduction in number of seats, which should decrease parking demand. Staff recognizes that the existing parking configuration is inefficient and does not provide as many parking spaces as we would like. However it has been utilized for a number of years with no complaints or problems presented to the Planning Department. It should be noted that the expansion of the restaurant into the adjacent suite (while decreasing seating capacity) eliminates a vacant commercial suite that would have a parking demand itself. Staff believes that the restaurant will mainly serve persons residing in or working in the Newport Shores community leading to increased walk -in trade and reduced parking demand. Additionally, if the proposed restaurant becomes highly successful and attracts customers who drive to the location, their vehicles can reasonably be accommodated along the metered spaces on West Coast Highway or the Spaghetti Bender parking lot owned by the applicant. Although Mr. Hamilton disagrees that the 1l Salud Restaurant July 21, 2005 Page 8 restaurant will serve primarily the local residents and workers, he has stated and recognized in the appeal letter that the previous use did not appear to generate undue parking demands. Additionally, the appellant cites that the Planning Director's Use Permit condition requiring employees to park on -site at all times and not in the residential neighborhood, will result in little, if not zero, parking spaces available on -site for the use by patrons. Staff recognizes this concern, however, this condition was implemented to protect the surrounding residential neighborhood from late night noise impacts associated with employees parked on the residential streets and leaving work late at night. As previously mentioned, there is an assumption that the restaurant will mainly serve persons residing in or working in the Newport Shores community, thereby reducing the need for on -site parking. Early in the project review process, staff examined reconfiguring the parking lot with the adjacent Spaghetti Bender parking lot. That review determined that there was no way to combine the two parking lots to make them more efficient while maintaining the same number of spaces for both sites. Second Floor Use Restriction In the appeal letter, Mr. Hamilton cites that although the Planning Director's Use Permit approval states that the 2nd floor office is not an independent use, there are no conditions of approval placed on the project to limit the use solely to the proposed restaurant. Staff believes this was an oversight in drafting the conditions of approval, and recommends that the Planning Commission amend the conditions of approval for Planning Director's Use Permit No. 2005 -005 to include the following condition: With exception to the restroom facility and storage areas as shown on the approved plans, the second -floor addition shaft be used solely for use as an office by the restaurant personnel and manager. Any changes not specfcally approved in this approval, shall be subject to an amendment to this use permit and may be subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Should the Planning Department receive a confirmable claim that the operation of the use of the 2nd floor office be in violation with the approved use permit, Code Enforcement will inspect the property. Upon verification of a violation, the use permit may be reviewed and /or revoked in accordance with Chapter 20.96 (Enforcement) of the Municipal Code. Another enforcement option would be the securing of additional off - site parking. lb Salud Restaurant July 21, 2005 Page 9 Air, Light, and Open Space Mr. Hamilton cites that the development of the proposed project will adversely affect his right to enjoy air, light and open space. The City's commercial district regulations have been developed to minimize the impact of commercial development on adjacent residential districts. The proposed project complies with the development regulations of the Newport Shores Specific Area Plan, including, but not limited to setbacks and height limitations, which would be the factors that most greatly affect light and air. Additionally, Mr. Hamilton's property is not located directly abutting the proposed site, but rather across Newport Shores Drive which is a 30 foot right -of -way. Therefore, staff does not believe that approval of the project will negatively affect the appellant's property with regards to air, light and open space. Private View Mr. Hamilton cites that the development of the proposed 2nd floor addition will adversely affect his ocean view from a future rooftop deck and potential 2nd floor addition he intends to construct. Unfortunately, views from the appellant's property are not considered a public views nor are there any public or protected views through or across the property that would be protected by any City policy or regulation. Hours of Operation Mr. Hamilton has cited that the hours of operation should not be expanded to allow the closing hour to be changed from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm because residents in the area are already faced with noise from the Spaghetti Bender and hotel patrons late into the night. Additionally, he states the waiver granted to the proposed restaurant to not require the construction of a 6 -foot high wall surrounding the property does not justify the approval of expanding the hours of operation. Typically, a wall surrounding a restaurant site is required to help control noise and other nuisances generated by vehicles in the parking lot. However, the construction of a wall in this case would actually restrict traffic circulation within the non - conforming parking lot. Given the location of the building on the lot, the building provides a buffer between the noise associated with vehicles in the parking lot and customer activities and nearby residences. The Planning Director required the following conditions to help further protect adjacent residential properties from noise impacts: Condition #21: The use of the rear door shall be limited to deliveries and employee use only, use by customers as an entry shall be prohibited J� Salud Restaurant July 21, 2005 Page 10 Condition #22: Deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the daily hours of 10:00 pm and 8:00 am, unless otherwise approved by an amendment to this food service permit. Condition #29: Employees shall park on -site at all times and not on residential streets in the neighborhood. Condition #30. No outside public address speakers or paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with the establishment. Should the closing hour be of concern, an earlier closing hour might be appropriate. General Plan Policy Support for Approval Staff believes that approval of the project, with all its nonconformities, is supported by Land Use Element of the General Plan: Policy L. The City shall encourage its community commercial districts to reflect and complement the high quality of its residential areas. The City shall promote the prosperity of its several community commercial districts through the adoption and application of planning, zoning, building and public works codes, regulations, policies and activities. Planning and Building Implementing Guidelines: 2. The City shall encourage the refurbishment, remodeling and modest expansion of older, nonconforming buildings within community commercial districts by grandfathering such nonconforming uses when feasible and practical. 5. The City shall, in the application of its codes and regulations, give special consideration to the needs of restaurants in recognition of the high level of benefits they provide to the local economy. Summary Staff believes sufficient facts are evident to warrant approval of the use permit to exceed the base development allocation and the use. Staff further believes that the appeal does not present information that would indicate that there the error in its approval. The appeal simply presents a contrary point of view as to whether or not the Use Permit should be approved, which is the essence of discretion. During the evaluation of this project, staff took into account other factors. The project represents the elimination of a blighting influence due to the use and re- investment into the la Salud Restaurant July 21, 2005 Page 11 property and the restaurant should also serve neighborhood residents. Staff also had area residents indicate support for the project recognizing the shortcomings of the parking lot. Environmental Review The project qualifies for a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption from the California Environmental quality Act which exempts minor additions to commercial buildings when the addition does not impact environmentally sensitive resources. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold and affirm the approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 2005 -005 with a modification to add a condition of approval restricting the 2 "d floor addition as accessory office space to be used solely by the on- restaurant personnel and manager as noted previously. The Planning Commission has the following additional options: 1. Modify any aspect of the Use Permit as deemed necessary to address concerns. 2. Uphold the appeal and deny the Planning Director's Use Permit No. 2005 -005. Staff would recommend a continuance for 2 weeks to allow for the preparation of findings for denial. Prepared by: (�Lw C�"j'ff Fd / aime Murillo, Associate Planner Exhibits Submitted by: P. nA 'IA� D� Patricia L. Temple, PI nning Director 1. Appeal (the appeal includes all relevant background information) 2. Project plans 1� 06/15/2005 14:13 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 02 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECT Application No. ��'�`-'`S —�S CPF ZO0S 02.77 Name of Appellant or person filing' _ IG (� t �RtlJ Phone: Address: Zl S 9 i ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 (the "Application") Name of Appellant or person filing: Nicholas A. Hamilton, adjacent property owner Phone: 949 -646 -7860 Address: 215 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Date of Planning Director's decision: June 6, 2005 Regarding the application of: Michael Hoskinson ( "Applicant ") for (Description of application Filed with Staff) To change the existing take -out restaurant to a full- service small scale eating and drinking establishment and to allow the expansion of the gross floor area previously authorized by Use Permit No. 2081 (Amended). The existing use permit authorized: the waiver of the required 20 parking spaces, allowed interior seating for 29 persons (unless otherwise restricted by the Fire Department), and permitted the hours of operation to be 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.. The use permit also authorized incidental on -sale alcoholic beverage service. The proposed construction will modify the interior floor plan and provide interior seating for up to 25 persons. The use permit application includes a request to allow the addition of a second -floor office use that will be utilized in association with the restaurant personnel and manager. The Applicant requests the Planning Director to allow the project to exceed the permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50 up to a maximum FAR of 0.62 for the building as proposed to accommodate the second -floor office addition. Page 1 of 16 1 Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 A. REASONS FOR APPEAL' Overview 1. The Planning Director's [Conditional] Use Permit No. UP2005 -005 (PA2005 -027), (herein referred to as "UP2005- 005'), (attached hereto), does not contain any reference to any facts needed to support the mandatory finding for issuance of a [conditional] use permit under Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (the "Zoning Code "), Sec. 20.91.035(A)(2), that the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained (non - conforming full- service, small- scale eating and drinking establishment) will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 2. The proposed location of the permitted non - conforming eating and drinking establishment use, and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be even more detrimental to Appellant's and other similarly situated properties or improvements in the vicinity than the Applicant's prior non - conforming commercial businesses at the same location which have admittedly been operated for many years in violation of 2 prior conditional use permits ( "CUPs ") issued by the city in 1981, (CUP 2036 -take -out ice cream shop; attached hereto); and 1984, (CUP 208 1 (Amended)- adding on site beer and wine service to existing take -out restaurant; attached hereto), for the same premises. a. The permitted development exceeds permitted Floor Area Ratio ( "FAR ") and Weighted FAR under the Zoning Code. Page 2 of 16 joI Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 b. The permitted development does not provide sufficient parking per Sec. 20.62.060(B) and Sec. 20.66. 100 of the Zoning Code. c. The permitted development is an intensification of use in terms of parking demand, requiring the addition of several more parking spaces which the Applicant cannot deliver, as attested to in a memorandum from David Keely of the Traffic Engineering division of the City's Public Works Department dated April 13, 2004 to Jay Garcia of the City's Planning Department, (attached hereto). Mr. Keely correctly states that, typically, patrons of full service restaurants tend to stay longer and occupy parking stalls for an extended period of time, and that take -out facilities have high parking turnover. Thus, a take -out operation can accommodate more cars in fewer spaces during business hours than a dine -in, full- service restaurant operation that requires more available parking spaces to accommodate fewer numbers of patrons during business hours. d. The proposed development will intensify the need for on -site parking in comparison to past and current uses of the development site, due to the change in the nature of the restaurant business as attested to in an April 12, 2005 memorandum from Fong Tse, Development Services Engineer of the City's Public Works Department, to the City's Planning Department (attached hereto). 3. The proposed development involves a significant second story addition to the already non - conforming structure, agreed by the Applicant to be used only in connection with the on -site restaurant. UP2005 -005 lacks any condition restricting the use of the 2 "d floor, Page 3 of 16 as Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 and fails to set forth some reasonable method by which the city can effectively verify the restriction is being adhered to by the Applicant. 4. UP2005 -005 allocates four parking spaces to the proposed development, when the Applicant per the Zoning Code should be providing no less than eight. It also includes a condition that employees park on -site at all times, and not on residential streets in the neighborhood. The Application states there will be five employees at the proposed development, and the Planning Director's approval indicates 3 -4 employees. Depending on the actual number of employees, as proposed, at best there would be one off - street parking space for restaurant patrons, and at worst there would be zero off -street parking for patrons, with one employee and all patrons parking on residential streets. A scaled - down development with fewer employees would minimize further adverse impact to what, is already a bad parking problem in the surrounding area. B. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S FINDINGS - DISCUSSION & OBJECTIONS: 1. The proposed full- service, small scale eating and drinking establishment is retail in nature, serving mainly persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is not necessarily a destination point. It is anticipated that the proposed use, based on its menu and limited operation, as approved, will have parking demand characteristics similar to general retail use. The site of the proposed restaurant is adjacent to the site of the Spaghetti Bender restaurant, which is also owned by the Applicant. Spaghetti Bender is very popular, and judging from the traffic and parking demand it generates, its patrons travel by car to dine Page 4 of 16 !)