Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About25 - UP 1908 - Carmelo's Ristorante - 3520 E. Coast HighwayaEaaO,p} CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: December 11, 2001 t@ PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 25 33o NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9260 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644-3200+ FAX (949) 644-3229 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Carmelo's Ristorante - Use Permit No. 1908 (Amended) 3520 E. Coast Highway SUMMARY: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision not to review Use Permit No. 1908 (Amended). ACTION: 1) Uphold or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission not to review Use Permit 1908 (Amended). 2) If the Planning Commission's decision is reversed: a) Refer Use Permit 1908 (Amended) back to the Planning Commission for a review hearing; or b) Schedule Use Permit 1908 (Amended) for a review hearing before the City Council. APPELLANT: Mr. Gary Martin 323 Narcissus Avenue, Corona del Mar Background On October 18, 2001, The Planning Commission considered evidence and testimony regarding the operation of Carmelo's Ristorante and decided not to set a hearing to review the use permit. On October 31, 2001, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council. On November 27, 2001, the City Council continued the appeal hearing to December 11, 2001 at staff's request and with the concurrence of the appellant. Analysis The discussion at the Planning Commission was initiated by the City due to complaints received from area residents regarding noise from live entertainment activities. The question presented to the Planning Commission was whether or not there is sufficient cause to hold Use Permit 1908 (Amended) for review. Plannina Commission Actio The Planning Commission heard testimony and received correspondence from staff, residents from the surrounding area, and the proprietor. Discussion at the Planning Commission centered on the administrative record, including the conditions of approval, the live entertainment permit and noise complaints. At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion to review the use permit failed on a 3 -3 vote (on a tie vote, the motion does not carry). The Planning Commissioners voting in favor of the motion indicated that there was evidence that the project may be detrimental to adjacent residential uses. The Planning Commissioners opposed to the motion indicated that there was not sufficient evidence of violation of the use permit's conditions of approval and that it appeared that the source of the noise was patrons departing the area rather than activities on the project site. The Appeal The appellant's stated reason for the appeal is to resolve "the unreasonable loud noise disturbances' caused by the project's restaurant and bar. Conclusion The decision before the City Council is whether to sustain or reverse the Planning Commission's decision not to review Use Permit 1908 (Amended). Should the decision be reversed, the City Council has the option of either reviewing the use permit itself or referring it back to the Planning Commission for review. The reviewing body would have the option of modifying or adding to the conditions of approval or revoke the use permit if it were deemed necessary to protect the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. Prepared and Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Mana err�/ ✓ RI Exhibits 1. Appeal application. 2. October 18, 2001 .Planning Commission minutes. 3. October 18, 2001 Planning Commission staff report. 4. November 7, 2001 letter from Mr. Robert Walchli to the Planning Commission. 5. October 18, 2001 letter to from Mr. Robert Walchli to the Planning Commission. 6. October 18, 2001 memorandum from Capt. Tim Newman, NBPD to the Planning Department. Carmelo's Appeal December 11, 2001 Page 2 of 2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 SUBJECT: \ La Salsa /Milestone Management (PA2001.086) 4341 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite F (Continued from 09- 20 -01) UP No. 2001 -018 Request to approve a us permit food establishment from 2 seat: increased seating changes the e high turnover, and increases the restaurant (La Salsa) is located with of Corinthian Way and MacArthur meeting of August 23, 2001. to expand the seating of an existing specialty with no increase in net public area. The classification from specialty food to full service, arking requirement by 7 to 17 spaces. The Wollcommercial center at the northwest corner Boulb,vord. The item was continued from the Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has reques d that this item be continued to the next meeting on November 8, 2001. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continue the blic hearing on UP No. 2001 -018. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agaianion, Selich Noes: None Absent: Gifford, Kranzley Abstains: Tucker SUBJECT: Carmelo's Ristorante - 3520 E. Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 1908A Discussion of noise related complaints generated by live entertainment and patrons. Chairperson Tucker stated that the Planning Commission will hear the evidence on this item and, if sufficient cause exists, will set Use Permit No. 1908A for review on November 8, 2001. He then noted the correspondence that was received and distributed to the Planning Commission: the memorandum from the Police Department, and letters from Gary Martin and Robert Walchli. He stated that he had a series of questions upon his review of the staff report and had faxed the list to staff and the other Commissioners as well. He then stated he would go through these questions and upon staff's answers ' "= Commission could come in with any follow -up questions: How do the use permit and the live entertainment permit work together? Statutorily, does one have superiority over the other? Ms. Temple answered that use permits, as defined in State Planning Law and the City's Zoning Code, are considered a land use permit, which is a discretionary INDEX Item No. 1 UP 2001 -018 Continued to 11/08/2001 Item No. 2 UP 1908A Discussion 3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 approval. Once approved and exercised, it attaches and runs with the land. It remains a vested right until the use either goes away entirely for a period of time or through action of either the Planning Commission or City Council, it might be revoked. The Live Entertainment Permit (LEP) is a permit whose basis is found in Title 5 of the Municipal Code, which is our section on business regulations. According to the Assistant City Attorney and our Revenue Manager, which is the branch of the City that issues LEP's, they are licensing permits and non - discretionary. However, they are only issued after authorization by either the Planning Commission or City Council through a use permit approval. The use permit sets forth the maximum parameters of the request of the issuance of the LEP. It could be that over a period of time a live entertainment permit, which is actually issued to the operator at the time, would have to be sought if the restaurant changed hands, management or went out of business and a new operator came on board. It can never be issued in a manner that exceeds the authority granted in the use permit. However, should the applicant elect to apply for a live entertainment permit with a lesser amount of live entertainment anticipated, it could be issued with language that would reflect a lesser ability to conduct that entertainment then as accommodated by the use permit. Chairperson Tucker reiterated that the applicant comes in and applies for a permit, fills out a form that lists the information, and details what the applicant intends to do and then as long as that request does not exceed what is authorized in the use permit, then it would be issued. Staff agreed. Ms. Temple added that in terms of the question related to this particular use permit and its associated live entertainment permit, the most recent amendment to the use permit occurred in 1990. It was a request to change the character of the live entertainment from a background, low -key non - amplified style of music to what is characterized as a combo. It also included a request to add dancing in addition to.live entertainment to that use permit and was approved. Due to somewhat of an administrative oversight, the associated live entertainment permit amendments were not applied for, for some time. At the time it was discovered, about 1999, the business owner applied to the Revenue Division for a live entertainment permit and the application associated with that request did once again include the characterization of a combo and dancing within the establishment. When the actual permit was issued, the Revenue Division had apparently added the language that was reflective of the use permit conditions of approval but for some reason neglected to eliminate the prior condition that indicated that the .live entertainment was for background music, classical in nature, with no amplification. On reviewing the record, we believe that was a clerical oversight and we will take the measures necessary to revise that permit in a way that reflects both the approved Use Permit of 1990 and the live entertainment permit as accommodated by, and has been conducted by, the establishment since that approval. Chairperson Tucker then asked: Do we have three different places in our ordinances where the issue of roise is 3 INDEX q City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 addressed: Section 5.28.040(3) of the Municipal Code, the Community Noise Control Ordinance and the Loud and Unreasonable Noise Ordinance? Any other places? How do these Ordinances work together? Ms. Temple answered that there are several parts of the Municipal Code that deal with various aspects of not only live entertainment, but also just the violation of the Municipal Code as it relates to any form of noise, be it music or any other type of nuisance sound that the community may experience. Within Title 5 and the chapter on live entertainment permits, there is an indication that the music should be conducted in such a way that it does not go pass the property onto other private properties or onto the public right of way. In this particular case, we believe the standard is very difficult to enforce and most particularly since the use permit actually allowed the conduct of live entertainment with the doors facing Coast Highway open. You can't take advantage of the provision of the use permit and meet that standard. It also has not been enforced since the use permit was approved and implemented. We have been advised by the City Attorney's office that it is a difficult enforcement issue. That doesn't mean that we can't still look at the conduct of the live entertainment in light of all of the other tools available to us in the Municipal Code as it relates to any form such as sound that might be offensive to the neighborhood. There are two other chapters that are specific on this point. One is Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code, which is our Community Noise Control Ordinance. This particular ordinance actually sets very specific and objective standards of limiting noise coming from properties, including music from live entertainment establishments. It provides the City with objective standards to identify whether a violation of this Code section is present. It sets decibel standards, and when we received the most recent series of complaints, we had our Code Enforcement staff visiting the Carmelo's location a number of times a week for many weeks attempting to discern whether a violation of Chapter 10.26 was resulting