�I Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 there. This is a credit to the Applicant and a testament to his business acumen, and he likely will be equally successful with the proposed development. This is reinforced by the fact that the subject site is adjacent to Spaghetti Bender, providing a cross - marketing opportunity by way of its location. Based on the Applicant's proposed plans, it appears he will target the same type of clientele (i.e. dine -in) that enjoys Spaghetti Bender so much. Some Spaghetti Bender patrons will no doubt choose to sample the new, neighboring full- service restaurant rather than wait for a table during the dinner rush at Spaghetti Bender. The previous use of the subject site, as a take -out restaurant, did not appear to generate undue parking demands. The Appellant was a frequent "to go" customer of the previous take -out restaurant, and does not recall ever seeing more than eight patrons dining on the premises in the evening. The Appellant expects the Applicant to be successful in eventually drawing a dine -in crowd to the proposed development by its own rite. It is a fallacy to assume the proposed development will not generate additional parking demand. The proposed development is quite different, and a higher intensity use, than what was previously approved under Use Permit No. 2081. 2. The Planning Director's approval of Use Permit No. UP2005 -005 for the project to exceed the base development allocation for the statistical area is consistent with the provisions of Sec. 20. 63.040 of the Municipal Code (FAR Ordinance) for the following reasons: Page 5 of 16 a Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 • The mix of existing and approved development within the statistical area, in which the project is proposed, does not exceed the base development allocation established for Statistical Area B -1 (Newport Shores SAP); which has a projected growth of 17,525 square feet and is adequate to accommodate the 683- square foot (683 x 1.0 weighted variable FAR) increase in entitlement allocation caused by the addition. • The statistical area, in which the project is located, does not contain any undeveloped or underdeveloped properties of sufficient size; which, if developed within the land use intensities established by the Land Use Element of the General Plan, would cause the base development allocation for that statistical area to be exceeded, since most sites are currently developed to some extent. • The project, as proposed, is compatible with the surrounding commercial properties. The height limitation of the Zoning District prevents abrupt scale changes. In the Appellant's phone conversation with City of Newport Beach (the "City') Senior Planner Javier Garcia on May 19, 2005, Mr. Garcia stated that the. base development allocation for the statistical area would not be exceeded, since there was an abundance of undeveloped property in the area. Mr. Garcia's verbal representation directly contradicts the findings in the Application approval, with respect to undeveloped property. Either the representation made to the Appellant by Mr. Garcia was factually inaccurate, or the Planning Director's finding is inaccurate. Page 6 of 16 A'j Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 If Mr. Garcia's verbal representation to the Appellant was inaccurate, that calls into question compliance with 20.63.040(B)(2)(a). If the Planning Director's fmding is inaccurate, that calls into question compliance with 20.63.040(B)(2)(b). At the time of Application approval, the public record did not contain any mathematical calculations confirming compliance with either subsection of 20.63.040(B)(2), for the statistical area. In the event of non - compliance with 20.63.040(B)(2), the Planning Director does not have the authority to issue a use permit, and the matter must be subject to a public hearing and can only be approved by the full planning commission. In approving UP2005 -005, the Planning Director found that the project is compatible with the surrounding commercial properties. This is a non - sequitur. The requirement of Sec. 20.63.040 is not that the project be compatible with surrounding commercial properties, but rather that the proposed use and structures be compatible with the surrounding area. Higher intensity use with respect to parking, is not compatible with the surrounding area. Both the subject property and the surrounding area already suffer from insufficient parking. 3. Approval will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace ,morals, comfort, and general welfare of the city for the following reasons: • The addition will accommodate an office use associated with the restaurant operation. It is not an independent office use, retail use, or an expansion of the restaurant area devoted to dining, and the change in the hours of operation is Page 7 of 16 a 4 Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 minor. Therefore, it is determined that the changes, as proposed, are not an intensification of use. • The addition does not result in or create any adverse negative effect to any surrounding property or use, since it complies with the development regulations of the Newport Shores Specific Plan Area, including but not limited to, setbacks and height limitations. While the Planning Director has determined that the addition of the 2,d floor office is not an intensification of use in and of itself, both the additional space this configuration affords the dining area and the change to full- service restaurant, represent increased intensity. As previously noted two staff members from the City Public Works Department have found the proposed development to be an intensification of use. Although the addition may comply with setback and height limitations, it does not comply with FAR or parking requirements of the Zoning Code. If the Applicant did not build the addition and used some of the 15` floor space for office, his proposed development would meet FAR requirements. A scaled -down dining area could allow the proposed development to meet parking requirements. As proposed, the development would adversely affect the Appellant's property, inasmuch as Appellant currently enjoys air, light, and space, as well as ocean views, from the rooftop and intends to build a rooftop deck. The Appellant or a future owner may eventually add a 2nd floor to the existing improvements on Appellant's property, which 2nd floor would enjoy ocean views if no non - conforming additions are made to the Page 8 of 16 a 5 Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 Applicant's property. Indeed a front elevation drawing of the Applicant's proposed non- conforming 2 "d floor addition (attached hereto), includes two 2 "d floor balconies, indicating that the Applicant intends to enjoy the valuable view this location affords, while depriving Appellant of the view currently enjoyed at his property. hi the Appellant's meeting with the Applicant on May 13, 2005, the Applicant said the Spaghetti Bender office was inadequate, and that its manager suffered from arthritis and had difficulty climbing the spiral staircase that leads to the office. The Applicant said the new 2 "d floor office was needed for use by Spaghetti Bender, and that the he would also conduct other business and investment activities from the office. The Applicant expressed his desire to use the new 2 "d floor office for Spaghetti Bender management in a January 23, 2005 letter to Patricia Temple of the City Planning Department. A letter from Senior Planner Garcia to the Applicant dated February 25, 2005 (attached hereto), notes as an issue to be resolved: "Restriction on the use of the second -floor office and storage by the off -site restaurant," The Applicant's desire to use the new 2 "d floor office for Spaghetti Bender, calls into question whether his other businesses are in compliance with the American for Disabilities Act. If they are not, and if his goal is to cure such non - compliance, such cure should be accomplished on the site of the non - compliant businesses. Approval of UP2005 -005 notes that the 2 "d floor office is not an independent office use, however there are no conditions limiting the use to the proposed on -site restaurant. Even if there were such a condition, how would it be enforced? Would the City conduct Page 9 of 16 !�(P Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 random audits of the files in the 2A floor office, to determine what kind of business is being conducted? If a violation of the condition were found, would the City revoke the permit and cause the 2„ a floor to be destroyed? One of Appellant's strongest objections to UP2005 -005 is that, once the permit is approved and the additional improvements built, it will be very difficult if not impossible to revoke the permit. Approval of the permit would not only allow conditional non- conformance with the FAR requirements of the Zoning Code, but would essentially guarantee that the subject property will never conform. 4. The use permit, as approved, is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following findings: • The proposed addition will not increase parking demand for the project, since the new area is an office use associated with the restaurant and not an area devoted to dining. As previously noted, the proposed addition affords the rest of the proposed development additional space, and two staff members from the City Public Works Department have found the proposed development to be an intensification of use with respect to parking. 5. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping and lighting (exterior illumination) meet the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal code for restaurants and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Director approves this application for the following reason: Page 10 of 16 .l a Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 • The same purpose or intent of the required walls surrounding the property, to control noise, can be achieved by the limitation on the hours of operation. Noise is a major concern of mine and of my neighbor, Robert Reyes, as evidenced by our separate letters to the Planning Department on April 11, 2005 (attached hereto). If the justification for waiving the wall requirements of 20.82.040(A)(5) is limitation on the hours of operation, why would approval of UP2005 -005 include expanding the hours of operation to 11:00 p.m.? Residents in the area are already faced with noise from Spaghetti Bender and hotel patrons late into the night. The increased intensity of the proposed development, as compared to the previous take -out restaurant, will exacerbate this problem. 6. The Planning Director's approval of the Application will not, under the circumstances o this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the city for the following reasons: • The nearby commercial and residential uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed physical change of the floor plan, since incidental alcoholic beverage service (beer and wine) already existed with the previous restaurant use. The proposed change of the floor plan and sale of alcoholic beverages are entirely different matters. The existing use permit allowing incidental sale of beer and wine does not in any way ameliorate the detriment to properties and improvements in the vicinity Page 11 of 16 Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 caused by increased intensity of use and non - conformance with FAR and parking requirements. C. Conclusion: An application for use permit #2048 (Planning Commission minutes attached) for the subject site was denied in 1981 for two reasons: inadequate parking and the possibility that the proposed development could result in significant increase in the intensity of use of the subject property. An application for use permit #3094 (Planning Commission minutes attached) for the subject site was approved in 1984, yet parking was noted as an issue of concern. Parking at the subject property has always been a problem, and the parking situation in the surrounding area worsens over time. In two separate reviews of the subject Application, City staff found that the proposed development will result in increased intensity with respect to parking. Increasing the intensity of parking demands on the subject property is unacceptable. Never mind the possibility of increased intensity resulting from use of the proposed 2nd floor office, and the impractical means for the City to regulate such use, with remedies of any violations very few or virtually non - existent due to the scope of such remedies (i.e. destruction of 2nd floor). The purpose of the Zoning Code's FAR requirements include regulating the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of the City. A use permit may allow a development to exceed FAR requirements, but a use permit is intended for use classifications having unusual site development features or operating characteristics requiring special consideration so that they may be operated compatibly with uses in the surrounding area. Page 12 of 16 a Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 The subject site does not include unusual features and the proposed use does not warrant special consideration. Furthermore, the proposed non - conforming use is more incompatible with the surrounding area than the existing non - conforming use, while a less intense conforming use would be more compatible with the area. A scaled -down development without a 2 "d floor and with fewer seats for restaurant patrons and fewer employees, could meet FAR and parking requirements, and would be compatible with the surrounding area. The purpose of Chapter 20.62 of the Zoning Code is to limit the expansion of nonconforming structures and uses to the maximum extent feasible, to establish the criteria under which they may be continued or possibly expanded, and to bring these structures and uses into conformity in an equitable, reasonable and timely manner, without infringing upon the constitutional rights of property owners. The Applicant has not demonstrated any need for the non - conforming 2 "d floor office, though it may be his desire. Further non - conformity of the subject site, beyond what presently exists, would be detrimental to property and improvements in the immediate vicinity. The proposed development deviates enough from the Zoning Code that the Application warrants a public hearing and the consideration of the full Planning Commission. The City's residents have been deprived of the opportunity to attend a public hearing and to challenge and test the summary and conclusions of Planning Department staff. I regret that I have had to spend so much time and energy, not to mention the $975 fee, to initiate the public hearing process via appeal. The Zoning Code was written for the benefit of all the City's residents, and I believe it should be adhered to in all but the most extenuating circumstances. Approval of a use permit for Page 13 of 16 �O Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 an already functional (though non - conforming) property for a use that increases both the intensity and non - conformity of that property, is not an extenuating circumstance in my mind. Rather it is a subjective and unfair application of the law, and violates the constitutional right to equal protection afforded to all. D. . APPELLANT'S REQUESTED DISPOSITION ON APPEAL: APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANT THIS APPEAL AND GRANT RELIEF AS FOLLOWS: 1. Allow the Applicant to continue use of the subject property pursuant to the City's approval of Use Permit No. 2081 (Amended) on March 24, 1984; or 2. Allow the Applicant to change the existing take -out restaurant to a full- service, small- scale eating and drinking establishment, but on a smaller scale than what is proposed. This would allow sufficient space for an on -site office without addition to the property improvements and conformance with FAR requirements, and conformance with (or coming closer to conformance with) parking requirements. The proposed development involves modifying the existing floor plan to combine the existing take -out restaurant with 660 square feet of other retail space, increasing the existing take -out restaurant's 1,090 square feet by 60 %. The combined 1,750 square feet on the first floor would be adequate to operate a small -scale eating and drinking establishment, without enlargement of the structure. Page 14 of 16 31 Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 Adding the second floor would expand the subject improvements to 2,433 square feet, not including the other take -out restaurant on the site. The "net public area" of the proposed development is 635 square feet, with almost 1,800 square feet remaining for kitchen, storage, and office space (say "non- public area "). It does not seem reasonable that a small -scale full- service restaurant would require over 2.8 times the net public area, for non - public area. The existing take -out restaurant included 610 square feet of net public area of a total 1090 square feet, or a 0.78:1 ratio of "non public" to "public" area. With the addition of 660 square feet of other retail space but no 2nd floor, the 15` floor would provide a ratio of 1.56:1, which seems reasonable and is much higher than the existing permitted use; and 3. In no case should the hours of operation be extended beyond what is currently allowed, i.e. 10:00 p.m. 4. At a minimum, the Planning Director's approval of UP2005 -005 should be revoked/rescinded and the Applicant should be required to re- submit the Application and supporting materials to the full Planning Commission, so as to set a public hearing to allow Appellant and other interested parties the opportunity to present their concerns over the proposed development in a public forum. Respectfully Submitted, Nicholas A. Hamilton Attachments: • UP2005 -005 Page 15 of 16 3 a Attachment to Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Director Application No. PA2005 for UP2005 -005 • Use Permit No. 2036 — approved conditionally • Use Permit No. 2048 — denied • Use Permit No. 2081 — approved conditionally • Use Permit No. 3094 — approved conditionally • Use Permit No. 2081 (Amended) — approved conditionally • Memorandum from David Keely, Traffic Engineering, to Jay Garcia, Planning Department, dated April 13, 2004 • Memorandum from Fong Tse, Development Services Engineer, to Planning Department, dated April 12, 2005 • Front elevation of Applicant's proposed 2nd floor addition (obtained from website) • letter from Senior Planner Garcia to the Applicant dated February 25, 2005 • Letter from Nicholas A. Hamilton to Planning Department, Dated April 11, 2005 • Letter from Dr. Robert Reyes, Ph.D. to Planning Department, Dated April 11, 2005 Page 16 of 16 35 June 6, 2005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 Staff Person: Javier S. Garda, 6443206 (949) 6443200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date Michael Hoskinson 402 11th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Application: Planning Director's Use Permit No. UP2006 -005 (PA2005 -027) Applicant: Michael Hoskinson Address of Property Involved: 211 62nd Street Legal Description: Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Seashore Colony as To change the existing take -out restaurant to a full - service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment. Also approved is the the expansion of the gross floor area previously authorized by Use Permit No. 2081 (Amended) to add a second -floor office associated with the restaurant use. The existing use permit authorized: the waiver of 20 additional parking spaces, allowed interior seating for 29 persons (unless otherwise restricted by the Fire Department), and permitted the hours of operation to be 11:00 am to 10:00 pm. The use Dermit request includes a change in the closing hour from 10:00 Dm to 11:00 Dm. daily. The use permit also authorized incidental on -sale alcoholic beverage service. The use permit currently remains in force as previously approved and operated. The proposed construction will modify the interior floor plan and provide interior seating for up to 25 persons. The use permit application includes a request to allow the addition of a second -floor office use that will be utilized in association with the restaurant personnel and manager. The applicant requests the Planning Director's approval of the use permit to allow the project to exceed the base development allocation for the statistical area which limits the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to 0.50,. and the proposed will provide a maximum FAR of 0.62 to accommodate the second -floor office addition. The property is located in the SP-4 (Newport Shores Specific Plan Area) District. Director's Action: Approved June 6.2005 In approving this use permit, the Planning Director analyzed issues with regard to parking, FAR compliance and compliance with the restaurant development standards. The detailed analysis can be found in the attached appendix. In consideration of those aspects, the Planning Director determined, in this case, that the proposal would not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood. The Use Permit, as approved, would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following findings and conditions of approval. 34 FINDINGS: 1. The property is designated for 'Retail and Service Commercial" use by both the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program. The continuation of the food use is consistent with that designation. 2. The proposed full - service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment is retail in nature, serving mainly persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is not necessarily a destination point. It is anticipated that the proposed use, based on Its menu and limited operation, as approved, will have parking demand characteristics similar to a general retail use. 3. The Planning Director's approval of Use Perrpit No. UP200"05 for the project to exceed the base development allocation for the statistical area is .consistent with the provisions of Section 20.63.040 of the Municipal Code (FAR Ordinance) for the following reasons: • The mix of existing and approved development within the statistical area, in which the project is proposed, does not exceed the base development allocation established for Statistical Area B -1 (Newport Shores SAP); which has a projected growth of 17,525 square feet and is adequate to accommodate the 683 - square foot. (683 x 1.0 weighted variable FAR) increase in entitlement allocation caused by the addition. • The statistical area, in which the project is located, does not contain any undeveloped or underdeveloped properties of sufficient size; which, if developed within the land use intensities established by the Land Use Element of the General Plan, would cause the base development allocation for that statistical area to be exceeded, since most sites are currently developed to some extent. — !fin i N mss, Vwrw"- • The consolidation of existing legal lots to. provide a unified site design project is achieved by the proposal to combine the two lots that make up the subject property into a single- building site. • The project, as proposed, will provide shared access for the two lots involved that make up the subject property, since they will be combined into a single - building site. • The project, as proposed, provides no substantial changes to the existing parking lot. There is no covered parking proposed with the project, and the height of the building complies with the 26135 Height Limitation Zone. of the SP-4 District. • The project, as proposed, is compatible with the surrounding commercial properties. The height limitation of the Zoning District prevents abrupt scale changes. • There are no public views through or across the subject property that will adversely impacted by the project. • There are no unusual site characteristics such as slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources that limit the suitability of the site for the proposed project. June 6, 2005 Page 2 1AUSERSIPLN18haredlPA's1PAs - 2005TA2005- 0271UP2005-005 appr.doc n 5 4. This approval will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the c' for the following reasons: • The addition will accommodate an office use associated with the restaurant operation. It is not an inde endent_ ic_ a use retail use, or an expansion of the restaurant area devoted to dining, and the chan 'n +hp ho ors of r— o_p?r_ation is minor. Therefore, it is determine�lc tPf'a "t the changes, as fp proposed, are not an intensification of use. • The addition does not result in or create any adverse negative effect to any surrounding property or use, since it complies with the development regulations of the Newport Shores Specific Plan Area, including bLt not limited to, setbacks and height limitations. L o, r `u14 yi 5. This use permit, as approved, is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following findings: • The proposed addition will not increase parking demand for the project, ' since the new area is an office use associated with the restaurant and not an area devoted to dining. Additionally, dining anywhere other than in the approved dining area or on the second floor of the building is prohibited, as a condition of approval. 6. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping and lighting (exterior illumination) meet the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for restaurants (full - service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment) and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Director approves this application for the following reasons: • The existing physical characteristics of the site are not proposed to be altered, with the exception of providing an on -site handicap parking space. • Boundary walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subject property from the street, and there is no alley access due to previous �✓` abandonment of the alley right -of -way by the City of Newport Beach. t • The same purpose or intent of the required walls surrounding the property,s to control noise, can be achieved by the limitation on the hours of operation, ; which should prevent potential noise problems coupled with the condition of t\ approval. V-si • The change to the restaurant facility does not constitute a significant changern to warrant an increase in or the addition of landscape area. ' " • The existing parking lot lighting is not proposed to be altered. There have not ia+ been any past complaints related to lighting, and the same result of intent ort Ott purpose is achieved by the existing light sources. (. d� June 6, 2005 Page 3 I:\USERS\PLMShared \PA's \PAs - 2005 \PA2005 - 027 \UP2005 -005 appr.doc , 3 is The Planning Director's approval of Use Permit UP2005 -005 (PA2005 -027) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the city for the following reasons: • The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food - service use, which serves the neighboring residential and commercial uses and visiting tourists in the area. • The nearby commercial and residential uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed physical change of the floor plan, since incidental alcoholic beverage service (beer and wine) already existed with the previous restaurant use. The proposed conditions of approval require that the rear door (solid door and screen door), at the street, remain closed after 9:00 pm during the business hours of the operation, which should reduce or prevent any potential noise complaints from the residential uses across the street. 8. The approval of that portion of the request of Use Permit UP2005 -005 (PA2005- 027) to reduce the number of interior seating of the establishment will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the city for the following reasons: • The subject property is currently conforming with regard to parking, since a portion of the parking requirement was previously waived by the Planning Commission. The reduction in the interior seating and change from take -out restaurant to full - service, small -scale eating establishment will reduce the parking waiver from 20 spaces to 4 spaces based on the application of current parking regulations. Additionally, the continuation and reduction in the parking waiver status will not be affected by reducing the number of authorized seats in the establishment. • The off - street parking spaces on the subject property are for the benefit of the proposed establishment and the other use on the subject property. The 4 parking spaces allocated for the benefit of the subject facility would not be adequate to accommodate increased interior seating or the any increased parking demand. Therefore, the reduction in the number of interior seats has the effect of reducing the parking demand for the restaurant. -�j a r cslati CONDITIONS: The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. This approval supersedes the previous approval of Use Permit No. 2081, which shall become null and void upon the implementation of this use permit approval and cannot be reinstated. June 6, 2005 Page 4 I:IUSER8IPLN1Shared\PA's1PAs - 20051PA2005 -0271UP2005 -005 appr.doc 31 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, and if deemed appropriate, a parcel map, certificate of compliance or lot line adjustment shall be submitted and approved to combine the two lots and portions of abandoned alley right -of -way that comprise the subject property into a single parcel of land for the proposed commercial development. 4. The maximum seating and /or stand -up counter space for no more than 25 customers shall be maintained inside the subject eating, and drinking establishment (and the existing outdoor dining shall be removed until an accessory outdoor dining permit is first approved). The bar area or dining room seating shall be revised to comply with the Zoning Code definition of seating, which requires that 18 inches of linear counter space constitutes a seat. Any increase in the number of seating and /or stand -up counter space for customers shall be subject to the approval of a use permit issued by the Planning Commission. 5. The applicant shall contact the Building Department official to obtain a revised Certificate of Occupancy (if applicable) to reflect the change in the establishment, in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit for the proposed construction. In addition, the applicant shall contact the City Code Enforcement Officer to schedule an inspection of the facility to verify compliance, prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final of the building permit for the tenant improvements to the commercial space. 6. The "net public area" shall be limited to a maximum of 635 square feet. A minimum of one parking space for each 422 square feet of floor area (4 parking spaces) shall be provided on -site. r-CA �� - 5(—, !,a u-0 s. -r 7. The daily hours of operation shall be limited to between 11:00 am and 11:00 pm. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an 4 ` amendment to this use permit and may be subject to approval of the Planning Commission.r.,d 8. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be restricted to the interior of the building. Adequate size and number of signs shall be posted within the facility to the satisfaction of the Police Department and the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 9. This approval allows for the service of "beer and wine" only in conjunction with the service of food as the principal use of the facility, as previously authorized by Use Permit No. 2081. A change in the type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.89 of the Newport Beach Municipai.Code. 10. The approval is only for the establishment of a restaurant -type facility, as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, with the principal purpose of the sale or service of food and beverages. �� „ L f,,/ Gc :3 W" -J" June 6, 2005 Page 5 v 1:AUSEMPLN\SharedTXs1PAs - 20051PA2005- 027W132005 -005 appr.doc 2 p 11. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to operate as a bar or tavern use, as defined by the Municipal Code, unless a use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. 12. No event by an outside entity or promoter shall be conducted within this facility, unless in conjunction with the service of food. 13. Conditions of approval (13.1- 13.8) related to the alcoholic beverage service are as follows, and are subject to review and enforcement by the Police Department, Code Enforcement, and the Planning Department: 13.1 This approval does not permit the premises to operate as a bar tavern, cocktail lounge or nightclub, as defined by the Municipal Code, unless the Planning Commission first approves a Use Permit. 13.2 No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the license. 13.3 No "happy hour" type of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shall be allowed, except when served in conjunction with food ordered from the full - service menu. 13.4 There shall be no exterior advertising, window signs, or signs of any kind or type; including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs, which are clearly visible to the exterior, shall constitute a violation of this condition. 13.5 The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food during the same period. The licensee shall, at all times, maintain records which reflect separately the gross sale of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Police Department on demand. 13.6 There shall be no on -site radio, television, video, film or other electronic media broadcasts; including recordings for the broadcast at a later time, which include the service of alcoholic beverages, without first obtaining approval of a Special Event Permit as issued by the City of Newport Beach. 13.7 There shall be no dancing allowed on the premises. 13.8 There shall be no live entertainment of any type on the premises at any time, unless an amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. June 6, 2005 Page 6 1AL1SERSIPLN\Shared\PA's1PAs - 2005%PA2005- 0271UP2005 -005 appr.doc 14. The area outside of the food establishment, including the common walkways, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 15. All mechanical equipment (including rooftop equipment) shall be fully screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control and shall comply with the height limitations of the Zoning District. 