from the operation. There were three memos from our Code Enforcement Supervisor, Mr. Jim Sinasek, conveying the information in his evaluation pursuant to 10.26 and essentially determined that no violation of the objective standards of Section 10.26 were present. It is important to note that Code Enforcement staff did note that, particularly at times when the cycle of traffic on Coast Highway was either stopped by way of signal or diminishment of traffic volumes due to later night hours, that the music was audible in the areas across Coast Highway from which the principal complaints have been received. Because there was no violation of the objective standard, we then proceeded to present the Planning Commission information related to our other Noise Ordinance, which is Loud and Unreasonable Noise Chapter in Section 10.28 of the Municipal Code. This is the older Noise Ordinance from our Municipal Code and is used by Code Enforcement staff and the Police Department to determine in the field whether a violation is present because noise from any type of source that raises to the level of being loud and unreasonable as described in the chapter, a determination can be made whether a citation or other action would be warranted in those particular cases on a judgment basis. A copy of that INDEX r City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 chapter of the Municipal Code is included in the packet. There is a series of f actors described to be used for the purpose of determining whether a violation of this code section is present. This could certainly provide basis for Commission discussion in terms of whether you believe that a violation of this section is present upon which you could base a reason to call the use permit up for review in addition to any other factors you receive tonight. Chairperson Tucker reiterated that there are three ordinances, one of which is a challenge to enforce and is fairly inconsistent with the terms of the use permit. Another ordinance with objective standards 10.26 was found to not be violated in visits by code enforcement. A third ordinance that is more subjective in nature and has to do with loud and unreasonable noise, which takes account of the time of day or night. Noise that might not necessarily violate 10.26 in terms of sheer amount of noise might violate 10.28 depending on what time it happens. Ms. Temple answered correct, as well as the source of the noise and whether that source would commonly be expected to generate such sound and other factors as described in Section 10.28.010 and factors `a' through 'm' described on handwritten page 60 in the staff report. Chairperson Tucker then asked what the state of the use permits is, there is a 1983 permit, a 1990 permit that looks like it superseded the 1983 permit but there is a section in it that talks about terms of the earlier conditions would still apply. It says that all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1908 and related amendments shall be fulfilled. Does that amendment in the June 7, 1990 supersede the earlier amendment, if so what is the effect of that condition number 2? There was a further amendment as well on October 4, 1990 that seems to have dealt with leaving the front door open. Ms. Temple answered that the Use Permit in 1990 was specifically to change the character and nature of the live entertainment and to allow for cafe dancing. There were some specific conditions in regards to those specific requests and some repetition of earlier conditions. The intent of this condition is to make sure that should any relevant conditions not been brought forward into this set of conditions, that they would still apply. At Commission inquiry she noted that the 1983 and 1990 permit and to the extent that the 1990 permit does not directly contradict the 1983 permit, then the 1983 permit applies. Chairperson Tucker.stated that we have a permit in 1983 that talks about classical music. We have a permit in 1990 that doesn't talk about classical music but talks about a combo. We are then left not with classical music at all; we are left with a dance combo. Ms. Temple agreed adding that the restaurant had a use permit that allowed the background music, classical and non - amplified. They began to chance their operation to a dance combo style of entertainment rather than background type of live entertainment, and it was discovered by staff. At that point, the City said they must amend their use permit in order to accommodate the changes in INDEX r City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 live entertainment. The new application was filed and approved. As noted, that approval did include a subsequent review by the Planning Commission after 120 days. At that time the Commission modified the approval further to allow the live entertainment to be conducted at times when the doors facing Coast Highway were open. Ms. Clouson added that under land use and zoning, generally it is appropriate to deal with the number of instruments, whether amplified or not. To get into the type of music is something that I would not promote us doing anymore. Chairperson Tucker stated that the reason we are even here tonight talking about this item is condition 14 of the June 7, 1990 permit, which reads that the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. We need to make a determination that one of those things has happened. If this matter comes before us, do we have the luxury of applying the standards we have today to a new permit or do we roll it back to 1990? Ms. Temple answered that should this matter be called for review in order to modify conditions, yes, changes would have to be on the basis of facts in the record and as they relate to the findings. One of the factors involved would be the testimony taken. Commissioner Selich questioned that if the Commission chooses not to add or modify conditions of