16. Illuminated signs (interior or exterior illumination) shall be prohibited on the northerly facade of the building facing Newport Shores Drive. 17. The project shall be designed to eliminate light spillage and glare onto adjacent properties or uses. All exterior light sources shall be shielded from view from any property in the vicinity of the project, especially from the residential properties across Newport Shores Drive. A lighting plan shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City with a letter from the engineer or project proponent stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. Exterior lighting, visible from the residential properties to the rear across Newport Shores Drive, shall be operated by a timer mechanism and turned off at 10:00 pm. 18. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in the previous condition of approval above. 19. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the proposed facility, but not located on or within any public property or right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 20. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 21. The use of the rear door shall be limited to deliveries and employees use only, use by customers as an entry shall be prohibited. 22. Deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the daily hours of 10:00 pm and 8:00 am, unless otherwise approved by an amendment to this food service permit. 23. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean -up of all on- site and off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use. 24. The trash enclosure shall be remodeled or reconstructed to comply with the Water Quality requirements to prevent runoff from being diverted off -site into the storm drain system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Water Quality and Code Enforcement Division. June 6, 2005 Page 7 1AUSERSTLN\Shared\PA's1PAs - 20051PA2005- 027WP2005 -005 appr.doc ,1 25. All trash shall either be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in a trash enclosure (three walls and a gate), or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top which shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 26, The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and /or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of fully self- contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14; including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 27. The parking lot shall be maintained in its approved configuration providing a minimum of 7 on -site parking spaces, unless otherwise required by the City Traffic Engineer or the Building Department to meet handicap accessibility requirements. 28. The parking lot shall be maintained for the general use of all tenants of the subject property on a first -come, first- served basis and shall not be designated for the exclusive use of any one particular tenant. In addition, a sign (or signs) shall be posted and maintained in the parking lot and shall indicate that the parking lot is for the use of the tenants and customers of 211 62nd Street only. 29. Employees shall park on -site at all times and not on reessidential streets in the neighborhood. 1� r&-, 4. laff I . i, 4w r 30. No outside public address speakers or paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this establishment. Standard City Requirements: Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be noted of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing company. 2. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs or attention attracting devices shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the food establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. June 6, 2005 Page 8 1:%USERSIPLNIShared\PA's1PAs - 20051PA2005- 0271UP2005 -005 appr.doc ,t 3. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform Mechanical Code, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject business and approved by the Building Department. Issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 4. The facility shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for commercial kitchen grease disposal. 5. A covered wash -out area for refuse containers and kitchen equipment, with minimum useable area dimensions of 36- inches -wide, 36- inches -deep and 72- inches -high, shall be provided inside the facility. The area shall drain directly into the sewer system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Director and Public Works Director in conjunction with the approval of an alternative drainage plan. 6. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission may add to or modify the "conditions of approval" for this use permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this approval causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. �,7 zi Cg,, 5' l,_�,4_ aY-wG, NOTE: This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the end of then ' "'� f ` appeal period. ' l� APPEAL PERIOD The decision of the Planning Director may be appealed by the applicant or any interested party to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the date of the decision. Any appeal filed shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $975.00. PATRICIA L. TEMPLE, Planning Director By: Senior Ylanner vier S. Garcia, AICP JSG: jcr Attachments: Appendix vicinity Map Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated May 24, 1984 Detail Seating Plan Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations Letters in Opposition: Nicholas Hamilton, 215 62nd Street Dr. Robert Reyes, 219 62nd Street Appeared in Support None June 6, 2005 Page 9 1:1USERSIPLN1SharedTA's1PAs - 20051PA2005- 0271UP2005 -005 appr.doc , y� VICINITY MAP Planning Director's Use Permit UP2005 -005 Project No. PA2005 -027 Site Address 211 62nd Street q� APPENDIX Background On May 6, 1982, the Planning Department approved Use Permit No. 2081. Use Permit No. 2081 authorized the establishment of a take -out restaurant and later approved Use Permit No. 2081 (Amended), on March 24, 1984, which permitted a change to the existing take -out restaurant to add incidental beer and wine service. In conjunction with the original use permit approval, the Planning Commission also approved two of the on -site parking spaces for the use, included a waiver for 20 of the required parking spaces and required no additional parking spaces be provided, beyond the 8 spaces located on -site. The Kind Grind Restaurant, which is located next door, was originally established as an ice cream shop by Use Permit No. 2036, on November 19, 1981. The facility is located in the subject building and will remain in its current location. The facility is not in compliance with the conditions of approval of that use permit, which limits the hours of operation and does not permit any seating. The facility has extended its hours of operation, provides interior seating and an outdoor dining area. The property owner has been made aware of the violation and the Code Enforcement division will follow up on this matter. The owner has indicated that the matter will be resolved within 60 days of the effective date of this use permit. t" Use Permit Required L vA The use permit is required to allow the addition of the second -floor office use and to allow the building to exceed the permitted FAR of 0.5 up to a maximum of 0.62 as proposed in the attached plans. The request to allow the interior alteration of the previously approved restaurant facility does not in and of itself require the filing of the use permit, but is included to accommodate: the application tracking system now in place in the Planning Department and the proposed physical changes of the interior restaurant space that will address current Municipal Code Requirements that apply to issuance of the building permit. The use permit application includes a request to change the opening hour from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm. Staff is of the opinion that the minor change in the opening hour coupled with the modified conditions of approval should alleviate any potential noise impacts of the facility on the neighboring residential uses located across the street and in the vicinity. ivJ.l l Title 19 Compliance The Subdivision Code Section 19.68.040 provides that no new construction or building alteration, of a value greater than $20,705, shall be permitted on a lot adjacent to a lot held by the same owner if any one of the contiguous lots does not conform to standards for minimum lot size under Title 20 (Zoning Code) until a re- subdivision or, if deemed appropriate by the Planning Director, a lot line adjustment has merged said lots into a single - development site. In this particular case, since the site is comprised of two lots and the project proposes to further exceed the permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR 5/0.75) permitted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan, a lot line adjustment is required to June 6, 2005 Page 10 1:1USERSIPLN1Shared\PA's1PAs - 20051PA2005- 0271UP2005 -005 appr.doc AA combine them into a single parcel of land for the proposed development. The appropriate condition of approval has been included in the application approval. If the lots are not combined, the provision of parking in an off -site lot requires the approval of an off-site parking agreement by the Planning Commission and approval of a use permit to authorize the transfer of development rights to accommodate the addition to the existing building, FAR Compliance The applicant proposes an addition to the property which will cause the building to exceed the base development allocation of the site based on the intensity of use for the statistical area. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.63.040 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Director has determined that the proposed project will comply with the base development allocation specified by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and will not exceed the floor area ratio (FAR) established for Statistical Area B -1 (Newport Shores SAP) which has a projected growth of 17,525 sq. ft. which is adequate to accommodate the 683 sq. ft. (683 x 1.0 weighted variable FAR) increase in entitlement allocation caused by the addition. The existing building contains 2,290 sq. ft. The proposed restaurant will be comprised of the current 1,090 sq. ft. plus a ground floor expansion into the adjacent vacant tenant space of 660 sq. ft. for a total ground floor area of 1,750 sq. ft. The second -floor addition of 683 sq. ft. will increase the overall restaurant floor area to 2,433 sq. ft. Required Over allowable FAR 273.00 0.05 634.80 0.12 Lot Area of lot 8 2,700.00 Lot Area of lot 7 2,700.00 Total Site Area 5,400.00 sq ft Allowable FAR Parking Spaces 2700 0.5 11 Office use on the second floor for exclusive use by the restaurant June 6, 2005 Page 11 1:1USERSIPLNIShared\PA'stPAs - 20051PA2005- 0271UP2005 -005 appr.doc Gross Parking Weighted Floor Area FAR @ 11250 s.f. Floor area Weighted FAR Variable FAR Subject Full- Service Rest. 1,090.00 4 1,090.00 1.00 Other retail space 660.00 2 660.00 1.00 Take -out restaurant 540.00 2 901.80 1.67 Subtotal 2,290.00 0.42 2,651.80 0.49 Proposed addition 683.00 0.13 3 683.00 1.00 Total 2,973.00 0.55 3,334.80 0.62 Over allowable FAR 273.00 0.05 634.80 0.12 Lot Area of lot 8 2,700.00 Lot Area of lot 7 2,700.00 Total Site Area 5,400.00 sq ft Allowable FAR Parking Spaces 2700 0.5 11 Office use on the second floor for exclusive use by the restaurant June 6, 2005 Page 11 1:1USERSIPLNIShared\PA'stPAs - 20051PA2005- 0271UP2005 -005 appr.doc In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.63.040 C of the Zoning Code, a use permit may be approved for projects which exceed the base development allocation established for the statistical area for which the project is proposed up to the maximum floor area ratio established for the statistical area. Required Findings. In order to approve a use permit for a project that exceeds the base development allocation of a statistical area, one or more of the following findings are made: a. The project provides for the consolidation of existing legal lots to provide unified site design. Comment:. The project as proposed will combine the two lots that make up the subject property into a single - building site. b. The project provides for shared access with adjoining properties to a public right -of -way through common driveways and closes and relinquishes access rights to any other existing driveways. Comment: The project, as proposed, will provide shared access for the two lots involved that make up the subject property into a single - building site. C. The project provides for cross - easements, joint maintenance agreements, and reciprocal parking agreements with adjoining properties to facilitate the shared use of parking areas and to improve internal circulation. d. The project's design and construction preclude land uses with high - traffic- generating characteristics. e. The project incorporates design characteristics which mitigate any additional traffic generation or parking demand characteristics associated with the increased entitlement; which serves to improve existing traffic circulation and/or parking conditions. The project provides infrastructure improvements or dedications beyond what is necessary to serve the project and its population. g. The project incorporates innovative design or construction methods which further the goals of the General Plan. h. A covenant shall be recorded which would bind the current and future property owners to the land uses which will not overburden the circulation system. June 6, 2005 Page 12 1AUSERS\PLN \Shared\PA's \PAs - 2005 \PA2005 -027\UP2005 -005 appr.doc ` (p 2. Additional Required Findings. In addition to the findings required above, the following findings shall be made: a. The increased development, including above grade covered parking, does not create abrupt changes in scale between the proposed development and development in the surrounding area. Comment: The project, as proposed, provides no substantial changes to the existing parking lot. There is no covered parking proposed with the project, and the height of the building complies with the 26/35 Height Limitation Zone of the SP-4 District. b. That the proposed use and structures, including above grade covered parking, are compatible with the surrounding area. No Ca " Comment: The project, as proposed, is compatible with the surrounding commercial properties, and the height limitation of the Zoning District prevents abrupt scale changes. C. The increased development, including above grade covered parking, will not result in significant impairment of public views. Comment: There are no public views through or across the subject property that will adversely impacted by the project. d. That the site is physically suitable for the development proposed, including above -grade covered parking; furthermore, taking into consideration, site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources. Comment: There are no unusual site characteristics such as slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources that limit the suitability of the site for the proposed project. Comparison of Proposed and Existing Operation June 6, 2005 Page 13 lAUSERSIPLN1SharedlPA's1PAs - 20051PA2005- 0271UP2005 -005 appr.doc 41 Restaurant Type Classification Full- Service, Small -Scale Use Permit No. 2081 Live Entertainment No No Dancing No No Valet Parking Service No No Number of Employees: 3-4 employees 3-4 employees Number of Seats: 25 interior seats 29 interior seats authorized (removal of 4 authorized seats and a reduction in bar1counter seating of the proposed plan is required) Alcoholic Beverage Service YES YES June 6, 2005 Page 13 lAUSERSIPLN1SharedlPA's1PAs - 20051PA2005- 0271UP2005 -005 appr.doc 41 , I Hours: Staff recommendation: Food Service 11:00 am to 11:00 pm, daily 11:00 am to 10:00 pm, daily (consistent with the hours as modified by the applicant) Gross Square Footage of Bldg: 2,973 sq. ft. 2,290 s .ft. Subject Tenant Space: 1'4 floor 1,750 sq. ft. 1,090 sq.ft. 2n° floor 663 sc. ft. 0 sq. ft. TOTAL 2,433 sq. ft. 1,090 sq. ft. Net Public Area (% of space)': BarArea: NIA NIA Dining Areas: 635 sq.ft. 610 sq.ft. Subtotal: 635 sq fL (26 %) 610 sq.fL (56%) Other Non - dining Area (% of space): V' floor - restroom, storage, kitchen etc.: 1,115 sq. ft. (46 %) 2nd floor 663 sq. ft. (28 %) 480 sq. ft. (44 %) TOTAL AREA: 2,433 s .fL 1,090 sq.tt Planning Director's Use Permit No. UP200"05 (PA2005427)- Michael Hoskinson 211 62"d Street Parking Comparison Area devoted to waiting and dining within the facility. June 6, 2005 Page 14 I: \USERS \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2005\PA2005- 027\UP2005 -005 appr.doc i Parking Allocated to Retail Uses On-Site: 2 spaces 2 spaces 4 spaces (@ one per 422 sq.ft.) Parking Allocated to Restaurant Use: 4 spaces' 4 spaces 4 spaces (@ one per 422 sq.ft.) Revised Parking Status: I Reduction in Parking I Reduction in Parking waiver from 20 spaces to waiver from 20 spaces to Staff Recommendation: 4 Parking Spaces, maintain parking status, reduce # I parting waiver from 20 spaces to 4 spaces xi jnd limit t' facility to a maximum of 25 seats F Y Staff is of the opinion that the existing parking status and the 4 parking -space deficiency `'� will not be adversely affected by the increase in the gross floor area of the restaurant use.ti� Additionally, since the previous facility had authorization for on -sale beer and wine service only, staff does not find that the proposal constitutes an intensity of use to warrant /— additional parking. Additionally, the traffic circulation of the on -site parking (8 spaces that will be reduced to 7 spaces) is not the most efficient, but has been utilized in this �r configuration for a number of years with no complaints or problems presented to the Planning Department. ` Restroom Facilities The applicant has requested a reduction in authorized interior seating from 29 seats to 25 seats, the maximum allowed by the full - service, small -scale restaurant provisions of the Municipal Code. The sanitation facilities required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code and in compliance with the provisions of the Health Code (Orange County) are met by the provision of separate sex restrooms, as currently provided on -site. Restaurant Development Standards Chapter 20.82.040 of the Municipal Code contains development standards for restaurants, as outlined below, to ensure that any proposed development will be compatible with adjoining properties and streets. Said development standards include specific requirements for building setbacks, parking and traffic circulation, walls surrounding the restaurant site, landscaping, exterior illumination, signage, underground utilities, and storage. Section 20.82.040 D of the Municipal Code states that any of the above mentioned development standards for restaurants may be modified or waived if strict compliance is not necessary to achieve the purpose or intent of the standard. ' Rounded up from 3.85 spaces June 6, 2005 Page 15 I: \USERS\PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2005kPA2005- 027 \UP2005 -005 appr.doc 41 Development Standards Setbacks Complies with SP-4 District Standards. Zero setbacks sides, front and 10 ft alley (rear) per SP-4 District Development Standards; intent or purpose is to limit size and bulk of buildings as visible from adjacent public streets and neighboring properties. Parking and traffic Complies. Parking, curb cuts and Circulation; to condo!' No change proposed to existing configuration with the facilitate traffic and circulation of vehicles exception of the loss of a standard parking space to and pedestrians on and around the facility. accommodate the addition of a handicap space. Walls (surrounding Waiver of the requirement for a 6-foot-high wall, since 64bot -high surrounding the entire property; the restaurant site) noise issues have been adequately addressed by to . control noise and other nuisances restrictions on the proposed use, and the fad that the generated by vehicles in the parking lot. walls would restrict the traffic circulation utilizing the alley. Landscaping Waiver of additional landscaping, where strict 109/0 of entire site; to beautify and enhance compliance would add landscaping which would not the streetscape enjoyed by the public. further enhance the streetscepe, since it would be located at the parking lot side of the property. However, the conditions of approval which require enhancement and maintenance of the existing landscape areas visible from 62n0 Street will accomplish the Purpose and intent of the standard. Lighting Complies, there is none currently. There is no Parking lot and site illumination, height and proposal to alter or add and there have not been any intensity; to limit fight and glare visible from past complaints related to lighting. However, staff has and from spilling onto neighboring included a condition of approval requiring that the properties. existing packing lot lighting be directed to minimize impacts on neighboring residential properties. Strict compliance would not achieve any greater result than would redirection of existing light sources to achieve the purpose or intent of this requirement. Signing Complies, All new signs are required to comply wch Compliance with 20.06 of the Municipal the provisions of Title 20; more specifically, Chapter Code (the Sign Code); to maintain a 20.67 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. uniformity of signs compatible with the signs of other uses in the area. Underground utilities Complies. All utilities required to be undergrounded, to eliminate visual impacts of the overhead power lines. Storage Complies. Supplies and Refuse storage hidden from The addition of a modified trash enclosure will reduce view, to limit visual impacts from 'public the visual impact as viewed from the surrounding street or neighboring properties public roadways. Staff is of the opinion that the on -site development standards as they apply to walls (surrounding the restaurant) and landscaping should be waived if the Planning Director approves this application, since the granting of the waiver will achieve the same results as would strict compliance with the requirements of Chapter 20.82. In addition, the matters of landscaping and lighting have been adequately addressed by the recommended conditions of approval. It should also be noted that the Planning Director and the Planning 3 The number of required parking spaces is addressed in the body of the report and this section relates to dimensions of parking spaces and aisle widths of the parking lot. June 6, 2005 Page 16 I:IUSERSIPLNIShareffA's\PAs - 20051PA2005- 027WP2005 -005 appr.doc �� Commission have the ability to call up the use permit for review in the future, should problems arise with regard to any aspect of the operation. Pti ( do �{'V' �� s Li �r v Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance (-+ Although the application submitted is a continuation or change to Use Permit No. 2081 No as originally approved and which authorized the service of alcoholic beverage (specifically, beer and wine only), Section 20.89.030.13 of the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet 1P. Ordinance (ABO) does not apply. However, the Police Department as a part of the course of review of any application for alcoholic beverage license issued by the State t Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) has provided the following information in review of the license application submitted to the ABC: Whether the use serves public convenience or necessity. 2. The crime rate in the reporting district and adjacent reporting districts as compared to other areas in the City. 3. The number of alcohol licenses per capita in the reporting district and in adjacent reporting districts as compared to the county-wide average. 4. The numbers of alcohol - related calls for service, crimes or arrests in the reporting district and in adjacent reporting districts. 5. The proximity of the alcoholic beverage outlet to residential districts, day care centers, park and recreation facilities, places of religious assembly, and schools. In accordance with the foregoing, each of the factors is discussed as follows: . 1. Public Convenience or Necessity: The proposed alcohol outlet is for a full - service, small -scale restaurant. The service of beer and wine is provided for the convenience of patrons dining at the restaurant. The restaurant can be viewed as complementary to the surrounding retail, office and residential uses. The Police Chief is designated by Council Policy K -7 to be responsible for making an official finding of public convenience and necessity on behalf of the City. The Police Chief is prepared to make this finding as the proposed establishment is a restaurant and not a bar or nightclub. 2. Crime Rate: Citywide, there were 5,889 crimes reported during calendar year 2004, of which 2,508 were Part One Crimes (serious offenses). The remaining 3,381 were Part Two Crimes that include alcohol related arrests. The project site, located within Newport Shores Specific Plan Area, is located within Police Reporting District No. 17, The Part One Crime Rate for the RD, two adjacent RD's, City, California and National averages are shown in the following table for comparison. RD No. 24: 3,417.00 City 3,314.74 Average: RD No. 17: 3,895.46 California: 4,003.5 RD No. 16: 4,700.53 National: 4,063.4 June 6, 2005 Page 17 1:1USERSTLN1SharedlPA's1PAs - 20051PA2005- 0271UP2005 -005 appr.doc 61 The crime rate in RD 17 is lower due to the very limited population of the RD. During 2004, the number of Part One Crimes in RD No. 17 was 79 and the number of Part Two Crimes was 57. RD No. 24 had 162 Part One and 105 Part Two Crimes; and RD No. 16 had 124 Part One and 117 Part Two Crimes. While the number of reported total crimes is higher within the RD 17 of the subject project site as compared to adjacent RD 24 but lower than adjacent RD 16, the Police Department believes that the actual amount of crimes in the area is not considered significant due to the high concentration of commercial uses within RD No. 17 as compared to RD No. 16 and RD No. 24 has a lower per capita ratio of licenses to population. 3. Over Concentration: There are a total of 8 active ABC licenses within RD No. 17. The census tract within which the restaurant is located has a higher ratio of liquor licenses to population when compared with the average ratio for Orange County, since there is very limited population within the census tract. As noted by the Police Department report, the requested on -sale alcohol license is not expected to generate Y, additional crime problems in the area due to the nature of the business and its location within Fashion Island, which provides security services. The concentration of alcoholic beverage licenses within the area is not considered by the Police Department as detrimental to the community. 4. Alcohol Related Crimes: The Police Department has provided statistics for driving under the influence and plain drunk arrests. There were a total of 242 arrests, with 22 driving under the influence arrests and 19 plain drunk arrests within RD No. 17 in 2004. The percentage of alcohol related arrests within RD No. 17 is 26% (41/155). City -wide, alcohol - related arrests account for 35% (1,238/3,550) of all arrests made. The alcohol- related arrest rate in the two adjacent reporting districts is 39% for RD No. 24 and 43% for RD No. 16. The rate within which the project is located, RD No. 17, is lower than the city-wide average and lower than the two adjacent RD's. The Police Department does not believe that the proposed request will generate a significant number of alcohol- related incidents. As noted in the section on Crime Rate above, the sale of alcohol in the restaurant is accessory to the restaurant use. The restaurant has a lounge /sake bar area of approximately 1,003 square feet or 12% of the total restaurant floor area. Therefore, in the opinion of the Police Department, it is unlikely that the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the restaurant use will increase alcohol - related crimes. 5. Adjacent Uses. The site is located within Newport Shores Specific Plan Area and is not immediately adjacent to sensitive land uses. There are no day care centers, schools, or park and rye facilities in the vicinity of the project site. However, there are residentlalt�s�s" located ithin 30 feet of the property, across Newport Shores Drive. rr June 6, 2005 Page 18 1AUSERSIPLNISharedlPA's�PAs - 20051PA2005 -0 271UP2005 -005 appr.doc a In accordance with the ABO Ordinance, the Police Department has reviewed the Use Permit application and has determined that no additional conditions related to design and security is necessary. However, conditions of approval (Conditions of Approval 13.1-13.8) related to use of the facility for other than restaurant use have been included and require that special event permits be obtained for any use of the facility that does not provide for the service of food and beverage as the primary use. This would include private parties that do not provide service from the full menu or happy hour type events or activities. Environmental Review This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). The proposed interior improvements, in order to accommodate the new restaurant, are a minor alteration within the shopping center. There will be no environmental disturbance as the proposed project is located in a fully developed area. June 6, 2005 Page 19 1AUSERSTLN1Shared\PA's1PAs - 20051PA2005- 027AUP2005 -005 appr.doc 65 ID Y l `� any T 5. C Mevashe! 19 1981 A�TAfTES 766 U, NL ym Cow -' ROLL CALI L I Aerdlmt I ComLasionar 8a1alis aaggest d that tb. wrd ; appartenantas be replaced with aO1LmtL1 ? m rc R7.3 " YS° Mr:" Berah. ; stated tlut >Lu0itn7t ia1 �, ,rtFCw '. AcWtd S uP is voule he appropriate.: Co-sialials! Thws. aetaPt it as an a..Od ant'tn his motias y,. '. ALL AYES I X X I I X Amended Nnti COOex"Loner T'boaas for Odeption of !. Baaolutim' M0. 4*p Lng Menda.oL NO.. 567 to #i Title 20 of the Barb lanieipal Code n as to .. astablish a.Mobil. `OSserict.`'••Lq •aoe voted M. Mich AI@IDID Matt "C6IIXIPD. 11ne ni•.arud 1phihit •A• for the test of AP .P w-d Mobile Bcee Park Distriet;r Ttr Plaaoing Ceeeission 'recessed. at 9:50 P.S. and . F I . remnverad. at 30:00 P.O. . 4 ... Request to establish a taxe -aue ice crew rlo to the Itm /6 co ®ereiaL area of the Ma�port Shores Specific Plan Area. Aod w vaive a pOrtion Of tb- rY "Od Otf,lrevt Parkl SPite1 ]n WO)Oncti. Vi" Bald LLM. USE PERMIT ] TZIGMt Lots 7 and 8, seashore Colony •tract• located at 211 and 211. 6Zr Street, 01 -• the.aoutbvasteu ' lY.. corner PI 67M Street and Be,.pplt Shorss'''Orivs min" Mevpett .. -.. S}1pre5. AP?grVED ZONE: SP-4 , .C. AP a PL3CA.YT: Sal Bin Construction, Ile Ctloa, COS 6a i j WfLR: Czeatave NnY. lac., Coau Mess The pulilc heaing opened in conne"Jnn vlrh tn>s item and hr. Cliff Hanson, representing the sploizcarr., .. . appeared before the ccnsassion and rcqueatel a;�rrn•al of the use persist. Mr. Xenon sut.d tlut taw Bun -n- Barrel restaurant facility has sppi,od for a oae permit. _l7_ ID Y l `� ` r COAAMIS40�fR5 \ � � .rzy�..'AA6`1JCES' I;• gg � movember 19 '1961 s City of -Newport Beach :e +r:as 7dO11::G11 ... :.. -.: ., „ >: :;:. ....;.;e >;: t:,a r k,,x• -r : jlpfjea lotion vu monde for approval of Use Permit ab. 3016, subject to the findlega and eonditioga of o hibit 'Am., Commissioner. Seek stated that be would W opposing the . motion becaase takr t ieatamranL create a datrimant to sorremdlaq neigbborboods and result in litter to an area. mur lcJ Absent Motion for appr .l of Use legit W. 2036 by Commaissioner Aalalia vaa non voted ono as follows, which MdflOW CAmIZ ®� 1. that the proposed une is consistent with the [and Usa Llemant of the Ca .al .plan and is compatible with w ad ai" lam ones. 3. the project vill rot bave any sigoifloaot em,ironaw tan impact.1 1. That the valver of the development standards as they pertain to parking ctrculation. walla landscaping, and utilltlem, will l» of no further detriment on adjacent properties inaeaua as the site has been developed and . the structure ham been is existence for any years. .'... 6: The Police` Department has indicated tbdt • tltej' . do not contemplate any problems. 5. The approval of Use Permit W. 3016 .111 not under the circumstances of the cafe be detrimental W tna health Safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfars of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or Injurious to property or improvements in the MISS orlwod or the general wife" of the City. L ITION6: 1. That develolaeot Non 11 be In substantial conformance with the approvad plot plan and floor plan. -16- t� I r�� F a •� If ('' u ti: 111 Nep�Wl DCa.11 4: j ` >' T nopiit.v t is 2. Tbat . thr`. • a.aner p u at titno g lot, x I 1gh tW 7, 1 1 a' ' i ' u .k P wlde .: adpuaU Lll.ml.utlon w all area o! the lot txitlbut' ca.sioq any - ll9ht or gLrn to i.peGt .diatom prppartLa. . .Thee all, . f ..,aa.,,..taquliwn.t ; Wall be fatal 64joinfo q „trDaW p. aartrw lna and and Cr. adjoin., a. That all signs sha11 conf— to the Drovislons of Chapter 2o.06 of the Municipal Cobs, 4 ins an fixtures talled';.ad wE xh.. Shat# gzeaue., .i. vhere. graase '.ay b.' introduced ' - Snrn the drai.agn Sys— .in aecordaata with w of the, 0oilom Plbinq,cude 6. That the testaurant ag.lo"s Wall Park on site at all Lima. 1 y. That a sdai— of [ c. -alU parking spaces 'aball be prcrided for the propoaW take-out 8. That Che zestaYranl facility Wall be limited. . ”. to.,Me: hours of •11:00.....:. to'9,00'p:va3 daily. . 