approval, where does that leave the City Council if they want to take an action independent of the Planning Commission? Ms. Temple answered that the Council may call for review any decision that the Planning Commission makes. Commissioner Selich noted that since discretionary, it can not be conditioned. a condition to keep the doors shut ever open? the Live Entertainment Permit is not Can the Live Entertainment Permit have thought the Use Permit allows it to stay Staff answered that. the City Manager does place conditions to assure that it stays within the parameters of the Municipal Code and the use permit. But they can not do conditions thc' are contrary to the use ;r ermit. Yes, the LEP c---n have that type of condition as long as they applied for the permit to operate under that certain condition to keep the door opened. The LEP's do not run with the land and can be changed and that is the point with the licensing permit. The City Manager has some discretion on live entertainment permits to impose additional conditions. Chairperson Tucker then referred to the letter from Mr. Martin. One of the claims `1101 I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 made in the letter was that over 120 calls were made about Carmelo's for the last year. I had asked if we had an inventory of the complaints and whether that was something we could verify, how many related to noise and how many from Mr. Martin himself? Ms. Temple answered that as you received a copy of the memo from Capt. Tim Newman, the Police Department reviewed their records for the last year from October 15, 2000 to October 15, 2001. There were 35 calls related to loud music /noise and similar related disturbances. Of these events, 29 were the same reporting party, 4 calls were from anonymous or unidentified persons and 2 were from other identified persons. The common complaint was that the music was too loud and /or that the establishment's doors were open. Chairperson Tucker went on to say that Mr. Martin also states that Mr. Bludou told him that Carmelo's was being fined for their noise violations, if true, how many fines were levied and is there any documentation? Ms. Temple answered that since the adoption of the Administration Citation Ordinance, which occurred on or near the end of 1997, there have been a total of 1 1 citations issued. All of these occurred in 1998 and 1999. Of these, two were not related to sound violations. They were for prohibited discharges as related to the NPDES permits washing out behind the restaurant in the alley). Of the remaining, 9 citations were for either violations of use permit conditions and violation of loud and unreasonable noise ordinance 10.28. Of those 9, 3 were subsequently cancelled. The business has paid a total of $2,600 in administration citations including the two NPDES violations. In terms of those that were cancelled, in 1999 a representative of the business owner came to the City and indicated a disagreement with the foundation of all the citations on the noise and upon review of the specific wording of the condition, the City Attorney's office and the Planning Department concurred that the specific wording of the condition was being complied with. Therefore, the last three citations were cancelled. There have been no citations, either paid or cancelled, since October 1999. Ms. Clauson added that the condition states that the live entertainment shall occur within the interior of the building was being interpreted by staff that was citing them, as the sound could not leave the building. I agreed when challenged with the interpretation and concluded that it wasn't accurate, that music was in fact being played in the interior of the building. That is condition 10 on page 34 of the June 7, 1990 minutes. Referring to page 31 of the June 7, 1990 minutes, Chairperson Tucker noted that Mr. Hewicker stated that the Planning Commission has previously requested from the applicants, the services of an engineer practicing in acoustics to advise what measures can be taken so as to be assured that no sound is transmitted from the building. Was that intended to be included in the conditions, I wonder. Ms. Temple answered that it was intended as a response to the previous speaker INDEX I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 during that hearing who was interested in adding a condition regarding sound attenuation to address the stated concerns in public testimony, but it does not appear that the Commission chose to make that a requirement in the conditions of approval. In the end, the Commission required that the use permit be reviewed in 120 days with an acoustical report submitted at that time. Ms. Clauson stated that the concept at the time they allowed the doors open, they found that the noise from Coast Highway was much louder than any noise that was going to be heard from the restaurant. I think that was the reason why they let the doors stay open. Chairperson Tucker went on to say that Mr. Martin says that the drums pound through the ground and the whole house pulsates. Is that something we can look into? Ms. Temple answered that we did discuss that question with Mr. Sinasek this afternoon. He indicated that while the base element or beat element of the music was audible, he did not discern any vibration either from the ground or any way that he felt. Chairperson Tucker noted that this answers all the questions he had. Commissioner Kiser noted the memorandum of August l Ith that is in our packet on handwritten page 17. If refers in the last paragraph to two things. One is that, based on this information the ambient automobile traffic noise would, therefore, be a standard for the residential portion of this mixed -use property. I don't understand that sentence. Mixed use property, are they referring to the residential property behind the site at which they were observing the noise or the