9. TMt the dlllop.nt standards related to clrwlaefov, walls, 'landscaping, utilities, and portion of thn parki, raquizesents are — �aivrf_ A.gceat to create four parc•la of lend ter single Iten 07 fauily residential pu.tes where one Parcel presently esiste, and the acceptance of an Envlr.nmentel �oc'umenc. Rr$U3- ILCA A portion of lct 2, Ne.,port He SShta A0. 707 Tract, located ♦t 2961 Cliff Driv., stituting the entire e.aterly side of Sa Ana AVeM.e, bar.*.. Cliff Drive Ccn.Inutd and m iapro 66 portion of Avon Street LD December in ■ fights. T3,7w— 20•Y: k -1 _19- If ('' u ti: 111 Nep�Wl DCa.11 4: j ` >' T nopiit.v t is 2. Tbat . thr`. • a.aner p u at titno g lot, x I 1gh tW 7, 1 1 a' ' i ' u .k P wlde .: adpuaU Lll.ml.utlon w all area o! the lot txitlbut' ca.sioq any - ll9ht or gLrn to i.peGt .diatom prppartLa. . .Thee all, . f ..,aa.,,..taquliwn.t ; Wall be fatal 64joinfo q „trDaW p. aartrw lna and and Cr. adjoin., a. That all signs sha11 conf— to the Drovislons of Chapter 2o.06 of the Municipal Cobs, 4 ins an fixtures talled';.ad wE xh.. Shat# gzeaue., .i. vhere. graase '.ay b.' introduced ' - Snrn the drai.agn Sys— .in aecordaata with w of the, 0oilom Plbinq,cude 6. That the testaurant ag.lo"s Wall Park on site at all Lima. 1 y. That a sdai— of [ c. -alU parking spaces 'aball be prcrided for the propoaW take-out 8. That Che zestaYranl facility Wall be limited. . ”. to.,Me: hours of •11:00.....:. to'9,00'p:va3 daily. . 9. TMt the dlllop.nt standards related to clrwlaefov, walls, 'landscaping, utilities, and portion of thn parki, raquizesents are — �aivrf_ A.gceat to create four parc•la of lend ter single Iten 07 fauily residential pu.tes where one Parcel presently esiste, and the acceptance of an Envlr.nmentel �oc'umenc. Rr$U3- ILCA A portion of lct 2, Ne.,port He SShta A0. 707 Tract, located ♦t 2961 Cliff Driv., stituting the entire e.aterly side of Sa Ana AVeM.e, bar.*.. Cliff Drive Ccn.Inutd and m iapro 66 portion of Avon Street LD December in ■ fights. T3,7w— 20•Y: k -1 _19- -31- 61 �±'r�/YiISSKX'�ERS L 5 :c Oecmber 10 1981 .., uM d s Cityof , t :Newport, Beach lnaoc -. ... - 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Departaent,' 3. That the existivg driveway depression on'the'P.aat ' Boulevard tromps. be. tssoeed and replaced with curb and sidevalk. ,.. .. .,- a. the deteriorated portions of curb, and along the Pala street and Past Balboa Boolav frnntpea be [eawad and rplaad. 5. SSUG a 10-! C radius turner cutoff be dedicated ' to the Public t the earner oL Palo street aM.. Balboa Boulevard that an encroaehsent'Fer . it be Issued by the lie Works h partaant for the existing builCi,p enc chment. 6. That the asiating 1 -foot ad1ua curb return he reaoved and replieeq with e 2 foot radius curb return whicu will include the natruction of an . access rasp. . S. That a standard subdivision a9 nt and seoemparyinq surety be provided if it desired W obtain a building permit .c record the creel nap prior to caepletiae ±f fha lie isprovesents. Item 01$ Re,ueft to perRlt a take -Wt restaurant with on -sale beer and wine in the covsercial arse of the Newport Shores Specific Plan "as, and a request to valve a US7 P-tiI i portion of tke required off - street parking spaces. IQ. ZW .- I TION: lets J and 8, Block 2, Soishore Colony Tract, located at 211 62nd Street, on - the southwesterly corner of Newport DENIED Shores Drive and 62nd Streat, in the -- Newport Shores Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP -4 -31- 61 .d; F �OMMISSk�ERS f Z S :t 0, 4s .,3 r oevier 1D 198E .�i !,? Tt 7-(PP MR'd+t i1 t city Newpor Beach „r t l'ES` APPLICarR: BrycaY. Price, tlewpmrt Beech .' ;( , CT.au.te ways, Newport B•� i .. .. ( the Pub"C, hearing opened in obonoctinft with this itea j and Mr. Bryce Price, the appliragt, appeared before the ' Cm£ssioa. Mr- Price stated that then is never pore -- -.' than two Flo ees on duty at the eun-n- Darrel. no stand that the employees- park. at the end of no bmildsag.- no stated that. there are cis paiTLy spates in the front of the biil¢in9 and that the Bun- n- harrel - should,be. alloeatadthrea pf, tbosb' :,Zp+eei:. b.%ae:. the . restaorax ocmplq'So percent of the building. Mr. Price, described.tha surrounding uses in the area. He stated. that ':' in':' order ' to became a profitahla business, be, is nov requesting the servlee of Doer and ulna. Be, stated that they are cequeeting that their hours of operation r,eeihjftra; 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. Mr. Dos Davis, owner of the outpost Liquor Store located at 6110 Y. Coast Higbvay, aPpoared before the C ®nsaim and stated that he is opposed to the addition of beer:: and. win. to the Dun -n- Barrel. He stated that the.Parking.'in this area during the summer ..the is a ",notodons' pmblua. He also stated that this ce.quest is located witbin 25 feet„ of residential Properties, vM b would' cause 'a datriment'.toi• -fbe — neighborhood. - Mr. Prate crated that Mr. Davis has a lnaucr business W sells only prepared food. He stated that his restaurant business is requesting the addition of beer and wiM in omiar;.to enhance the enjoyment of his, barbecue food and m make his business grow. Planning Cirectmr.. Hewicker suggested that a' rnedition ! could he iogosed so as to not alloy the removal of beer or vim from the premises, but for only tansuspt£on on the premises. Chairman M Laughli stated that she would like to see the use regain as a delicatessen. -31- q �oaoe+Gec l0. 1481 ROLL ICAILL Writer I All Ares. I I p? x m- MINIMS gas: DENIED APPLIW : Abdul d Noura Alsaud, Newport Beach OxrN<R: Sale as appl nt -33- -D C VIM- lbtinm wa made for w:;denral of Use Perwyt'No. 2048, zObjeet to the.: follwing -'findings, which NDTION vsRZmd' . 1- That approval of the, request to waive a portico of the development standards for the proposed takewt facility as set forth in the Cods would be - deeriaeatal to adjacent properties or improvemaats. Speeifica11Y, Snadaquate parking axd vehicular circulation exists.: in conjunction with this derelol 't_ Hxrthermore, the Police Department Me - also indicated that parking is already a'probl® in the immdiate vicinity of the Bite. . 2. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will under the cirC4•aLntea Of the particular cafe, be datrlmeo4l to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and ger <z&I welfare of persons residinq or we king in helghborh of such proposed use and be d- triutal o injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City, inasmuch as the proposed development could result in a srgnificaat increase in the intensity of "a of the sob3ect property. Aeq iezt to pmr it the installation of outdoor - lighting lttm 016 in rojuectioa with a private tennis court facility located on property in Harbor Ridge. Ctn: Lot le, Tract No. 9589, located at s8 USE PE% °17 Yorkshire, At the end of the Yorkshire N6. 2056 - NS-de -sac, in Harbor Ridge. gas: DENIED APPLIW : Abdul d Noura Alsaud, Newport Beach OxrN<R: Sale as appl nt -33- -D C atavvswvwlrrac> May 6, 39e2 ,-,^:� 4 h?1. Wo "fiAQ�IJrES " -i' Wit:r .. 15. That the sffi • is G geld. in rxgspa A¢Srptha � . .life of the'applian ease. and that severance of the Sots +ball eunatitu ralnatlon of Lna esa Wait. . � - . Bequest to Wait s take-aut - restaurant Sn the Item Ale coenereial' area of'- M`Oevpor[' Shores Specific plan arm, and A regrsst to valve a portion of the required off - street parking spates. . [OCATICien acts q and Y, Block 2, SeafhOre Calaey Treet, located at 211 6Td Strvst, on USE PERY,IT tha muuthwosterly earner of sarporc ND. 2081 Shore Drive and 62nd Stmt, So eha ■avpc : Shores Speeifle Plan Area. APPLTCARfv Bryce V. Arice, Newport Beach APPROVED i CON06 WNER: Cieative Yapa, Costa Bess The pu-alic hearing opened in connection vie` this item and Br. Bryce Prica, the applicant, referred to his letters dated April BLS and April 26th, 1982, and _requested approval of this applrcatipn. Be also explained the surrounding esee and the availalle parking space-. He salted that the listed parking for his use has never created a peables- in response to a que -tier posed by coaaassio e, Balalis, Nt. Price stated that they were not aware hat they were in violation of the Code, vheo that' purchased the 8--B- Barrel restaurant facility. Cosw:s•ioner Baiaiia suggested that this usr Wrait he approved for a perird of tw years, in crier to evaluate if the liaitad parking will create a prohlaa. Mr. Price stated that this would be acceptable. -1D- a W6, Ia d Gty:of.,.*Newport.,B( Mottos Aye's Non Cos-issiontr anak "Md if thare is &oyt" the : 21ann"mU C*MxlaSQe eme 09,to. PUt..m*!'�VM,,*Qx o0ti"?,4, am W bat" th�a*1111 - -I I �4 ,'a,va' buying. in,. the CIty. 1, Mr. 1, 3kk6j'u. stated that by, f4.1 the nusbez7 , a I - , f. woata 1 to lbe permitted in the rmnintmarant as a conditioli of approval ;' . Ptrhser of a restaaraot, .,is than tads e.a_ -a of Nut he iw bw?IM_ 24 ... pouse to quaistion toned by ConaLUl,,,, 'P xwPw'.d tba dltiatmeeas between a•dli""aaen and a Cake -out r"caur"ut. Mnti.in ws me.de- app of Use permit a.. 2081, subject to the ECIIOWLng findings and Conditiomer With the additional: tends faena . that then be a tmo year time period es the umep smit and I say be subject to the ppinm of,the Modification Coessittse, and that the seativil aball met'exceed 29 parsons, or Neat is permitted by the tiro Department, Wichever is hich tID'f1G11 CaY'IIIE�, I- That is ,consistent with the urxL Use VI­" If the Gen.r.1 Plen and the and the Draft TncaI Coastal Plan and is compatible with .rr.urAi,q lan6 sus. -2. The Project trul net have any siguiti"nt ..vironmenta.l. i2,�_ 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to a portion of the required parXiog "me clrculation,rww=s, LarAscaping;,,and4ntilitios'ri'iijI be of on furthwr I detriment to adjacent properties insamotb as the site has been developed and the structure has hoen in existence for may years. 4. The -PPtw-I of Use permit No. MI -ill .', under the circomstaxes of,the case be detrimental to the health s.afety, peace, morals, comfort and general Welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborbood,, me be -.4atr4mental, or i In j or Property ;or -Imptnveswwrtn in the na'"borhood or the- general Welfare of the City. -34- U ( I V I 'Ayr3®. 3961:, `� •• ice. as 4. Shat.& standard site plan rerl" 19rerant sod actor panying surety ba provided in order to gesrmates matlsfaotory completion of the public 1sWroreaantae if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public Saproremm"." 5. That the on -site parking. vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation 074Cer be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer.- 6'�-,That the la.dscaping adjacent to the public rlght,f- ray be subject co rariar sod approval of the Parks. Beaches and geeteatioo Dapartaant and Public Work. Departmant. 7. That full\rtdth sidewalk be constructed. that the 20' rid. drive iptua be Constructed par City SM 166-L. and that the atsaligood curb be reconstructed along the Vest Coast Bigbvq- frmt&Sa under an ancrcacbaect permit leaned by the California Departaeac of Trans- portation, and that the State Se.rosehaant Permit for the new drive appcoscb be. obtatnad prior " the Sssv- acca of .Du1.idlag petal". \ B. That a condition survey of the eaieting bulkhead 01.49 the bay aide of.the property be boa by a. civil or structural entlneer; sad that the bulkhead be repair" in comformacce with the re^omeendations of the coodl- tios an"" and to the aatisfsction of tha,svilding Departs:mt and Marine Depardeot; that the design of the new portions of tb. bulkhead be approved by,the Building Deparoremr and Marina Department. The top of the bulk" ,A is to be a da]enr wlevat3on of 9.00\ above M.L.L.V. (6.27 M.6:..). 9. That the proposed developact be co,structd vith a finish floor elev.tion above the curb alsvation un Vest Com.t Migbeay. Use Permit Mo. 3094 (public gearing) Iit. Mo. 7 Request to permit the •stabllahvsmt of s take -out seafood Bs. Permit restaurant In conjunction with a retail commercial fieb ib. 3�- worker on property located In the coaaerclal axes of the MerpoK Short. Specific Plan ewes. sod a request "valve Approved a portion of the required offetreet parking spars. Coodi- tionaliy y�0�gy3 11- � 1 !lotus Ayes Absent : t t �..J 7.GC1TI0six ractJ itiotp located at 213 Celnn7:i .. .Tragic ldditim, located at 21J 6304 Sttsec. Unit PE, on the sootMS'erly comer of ».. 62nd,Street s d seaport Sborae Driw.. in- : the Newport Sbotes Specific Plan At". - WNE:' -: ST-4 . A- MACANT . Specialties: Int., dba The . yisbwoeger, laPorc sescn :; t' -44M creative Ways, Inc,. Cost. /W. . She public hearing 'opened in cemeetlon vtth this item _ and Paul Str der appeared before the Plam.fog Coesiaeloo m behalf of the applicant.' W. Stradar indicated that be Ss iu cmeurrsnea rJth the findings and conditions recommended in the staff report with the eecaptim of Condition, No,: at vbicb provides that the two raatsurmt ,employees_ shall park'm site at all dean. Mr. Stredac velced custmere would be unable to utilise the parking spaces. Mr. Stredtr stated that he lives in the Newport Shored area, within Walking dlatance co tha facility and., . hence. does: _ not p1m re drive. He further ccenented that the other' employee .111 cot be driving either since b• rants an off- scrcet parking space vIthiu the Newport Shoran area. Mr. Strader urged that the time parking spaces be mada available for cumtewer parking during their hours of operation. .. . Commlssimer surlander clarified that if the mplayees do not drive, cuatnaern would be able to park In the; subject spaces: There being m otbass chastise "to, appear and be heard." . the publlc hearing vac closed. Notion was wade for approval of Use Permit No. 3094, E . follavfog findings mud conditions, which e1wq`laN st CAo EEtIh ! i �t C .mN a a .. � �•RS ! [ �XL�i7r!i� Apr s .S .iCii GN3 a CONDITIONS: 1. That developmeat shall be 1. nub -tent Ll Conformance vlth the approved plot pLn sad floor plan. 2. That the parking lot -hall be 1lg3td in such a manner -a to to provide adequate illuoitim to all areas of,:,.-. the lot without --1-9 eey light or glare to impact adjacent oropercles. 3. That all mechanical equipment and crash areas #hall be ......d from adjoining properties cad from adjoio- I., street.. 6. That all afgn. shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Coda. 5. That grease Interceptors -hall he installed on all fiat,,,, where grease may be introduced into the drainage -y.tema 1. atwrdaace with the provisions of the O.Sfem Plumbing Code. -13- 0 r .. . 3 (,QM/Vt��`IRS 'Y S Fi. City. o... t Beach. 6. That 'a mabuut area for the restaurant tr"h tr - taimra be pto.ided in such a way es to Sosura direct dral=ge into the aesmr system sad not into the Day or the atom drains if.required.by the " building Departaant. ... 7. That a minimum of two on --a1te parting spaces shall be provided for the proposed cake -out restaurant. 0. That the two restaurant employees shall 'park on nits at all times. 9. That the restaurant. facility .ball be limited to the hoar. of 11:00 ..m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. 10. That the development standard@ related to circula- tion, valle, landscaping, utilities. mud a portion of the parking rcquirsmts era vaived. 11. That the service of any alcoholic beverages to pro- hibited =less an amended use permit is approved. 12. That the Planning Comi sioa any addfor modlfy con- dStima of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use per - sit, upon a decerm mtioo that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injurys or is detsiment.l to the be ltb, safety, peace, =role, . comfort, or gmeral welfare of the community. • a e . Request to approve an amendment to the roll Center Traffic Phasing Plan an es to tremfer space Site it to "Office Site B ^. AND B. As..dment No. bob (publie Nearing) AND Request to emend the gull Center Nevpatt Phoned C ®unity Amend.' Dave lapamc Staed:rda eo as to trmafer th undeveloped W. —601 remaining allowable area for office, restaurant and retail Approv use -from 'Office Site All to -Office Site V. -14- ZZ l�� d 1 s` 1 city Of 2. That, the t -k-az9 and and related plastic containers - end Peper goods usy Rasae the prohlea Of trash and I firer on adjoining eriiett\ sidwallu and the beach. 7. The approval of Coe Peraft So,'I864 (Amended) .111. . under the eircmtaman of this ,an dotrisentul to chi hralth, safety, peace, morAla. 16 rt and general "list* of persona residing and .orkl.k in the wlabbor' od and be datriecatal or Injurious Property and isPenesents in the neighborhood and. general welfare of. the City. tine Peradt No. 1081 (Amended) (P bI1t gear! ' It. RA Request to change the cperarional charact*ri. lcs of en -j-P. 02081 existing take-out reatr csat (1.e., Rib-Stay Der .Q. Co.), on property located it the eotnercial area a[ the Neupart Approved Shores Specific Plea Area, An as to add the iocideatel COWI- sereice of on- sale .beer and .Sae in coq)vacttoo with the chosen, restaurant operation. LOCATION: Lots 3 and S. block 2. Seashore Lobo) Tract Addition, located nt 213 62nd Streat. Unit A on the ecutbwesterly corner of 62nd Street and Newport Shores Drive, is the Ne Wrt Shores Specific Plan .are., ZONE: 5P_d APPLICANT: R:}Stak bar B_Q. Co.. Newport Beach M NER: Creative Nays, Inn.. Coat. ke.a The publlc hearing was Opened in connection with thin item and Note Stackler. Omer of he Alb -SCek Ber B.Q. Co..appeAred before the P1am1¢g Coaaiasioo and ronvrrel vlth the Pitdift" and Ceadltiona of Approval r.coactendeJ in the Staff report. -15- 1 I'l 0. V City of NeM)at Beach �LLLLL Pzff= ThWC& being as others d*stCIDS to -Ppoll be heard, the public hasaing was closed. 40CLOCI anul -4dQ for APPrOme'sl of Use Permit No. X:mss x I W x (Ammeaded), subject to the ?India&. and Conditions conitalacal i.ts x In Exhibit "A", which MTION CARRIED. riredings- 1. That the proposed use Is consistent with the iena Vas Movements of the General Plan and the Adopted Local Coastal Pregreeft, WW is caspattble with sur- rounding land uses. Z- The project will ment be,, any significant anaptra,,mental lxmpact. 3- Tnat the PrO"Mad change in the upt,stional character - 1-tics of the existing take -east restaurant. " 4. to Include the service of bear and rine am an incidental .., rill ant L.crease, the patkin dtaiaui of the ras- tawrant. Shat the Police 1101-,timent hem, an objections to this request, promelding that the sale of be., and wine is incidental to the service of food. S. rhe approval of Use Permit $*. 2081 (Amended) will not under the circemmat&nco• of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace. "ral.. Comfort and general welfare of persona residing or working in the rucloborhood or be detrimental or Injurious to property or Smpiaveaenu in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. C*Mltt..• 1. That dreelopmeat shall ba, So ubstantle! oanfniaance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2. T`at the parkiva lot ,hall be lighted in such & saftner see EO Provide 440eituete Lilematnatim to all areas ci the. lot without Causing any light or glare to japact adjacent properties. -16- 1 6 �/ ss x" cAul FMI H! .194 XGKIUTES City. of., NewporL Beabh. I FIND", 3. That all sachmital equipment and trash ,rtaj; shell be 'reso-d frone edJoizin, prnpartiao and from sAJ i-ts streets. 4- That all signs shall ceajm to the plo,ls,ott. of Claitcar 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 5- net the two restaurant employees shall park on site during evmoirq bowls of the day, 6. That the "et'ting CaVerill shell not o2ceed! 29 perso", or vnat is penittrd by the Fir- ➢eWtasrl, whichever is I..,. 7. net the .. ..... an, sh,:, to tl,* p.bl it b*fer. 11:00 s.m_ or after 10:00 p.a, dally. 8' That on off -sale 1,1-1. wl.e. ., other alcoholic beverages shall be peraltteE 11 con!,—cLlln with the restaurant. 9- That the hear and wine shall be incidental to the pritamr, food -*,Im operation of the r..t.ur=,. 10. net the Planing Crressi..i.o vy add or modify Coo,di- tlOna of approval to title . parsit, or yet to Cho City Council the rovoCattent of this "a oft, upon a dtteraloatlm that the ."ratio. .,,,ICh is the subject of title use peCit, Causes Injury. or is d-triatent.1 In the healtSt pests, tnefort, or general welfare of the c,sawt it,. H- That a sizaintum of f.'n, o"Its, parking space. bell be provided for the cub4ct 12. net the original Use P-redt Ne. 20411 -h.11 b.cone, null and e-14 in 1.1j%unctlez ..tb tb. nr,,l of h 1, ."li"tion. TO: Plaoni&q Commission Planning :Department SOBJ . Use Permit UO. 2081 (:merde ) fP olic Rearingl Request to change the operational characteristics of an existinq taka -wt restaurant (i.e. Rib -stet bar B.Q. Co.) , on Property Located in the commercial Ares of the ' ... Newport Si.eres'Specific Plan ke", .so as to ado the.. incidental "mice ' of ou -sale bear and vine in conjunction with the restaurant operation. %4CATION: Lot& 7 and G. Block 2, Seashcre Colony Tract addition, .: located'at'213.62nd: Stmt, Unit A on the soathwastarly s# ;�'- •p ,: ;�: : -,.: ;•q:aorner.:oLt 6]adaSUeet•,aad Newport Ehoves.Drive.:' in the .. '. Newport Shores Specific Plan Area. Aammachm. Rib -Stab bar O.Q. Co., Newport Beach OWNER: Creative Nays, Inc., Costs Mesa This application involves a request w, amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of a take -out reetamratt on paoperty located in the tomerelel area of the Newport shores bpeeific Plan saes. The proposed amendment involves a request to than go the operational characteristics of the restaurant so as to add the acidentel service of on -sale beer and vine. In accc.daate with section 20.61.060 of the Newport Beach municipal Code, restaurants are a .permitted use in the commercial area of the Newport Shores Specific ?Zan area, subject to the securing of a use perxrc in each ease. Se^_tion 20.30.035 of the Municipal Code also perc:ts a chance in operational characteristics of existing restaurants, subvert to the Penning of a use permit in each case. 'ire Permit procedures are set forth in Section 20.50 of the Municipe_ CH ✓.. S Lro.mental Significance This project has been reviewed, and it has neon determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 1 Irxistinq pacilitieal from the requirements of the California Lavirwmantal Quality Act. Conformance with the General Plan and the Adopted Local Coaetel Pzogram; 'LerM Uae. Plan ^Ae Land Use Elements of the Lenaral Plan and the Local Coastal Plan designate the site for 'Retail and Service Commercial' uses. 1Te' proposed restaurant facility falls vittLjt th*,UBes :. patmitted, upon' ,('. .f:.. -... socaringa Uee.Peraitf'.. subjeet Pfpperty and burrou]d]n9 Land Uses M%& subject property is presently developed.with a 2,2%t sq.ft. .. si]gle-ntory,. Multi -tenor rnMaercial +structural .canteining the 62nd . Street Ice CreaM Shop,. the subject reatatrantand a.,vacent space which Ad ll be: occupied, by a- take -oat seafood restaurant (The Plahmonger) . To the north of the subject property, across Newport Shores Drive, are residential uses] to the east, aeroad 62nd Street, are commercial roues to the south is a restaurant facility (The Spaghetti bender) end - related parking area] to the senth, across went Coast Highway, are xeaideatial usene and co the vest, is the Roadway Inn end related parking area. ldactgroued At its Meeting of November 19, 1981, the Planning Commission approved Jsa permit No. 2036, which was a request to establish a take-out ice cress shop on the subject property and a request to valve a portion of tae required cff- street parking. Said action was subject tr, 7:Lr.4 -:trs and 9 Conditions cf Approval, as outlined in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes dated November 19, 1981. At the tine the Planning Cousiss.on was considering Use Permit no- 236. they were informed that the Bun -n- Barrel delicatesaan (now the FS-5tak Bar H.Q.) was illegLlly operating as a take -out restaurant without benefit of a use permit_ Shortly thereafter, the owner of the Her. -a- Barrel filed Use Permit No_ 2048, which wan a regnrst to permit a take-out restaurant with on -obis Deer and wine and a request tr valve a POCLien Of the required off- street parking spaces. At its Meeting of December 10, 1981, the Planning Commission denied Use ?edit No. 2048 based on the findings ,,t &ined in the attached excerpt cf rl`c Planning Commission mi.Utes dated December 10, 1981. At ice Meeting of May 6, 1982, the Planning CoMM.5siOn :,,proved ':an ?spelt No. 2081, which was a second request to establish the 3 ,Barrel as a take -out restaurant. Said action was aubject tc 4 FindL^ s and 8 Conditions of Approval as Outlined in the attached smCer•t of the Planning Carmission minutes dated Nay 6, 1982. Said approval was for two years and did not allow the sale of on -sale beer and vine. At its meeting of May 8, 1984, the MOdiftcatlona CoMmittec cemtinned its consideration of extending Use Permit No. 2081 until the P1sn ing Commission had considered the subject application. !bst recenriy, the Pla:vunq Commission at i+:s meeting of April 5, 1?E4. appoved Use Permit No. 3094 which was a request to establish a teke-oct seafood restaurant in conjunction with a retail commercial fish Market 'The Fishmonger) or, the subject property. Said action was suhjec_ to 4 findings and 12 conditions as outlined in the attached escerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes dated April 5, 1984. 11 ti,ixG"ry's is 30at =Y:�^ � Plenun9 Camlealoti kmlyeis the now operator of the rew"Urart is rxr requesting to add the .: :servirx oE; on -sole Deer sod vine whereas previously it had not been " "in.,.a;?tixtie "reataurenr' contain " approximately "I'.000'q: ft. of gross floor area and the maximum hours of operation ere fto 11!00 a.m. to loloo p.m. (The attached letter from the applicant indicates A closing time of .9!00 p.m. M w ver, the restaurant may color At 10!00 p.m. occasionally). Staff has no objections to the 10100 P.M. closing time. There ara a maximum of 2 employees on duty durin peak hours of operation. Offatreet Parking Requirements The Municipal Code require. one parking space for each employee on duty during peak hours and one parking space for each 50 square feet of as floor area within a take -out restaurant facility unless Ardified or waived by the Planning Co®ie.ion. Mood upon the existing gross floor area of 1,000 sq. Et. and a maxims of 2 employees m duty during peak hours, a total of 22 parking space. (1,000 sq.ft. a.0 sq.ft. w 20 • 2 spaces) would be required. However, in Accordance with the existing use permit• approved by the Planning Cemission on May 6. 1982, only two parking spaces are required fcr the subjeet restaurant. The remainder of the parking (20 'paces) was ,awed m the basis that the restaurant was not a destination type use and that a majority of the patrons would be "walk -ins' from the beach and surrounding residential areas. The Plarminq Comle.t. also tha+n� rah Wkkin�, for, the other take-out food 'exab13r4msaU' on the'- propeit- "'" APAWd MIa nq taii�e WtY1n'e e4l '!" '::' :.' •:`'` parking, required by Code and by each use permit for the other food establishment on site: PARKING RBQUIR MT By Code By Uwe Permit w 2016 '62nd Street Ice Crean Shop` 12 2 'SP 3094 'Pishwonger' 12 2 W 2081 'The Rib Stack-(formerly laws,earrel) 22 2• Use ?emit ):o. 2081 requires only two off - street perking spaces whereas four of the eight or. -site parking spaces are provided for the Rib Stack Restaurant. Pt..d Beer and wine M discussed previously. the Planning Commission denied the inclusion of on -sale beer And wine in conjunction with their original approval of use Permit No. 2081. Said restriction was based on roncerns expressed by nearby residents in addition to the lack of adequate on -site parking. it was the Planning Commission's opinion that the I?-- 0 s ... -. .. ., , _-wnica. of bear std edss.roalA.. make, the operation aoro "like,• `. . mnrmtlana -i raataao:aai sed rhos generate a greater parking daeand. . proposed Of!- Stscet P%.ej T Then" are cerrentlt fte viii -dos. perking spaces evadable, to the Rib -Stale and the apgiicant has Sehsitted a letter (copy attached) „Rich iMicates that na :as pareiesion, on an inforsal basis, to use four sdditicaal Parking sparn in front of the St. Ives Catering business after 55:00 ps. each day. Said business Is located in the cesercial center ii t Sled Street from the Rib -Stale. he�rhood A rt The applicant has so'mzt wd letters of r. Pianrt from the West Ne p rt Beach Assocteticn s_d the Newport Shores Ccsunity Aesoclation as well as 200 si%terxras of people supporting hie request to verve beer and wine. Althoo" ame nt the signeturea are fret indivlduaia net do no! live is the area.. M ?f' uid ai _ ...,•:.,, gnstursa werr'frm people No'live in the Newport Shores lea. Seccivn 20.80.050 of tl,e Nes'Pirt Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant sw : - _fees +, t_we Planning Ccmrssion shall find that the establishscct, ass- nice or operation of the use or building applied for rill not, - sc'a'r the circ®stanoes of t1e particular cese, be detrfsantal to -rye health, safety. pests, corals, ccanfort ", and general welfare of PsmOois residing or writing in the neilhborhood of such ProPosad -.se s be detrisental or ir.)urious to property and isprovesents in the neigtttmrltood or the general welfare of the City. Staff had roc ®extdsc, d Iftl of the original Use Permit No. 2881, prisarily due to the -�ck of adequate parking on the subject property. However, it :s apCAcsC! _..•t the take-oct Cesta -.rant facility is not a destination Type man and that a nsioricy of the customers are °walk -ins' frcv t`e tits.&= s,:4 surrounding residential area,. Staff has r o[-ect_c�s _o the addition of beer and vine to the restaurant cperatiot `-a—=h as " will be incide^tal to the primary food service ^perat ze . is staff's `farther opinion that the hours of operation nr.'. a -ere. �aracter of the vrrent restmaant operation seke it oosgat_.ee r__ --�e sutr- :ndinq residential area and that the addition of w- -sale ewxe and wins will not cheese the operational characteristics c_ t1r feeili Cy. Staff reecmends of Use Permit Na, 2061 (Amended), and suggests that the Pla:.: r Co ission take such action subject to this, findings and Ccndittoes =tlined in the attached athibit "A'. However, if it le the desire of the Planning Comclasion to deny this request, the Findings as set fat -_Ea in L hibit '8' are provided, 13 p�tinQ L'4iiefjgl b f -4 'RS acEIEIT 'A` .. .. . . _ PIMDGS h1ID OOMITIOUS OP "Psoval, Y #', USE PERMIT 9D 2O8�y1IAMended) :.. PZNDINGg: ' 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the land ' Use Elements of the S ral Plan and the Adopted Local Coastal program, and is cogpatibla with surrounding land uses. .. 2. The project mill not hems :any significant environmental impact. .. 3. That tbs proposed change in the operational characteristics of the existing cake -out restaurant, so as to include the aer.ice of beer and vine as an incidental use, w1 /1 not increase the parking demand of the restaurant. . 4. That the Police oepaatseat has no p,je,tiors to this request, providing that the sale of beer and wine is incidental to tie service of food. Theapproval" or Uss Peraftt'tb: - 10[I11AmendN) rill not under the cireumstancee If the case be s .detrimental to the health, .safety. r peace, morels, orC°'6n7!'ijetlei'iw"°YCatfa"k°g �`• working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or ' injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood cr the general welfare of the City. CONDITIDNS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the app roved plot plan and flcor plan. . 2. That the parking pct shall be lighted in such a manner as to provide adequate illumination to all areas of the lot vlthott causing any light or glare to impact adjacent properties. 3. That ea eeehanica- equipment amt trash areas -hall be screened from edjeining properties and from adjoining streets. 0. That all signs shall conform to t *.e pr,x•isions of Chapter 20.56 of the lR:nicipal Code. 5. That the 2 restaurant employees shall park on site during evening hours of the day. 15 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 -1768 (949) 644 -3311 MEMORANDUM TO: Jay Garcia Planning Department FROM: David Keely Traffic Engi ring DATE: April 13, 2004 SUBJECT: 21162 0d Street UP2005 -005 (PA2005 -027) The following are traffic related comments, corrections and conditions for the proposed full service small scale eating and drinking establishment located at 211 62nd Street: • The proposed project is intensification of use in terms of parking demand. Typically, patrons of full service restaurants tend to stay longer and occupy parking stalls for an extended period of time. Take -out facilities have high parking turnover. • The parking configuration does not meet the City's current parking layout requirements. Parking layout utilizing 60 degree parking spaces require that the depth of parking stall perpendicular to the drive aisle be a minimum of 19 feet and the drive aisle widths of 18 feet, for a total of 37 feet wide. Thirty degree parking stalls requires slightly more width than the project site provides. • The driveway curb cut shall be reduced to align with the resulting drive aisle width. • ADA parking stall configuration shown is incorrect. Single loaded ADA parking stall shall provide the ADA access aisle on the passenger side of the vehicle. • The project shall coordinate deliveries during non - working hours. Deliveries shall be accommodated on -site. FAUSERSVPBMDKee1Nkee1Man ChedAUP2005.005 211 82nd Sfyg4- 12 -05memo.doc I(P City of Newport Beach PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT April 12, 2005 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Fong Ts Develo n Services Engineer SUBJECT: FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING DIRECTOR'S USE PERMIT NO. UP2005 -005 (PA2005 -027) 211 62ND STREET FINDINGS: That the design of the proposed development will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 2. That the proposed development will intensify the need for on -site parking in comparison to past and current uses of the development site. 3. That public improvements will be required of the Applicant. 4. That Section 13.05.010 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires that all public improvements be completed in commercial areas prior to the issuance of building permits for a new structure. CONDITIONS: The Applicant shall submit details as to how debris and polluted runoff originated from the existing trash binlenclosure, the parking lot, and the "breezeway' between the existing building and the shared westerly property line fence will be prevented from tracking onto the public right -of -way so as to comply with the City's water quality and on -site non -storm runoff retention requirements. Modify the existing private curb drain /depression along the 62nd Street frontage to comply with the City's water quality and on -site non -storm runoff retention requirements. 3. Reconstruct the existing unused Seashore Drive shared "driveway approach" with a driveway plug per City Standard Plan no. STD - 165 -L. Contact the Public Works Department for details. 4. Reconstruct the existing 62nd Street driveway approach per City Standards. 5. An encroachment permit is required for any and all work activities within the public right -of -way. 1 I Welcome to salud mexican grill y cantina Page 1 of 1 'Salud pw Mexican Grill y Cantina http:/ /www.salud4food.com/Photos.html 6/20/2005 February 25, 2005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 6443200 FAX (949) 6443229 Michael Hoskinson 402 11th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Use Permit Application UP2005 -005 (PA2005 -027) Dear Mr Hoskinson, On February 16, 2005, you were advised via email of some issues that were under review with your application. In addition, you were provided with related excerpts from the Municipal Code of the required findings from Chapter 20.63 that should have been submitted with the Use Permit application. As of the date of this letter, you have not provided any additional information related to your application, and I understand that you were waiting for a final determination from the Planning Department before you provide the additional information requested. The review of Use Permits 2036 and 2081, previously authorized, and in force for the subject property revealed the following information: Use Permit No. 2036 for a take -out restaurant in the tenant space on the westerly end of the building included the waiver of 10 parking spaces and also limited the hours of operation to 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. No seating, inside or outside, was authorized in conjunction with that food use. There are existing violations of the Use Permit that must be addressed related to the hours of operation and seating. Use Permit No. 2081 (Amended) also for a take -out restaurant on the easterly end of the building included the waiver of 20 parking spaces, 29 interior seats (unless further restricted by the Fire Department) and hours of operation of 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m, with incidental on -sale alcoholic beverages. 19 The proposed project is not consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan and the FAR Ordinance of Chapter 20.63 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Specifically, the LUE limits the site to a maximum FAR of 0.5!0.75. The subject property is made up of two individual lots and the subject building is located solely on one lot and has a FAR of 0.85. If the two lots are combined by a lot line adjustment, the FAR would be reduced to 0.42, which complies with the Code. The addition of the proposed second floor would then increase the FAR to 0.55 which exceeds the allowable. Section 20.63.040 B of the NBMC specifies variable floor area ratios dependent on the particular uses of the property. The weighted FAR of the building, as currently approved, is 0.63, which is nonconforming to the Code. Take -out food - service uses have a weighted ratio of 1.67 for each gross square foot. The weighted variable floor area ratio for full service small -scale food uses, a base use, is 1.0 for each gross square foot. Therefore, if you convert the existing take- out restaurant to a full - service small -scale food use, the weighted FAR drops to 0.49 which complies. However, the addition of the second -floor office and storage will increase the FAR to 0.62, which does not comply with the Code. In addition to the FAR issues above (included in the list below), there are other issues that must be resolved: 1. Proposed building exceeds permitted FAR and Weighted FAR. 2. Violations of Use Permit No. 2036; including hours of operation, and the unauthorized Outdoor Dining Area that impacts the use of the parking lot. 3. Proposed use of existing parking waivers for both the take -out restaurant and the new restaurant. 4. Addition of more than 10% to the existing building without providing the Code required parking (the commercial parking rate is one space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area). 5. Lot Line Adjustment to combine the two lots to increase the FAR allowance and to bring the parking on site. 6. Seating based on full - service small scale eating establishment at one per three seats. 7. Restriction on the use of the second -floor office nd storage the off - site restaurant. 8. Loss of parking due to the requirement to provide a handicap parking space on site. 9. Filing of a separate Use Permit application for the conversion of the Kind Grind into a take -out limited food service use, to change the hours of operation and addition of seating. .l Since there are unresolved issues related to your application, your application, as submitted, has been deemed incomplete and cannot be processed. You are advised to schedule an appointment with Senior Planner Jim Campbell at 949- 644 -3210 at your earliest convenience to discuss your options for a Use Permit. The Use Permit request is to waive a portion of the required parking for the second -floor building addition. You will also need to discuss the filing of separate Use Permit applications for the conversion of the two take -out restaurants to a full- service small -scale facility and a take -out limited - (Kind Grind) food service facility. The Use Permit should include a request to change the hours of operation of the two facilities. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patricia Temple, Planning Director By Q Senior Fpanner Javier S. Garcia, AICP FAUSERS \PLN \Shared \PA's\PAs - 2005 \PA2005- 02'AUP2005A05 LTR.doc S l 215 624d Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 VIA FACSIMILE (949) 644 -3229 April 11, 2005 Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Building C Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Planning Director's Use Permit No. UP2005 -005 To Whom It May Concern: I received notice of the above referenced permit (the "Permit ") regarding the structure at 211 62nd Street (the "Structure ") and am writing to voice my concern and opposition. As you might gather from my address, this structure is directly across the street from my home and I have concerns about both noise from the business and also the impact the proposed new construction of a 2nd floor office would have on views. Prior to being vacated, the Structure was used for a Thai restaurant. It was not uncommon for the restaurant to keep their back door open, and the noise caused by their washing dishes could be heard from my living room. I am concerned that changing the existing permitted use from "take -out restaurant" to "full- service small scale eating and drinking establishment" will cause an unacceptable increase in noise. When I purchased my home I did so with the understanding that a small take -out restaurant was across the street, not a "full service eating and drinking establishment ". Through talking to other residents in the neighborhood, I have gathered that the Permit applicant intends to install televisions and turn the Structure into some sort of sports bar / Mexican restaurant. Hearing dishes being washed is one thing, however hearing the hoots and hollers of intoxicated sports fans is quite another. The Structure is part of a residential neighborhood, and while I value the convenience of having take -out restaurants within walking distance, I place a much higher value on the quiet enjoyment of my property. I strongly oppose any expansion of the Structure's existing permitted use. The addition of a second story office as contemplated by the Permit, will impede the views currently afforded to myself and other property owners from our roofs, decks, and/or second stories, both existing and any that may be built in the future. All other non - residential use abutting Newport Shores Drive is one story, i.e. the commercial property presently housing Newport West Realty and a Laundromat. It seems to me there is sufficient space in the existing structure to house a modest take -out restaurant and an office, without addition of a second story. Overall, the use variances requested by the Permit seem over - ambitious and out of character with the residential neighborhood of which the Structure is a part. If you would like to discuss my concerns, I can be reached during normal business hours at (949) 610 -0262. Thank you for your consideration. Very Truly Yours, Nicholas A. Hamilton o, Exhibit No. 2 Project plans �3 w x ■ S; � g g s� � S'�" {{ gg �� Fo w d ■ fi g t @ �ef �p � 9 v a !$ g E ��� n d§ w a 0 NilN , Y 4� g 9� pi $ gE ! Ad,pOpapp p��E a qq$�g•� glq� 9peg i � T gi p p A F 9 kagrgya"5s ,��te. `$gnigEl�9� sra a g I�iE IEg6€3,�8E66�6gi;i �`g !�� 9 pg 2� ..g.e.i4�:g..i.C:E.3e t w 0 0 a egggg��E�q §§ggg#g ��!9P."iaEiisa �H 3�ils3 3 de �a�� � . aeggF a&l � y�s as9 lot ffPi B} Ins, l 13l FppW10g 3! A�•!! IMM!9$still, V / C44kniasa,63 a9 3393 99i',iCF'995�R@e3e �9�� iEm42 G9a'J]9aaaaERP� °- al:ebY pe 9 "4y5Y tl39a.aai S 4 �i#ix#3�,�a l9 �; ��3 3b$ 8741 ��d�dV�d3S9� '�?!9 €9?dal8g��!!.@�! &d9lF .f$dl�S�dB�l�ddLaLn�nE��sl!ld5l��& i79'r�l�i6!! ggaE.. gf . @S4Y$aa�iE5ga9c��9§3°e9�Fl88% ���aasa]ffi3®S8k'25a$.,'eaei�63 ?as�wb�iet4e�aF?asas3a€2€F F4�a$s4e9S V / zd. !6 3 ega oil t!& 363= g{ §t g.9ggt 4, 5g N5� 9 % 8 i P i=b Oi4 i;i t3 ea$ �l '! 4.g %• . i' P§ p t3 i s ?g H @eu 1.. dgix• t 11111i, @£4A xti i y1` § #@ i d i § S g£ £ds ' x @ 1p i l p 3e 64� d Egsi(i x pp41' 1 �5 .�ex 3 it le ! H i e !ggA Eg'•4q } i§A peq b� @°@ i H e y ;qe, psfgs�g 4g Rig �4B' � l ea ��� 1 t glEi S x4i is E x� i iH l' 4 23 ii yd ! ' ayi §1 l 01 0 6 {$�d iE °�44 pRq $i[p i MMMp 4 a li. �gS iil .5 §, ! {l4gP l i gjp ! P° ! aAl xIt 4p£ FE3 1 H °EE`g lb; °px 9ei4Ef '� iiai Fa � iel 1'wE,s44,go i "p H°YS 9eg¢�.a g` § g MeH�rg E"x i i llS: r iii e6i �` 3 aei a ai �'. : €� l3� i �;.t 's3ii3i•:11 1311 iii it �d e36aa ' a xA i�4l g4 p i lE io ti C t. g +Hx.ia �a9lii a4� Np . It Ygigili to .t1 . p ii 8 8 T H ? Y 13 ! a x e':: F re % r It'll a §d ypeyq t4i a x 36 n, gt 4g% %@ k :p {g C HHx{ 4 ! 3ea Xx i A fyY dt.i • r • app 4Y � §jt£ tHt i 1xb1 iSHa a ig P {� t s xrssY l 8° i 1 9q( q2 fiP 5 gt a�5 ie g iE(4d $a .i @, x1e ixx@ %:i x H d 4YH4i1 1 z 3'3 1 ;t£ g H de g; H i 9Y.ii21 g xep t i e ! a RC i:E �i �3y Hsipy pn i' `g !ilea :kxlx g! 6h [.l I °.g ! if ; aXy : �° Spb gs, 4i�i 4a4 @° 3° eii (p fyll[ SS f l� I 44 t N P11 4i� H .Py x9n H` dY { Yxgln g° �! 1 £ 1pya 9L it N x a l @ x liH ye, p l4 a�p . i 4C H 9 5 pg1 s?i pe H.1 • 91 a` ssY 4 41e% aH ',Ie t 4i a°4 ! `42' '1 . ids etfj Flgx �glaa x!% i% to : i is ig4Ce: 3�Pe 14 i93�' 1. t� g; H Nil I H @ga ,g DOI C's i -� �!i @ @s�.i� l ea lgg it ������ �liE �iai ��e l �, � � glt4i � t�� i @g�� Ya ppyy.. a f3 ex 4l!$ N 1, %i, 8Y Yex grpgx3 I Hly 4H latq 1 4iYiHg li a aidlllt {i t `eHt l8 •3H;S H° 4 @. yd � °�4l 3� fly � €.gyx ldx yl9 � ]y pEry''y( x4yg(1 till i@ & #� tP $£ p �£py 5y� 6 1/5i 9lpygy ypyp£ x` lx 9 4� 1 ''paaxx p Irgyx$ti � 14gi F @ fY iY Hl l[Y l3 llla£ £e [dHEH £iH I4 t414Aa9 lP£A£ x Y 3 x @ll S4H Fi PS.1E6 i469Y !d0 ST�S�$te � P l 4 5ll 9e HatP.n.rx p � : 0 ivi b d l pg e$ix v i to d 1@ lx! e A 5 t dpi4 p` exg 4 xYei.B.t air A s� 94Y iF x id g gg xi4 p @iEg xE aiia i 4E£l t H Y g[H ! e@i3i I lea Eiix1 ,4gi lab ! l g e fl 4 t ! 9 ii I� i i lit : l4e g 4 ga.§ I [iH i g g Hr £¢ 4igaigta a txHlep 14 Y H H l ' tyyi ° "a i; s@ =dix a �� gal E. ;� 4.� ii 1. !i $ 8 $gH` I d ix °g4H Y4i ; % ,,xus ai; 9 °li 4p I t4i' EE f y� q !C l . s l i !ge g l: a i! CSsgy ,ygg a NINE V, iag�?: gg aiitl tiAgl'gi°i d4 @? yC" Eel ik ielr�i lii! xi& egp xH� aEES d i�ai!4E� p B 4i � X384 x i Mp gT °aeoijjglj itgli tti ? i ° y s 1 H 4t i l i iP [ x a Hi7 i e a 4 P' i i @'g i. ig p f ;€ $i %ttg �`'�s' @ n* g x° g 3 14:$s iINi� ii4 i %!° dii ,gg"j 9,41 !! 3 i pp�� p p, g hdit Ag $, ei ra ",i §ig sale lag A! 4 4i•e i € '$§`` il§H ?4 C "HH $iil4 iYHp °4s Hg dgip rx4 i , apiH ` i4 elxx r.N'qS x gHi't y 4" ilg i i gie? ! aag$t bx$gg gt r 1•lN E 4 4p '° 1 I 4 r 4 iH xB^f B' , @s p [s a e x9 x°'1 E i4`d ll4 Iiti;lin�� Eli��ll it iIi $$b i.iEl h !�t!l4ii dS 3e 4gim IEtIP$ya affil 11 i i 6:i H69! Yi :i X41116 Rite it I! fi xxe �41 N i Y ! l $ H Y Y T t.4...e.e.i.x !g ` i' ' li� qP g jl � ! aiY g e 4Y ! ° 4 tg i 4 iH p !p a p•p `4 e: p '` � f ^.° b i4 t §9� �A !jy�Hg 4 S �'g !• E:e q x % ig p li t t4 i @ Ht3 r +p`pt 59 a ag ] ll I A iit : Ini x ai a I i J. 4@ x° 3 et {4 A llt %Y g gI H @1 pyy tq tg! l ve i 1 gi 6 a3 Ai4 YH .,133 4 tE n a E g8 C Y 9 ` lgH itgg 2• i Pt !ii @ p q' /. 4r!it a @e d $ $i.g I4 Pe dg @y8 .p ay i e .. P_ xy i! a i -a wt i 55 € 'i !i C' t i• t d i§ Hal ly l i' p it pz i � a HH a i � s° � �i t' C 4 ! gg. x• i xl FgY a I"9 i%4 ka i 1 e xg H i� i l� 3a I g Ega i PRY I Ig t: 3 r .lb ! gg I � A55 �I@ tl % la a i� � °gg a E �. �a °v! tg i� £ ! i, i9 d: : i# e ? a0 ee a4 Ha dd �e 4ita iY;.pxgie x ! g• ii If i i i r4 !1 ix iN I�! I �i64i! �4i l !iii 4 Kill E?H S; 4ia .4 @ea YH SdH: PIe 1 i41$ is ii ss.'i g, 3 1 i3 a6 i =i. E a ash e7g l 383 g @ d $lipid g? ! ! %g 01111 %jilti i @ !� C ;IS xg•,° P, 4 9r E xlRi i :i g ! `pi eat lg i bi a ! it'l iaEr v' ' pi .gg 3 ie! °e5'°laii $1 g d " § =Y 6t " 4 ;' l i "ii E lt' e l §1 4 m i s' 3' : H "li g° elatS 9 tg4 eA° �eb Si H i H I P e {4 ; p x• ` d i 1 9r'g;�E zl asp q l �e5ii ° %y`y £fig i31 ®� H 1l'aEk dd g x[' Y.i .1 a �1 �° y��iy a ig ii ' S+ta 111q 110!i °t H .lid ie i- g$`yg7 Y a �J4 i lx1•° 4d a ! a g ! laP 4 ee$ x 1 a i gyYd9 1 SlY a! BIYI' dxl P 1%'r [a�. 111 l �a It 1 E ty46El45t iEl�Ny �r3a i t i 3. S6 E ' i t 'i4 °k� �' I ia§[3 i lgi i dx1'3 j:� ItY e 1 k !yi-3pi iX yy§'4 !A`t y gl 5i Nl8l� i�liiia ifl ik e;ii ° i6lS3% ifl l�lgl4 y ps 3at`@ aiffix4T ! E x6 pH pg i x � i i �p' l g slg£ i•9' _ a _ 'A i H A 4 r _ }C {- -�ri�► �7 I \ 4gYSY9� pe5 ge gggg5� p i$� q li 3,e�g4E Q _' JH t a iug31S dpl� g 3�p�.� �9gH di t 4g r'+" ;PS' x14 §el- i § si} gp !i6Ei3� i1 Blt I51 H! ! it Hit Yx�G ilrg. xii m z�■ e €, g a r �Yy ey�y� ##[e¢ Y�y�iy [�Y�9p�pl�($Pp`i Yyp tt dg3 �eg9 f1g aeg �i gg rrp i��e�g � ��p y�ys �� � mob" - 0000oo ©ooa ©oao I r ����YYY,III a II it I m ad HI I � it pp II o '1 I N 1 / It II II I I To, ..4�JJ�� log 1-1 ii \\ h }f I I 70 I II I / I � I s pp 5� � x epxp Ici ARM 9f g gill I 3 0 �� | |� �� § {; !|!!I ` \• § �!alj,§i.� d,.• |H!§��` \f0 )§[ §Qsn9aoovao oo oo@ § |§ 11 0 \,. ) z � � :q rob ° F fig NE g9,ifft #1 1 1 .p1A�iAx�ga a g ;a�l� 77Itl 00000 � ?��1 €, 1 i1�1a €ilsx�xyys$:la{�$l1��13s�1i� Fap 45; f$4x Fv FF 0 04AF 0 00 FCF 01441 ix F4F FFEPFE 7 � � n � c� z ¢ J ° J i 11 i W� N i ,1 2 LL rn ya O (7 4 «^. L ^. «...r...^.�' `L^_."'S..'^.�Y� w w`^7.C.^"+.. nw....+n•T_�:.:. rte.. �.'9+"s'.S n _ - .- ".".". wC..T' °+1_. $I ■ }9 � y ■ � � � a a � N7 x ■ aa� -0; Q� F, F �� a a■ 21 isa: i 8 R R Mel TER q�q FYR p$ ° H �@ � 6 i q$8� � ?pI � p• FB R � R p� 00 000 O O 00 O+ O Q8 ©800 ®O r rc o Y•1� a a i w w I r a > wJw � fill I-li uj ^ 1 � H I M N II 4 °I 6 OY I I -�— - i Ibi I' I II I I ------ ---- I I 90 •R� || )m%D,lP § \ \$if ,,, §4if§§ :)§Rb1 |)i . , ,, e 059) ,5. > ,,,,, I ! 2 -1 z I ^ Ea - / w\ ] \ .J 9� zm■ w ■ d a� �3 s, a sg e b 4 It Q3 3333 f �g3E:ppaF$n yes .' € ' F jU It @ `L � - g �$ffp°�� \ f ° ppaepp� E$ 0 3 € g48 � xyFe � � i ➢ b� i 4 R i e f�� m 11e°4 � YOf� [� a s Q 3a f g•a a �a 5�a •q i [Sys A 3Y'_eP= a� Fp�GS SF HIM; 'S9 yea 3f- - --Ri3 ?a; @ - ' €YFBB � q��g fE � @� 8 Y•F F siiI= F�FIi I 6, a a g ae• a 'C ;It §§ qg y �9, Yx €E $dz ®.A m EL [ F 19y ah 8i .�,�. pi aria �4 ! 9' �S$11 8a -ai_ 9a S mfg Iii asa I'I o- ` 9aFe4 It ON * a It �-41 n 11 39 P t g{pG �aa f Y hu 9 a e fee to Y! Y !9 {ei tj ds39 ..; r..^...- .- �."= :...� °-.: JfJ'. :"�'. »...`^.r.:,,.._.......� � o...,..... �:'3..'..".�.. �'�".... =• CG'S^...... -., z�■ g �t € x • �� f' a Ile fig! 633 € 4 a Till It 45 a 4 4 Q Y J � PPlPd�ag�liii Y i isiatai... � 4 ! ! � �' PPFF i f i 4444 � i i 4 496ep• G G q q - -