site on which they were observing from? Ms. Temple answered that what the Community Noise Ordinance has is a standard where in an area where there are a mix of uses and if there is an ambient sound source, that does affect the decibel standard involved used for the measurement of compliance. However, the noise measurements were taken on both the residential property and in the commercial district. The sound from the live entertainment was found to be not only less than the ambient sound from Coast Highway, but also in compliance with the decibel limits. The decibel limits before the hour of 10 p.m. is 55 decibels and after is 50 decibels. Commissioner Kiser, referencing to the same paragraph of that memo, noted it refers to the Noise Zone III and a 100 -foot distance, is that contained in one of the overlapping noise ordinances we have? Ms. Temple answered that Noise Standard III actually does not apply and was an erroneous interpretation by the code enforcement staff. However, the Noise Standard that is applicable in any of the Zones 1, 11, or 111 of which residential is Zone 1, is still altered by the ambient noise present on the property. The presence of the noise on Coast Highway does effect the evaluation. We tried to measure INDEX r City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 INDEX both to find what the level of impact was. Commissioner Kiser noted in the last paragraph on handwritten page 18, the sentence says, when the traffic noise was absent, the noise from the crickets was as loud as the crowd noise absent any screams or high - pitched laughter from the facility. What does this mean? Ms. Temple noted that these notes were never intended for the use of being looked at in the fashion that they are, however, the intent was to indicate that there were times when loud voices and laughter did occur. At that time, they were definitely audible, but that the general crowd noise that was not accentuated by these things was essentially overcome by other environmental factors. Commissioner Kiser stated for the record that whenever representatives of the City prepare a memorandum, they should assume the memorandum will be looked at very critically, possibly by the public. We should be careful about the way they are written and the impressions that they leave whenever they stray from the facts. Ms. Wood added that with regard to the screams and laughter, I recall talking to Mr. Sinasek shortly after he had gone out for this particular evening visit, and the way Ms. Temple described it is the way I recall Mr. Sinasek telling me that day. Public discussion was opened. Mr. Martin, 323 Narcissus noted the following: • He lives about 350 feet from Carmelo's. • He has no problem with crickets or the traffic noise. • He has a problem with the noise from the band that comes out of Carmelo's. • His main problem is the drum as you hear and feel the pulsating. • The noise disturbs his sleep until after 2 in the morning. • He presented a packet for review that includes: 1. Copy of web site page that advertises Latin, Big Band, Rock and Roll, Swing, funk rock, R & B, Hip -Hop and Reggae music is played Thursday through Saturday until 2: a.m. 2. Picture of banner displaying that Brazilian music is being played, not classical. 3. Police Reports listing from 1998 - 2000 by code. 4. Copies of letters written to the City and to Judy Manto. 5. A copy of a signed petition that was circulated to neighbors around Carmelo's with 26 people signatures. Continuing he noted alcohol is served out on the patio and the patrons become very loud. At Commission inquiry he noted that his main complaint was the drums that pound until 2:00 a.m. which becomes a problem on Thursdays as he has to get up and work on Fridays. No one from the City has come to measure 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 any noise at my address. Chairperson Tucker stated that the 1990 use permit, as for as the type of music, superseded the requirement that it be classical music. When you have a four - piece combo to dance to as part of live entertainment, it's generally not going to be classical. The style of music is not limited. The number of instruments appears to have been limited to four. The concerns expressed about the hours of operation are definitely what we are concerned about. That is what the use permit is there to do; they can conduct the activities they are permited to do during the hours that are permitted. If they are going beyond the hours that are authorized, that is a concern. The crowds on the patio is more of an issue of who controls the crowd and if the crowd is out in the public right of way, then you know why they are there, but how much ability does the City have for oversight? At Commission inquiry, Mr. Martin added: • Drinking on the patio was a problem. Maybe with no alcohol, they would not be screaming as they do now. If something could happen to change that, it might improve the situation. • He does not know the number of musical instruments being played in Carmelo's. Commissioner Gifford noted the copy of the live entertainment permit included in the staff report that is dated May 19, 2000. It has, as a reason for revocation, that the live entertainment shall be limited to incidental background music shall be limited to non - amplified acoustical instruments. No sound amplification, brass or percussion instruments shall be permitted at any time. The style of music in terms of classical, country or rock, we do have some further limitations on the music based on the live entertainment. Chairperson Tucker noted that the permit could be revised to be consistent with what is allowed under the use permit, which is amplified music with the front door open. Ms. Clauson noted that this is what was discussed earlier and noted as a clerical error done by the department that issues those permits. That was the original language of the original permit and when it was amended they put the new provisions in but did not delete the old provisions. It was our determination it was a clerical error and did not come to light until this hearing. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Martin noted he has lived at that residence for 13 years. He and the neighbors have been tolerant regarding the noise and have put off coming to the City. However, it is to the point now that it's intolerable. The crowds he can deal with, but not the music. Walt Nodus, 418'/2 Narcissus Avenue (3rd house from the alley that parallels Coast Highway) noted that on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, people who exit the Carmelo's restou, ant are very loud and rowdv. Sometimes there are `;ahts, they urinate on buildings in the alley as well as throw up on people's private 10 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 property. This usually happens between 12:30 and 2 in the morning and it is pretty hard to go back to sleep once you have been awakened. The next problem I have is the patrons leaving beer bottles in the alley for other people to either pick up or run over with their cars. The next thing I have is the driving. When either the patrons or employees leave the establishment, they come up my alley and rev up their engines and speed up driving down the alley. The next thing would be on Friday, Saturday and Sunday mornings the help from Carmelo's come out and take the bottles and throw them into a big dumpster and that makes a loud noise. I am sure most people do not appreciate it on a weekend as most people like to sleep in. My next -door neighbor is a police officer and he encouraged us to come down and talk about the complaints because the police patrol the neighborhood quite often and they are known to be over at Carmelo's through either complaints or rowdiness. As I am behind the restaurant, I hear the people when they come out the back door. I do not hear the music that much. I have gone to Carmelo's and talked to the bartender who said they have had quite a few complaints and recommended that the establishment close earlier as it appears to be the only establishment on Coast Highway that is open until 2 in the morning. Mark Corrol, property owner of 418 Narcissus stated that his tenants have told him of the problems and it wasn't until yesterday that he found out the magnitude of the problem. I am very concerned about Corona del Mar. 1 have talked to my tenants and they tell me that basically the annoyance starts about midnight and lasts to 2 a.m. They hear alarms, keys, talking, fighting and cussing between the houses, which is two feet from some of the bedroom windows. Some of tenants are scared to death. I think this has taken away from the health and safety of these people and if nothing else, a good night's sleep. I am talking about the secondary noise, once the people leave the premises of Carmelo's that's when the problem starts for my property, it is not the music, it's the spillover from the crowds. The tenants in the front unit say the music is really not the problem; the problem is the patrons. Tom Ronk, 417 F Orchid Avenue, located behind Carmelo's stated he has no music problem. The problem that we do have during the summertime between 12 and 3 in the morning is people leaving Carmelo's restaurant drunk and loud. I wasn't shy about yelling to the people to move along, etc. I bought air - conditioning so that with the windows closed, the noise is more muffled from the people who are out in the front. Things then started to disappear from the front yard, empty bottles were left in the grass and I would have to go out and clean up the next morning. I like Carmelo's and I have been pretty tolerant; what happens between 12 and 3 in the morning is a real problem that needs to be addressed. Perhaps the security that works at the restaurant could walk out with the patrons and keep them moving along. With the energy crisis going on, the cost of the air conditioning is 200 to 300 dollars. I am not complaining about the cost, but it would be nice if something could be done in terms of monitoring the infiltration of the neighborhood with people who are belligerent. Somebody is nninn t,) r,Pt hit nr r,r+ + s mA nnin+ in time because this does wear on the nerves. INDEX I), City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 Captain Tim Newman of the Newport Beach Police Department noted the memorandum that was presented in the packet. The information is based on the 35 calls directly related to noise /disturbances at the address. Mr. Martin spoke earlier and stated he had a greater number of police calls and I would need time to verify that information. The volume and rate of calls is fairly consistent. I have been patrolling the streets here for 23 years at various times during my police career. At 2 in the morning, these events occur all over our community where we have mixed use and bars with patrons leaving. It is the nature of the beast. With 300 liquor licensees, somewhat like this, the problems happen everywhere. The likelihood that the police would focus on an individual establishment, is not practical. The later hours gives the patrons more time to drink, which diminishes reflexes and judgment significantly. This is a significant problem within the entire community. At Commission inquiry, he noted that the problems heard tonight are comparable to the other establishments (serving meals and staying open late) throughout the City. Carmelo's is a popular place. I have the Vice and Intelligence office, we work with the ABC folks. My office generally gets any trends or problems that appear to recurrent as it relates to the City's alcohol establishments. Right now, I am getting a lot of complaints about the businesses in the Corona del Mar area. At Commission inquiry he noted that there is a noticeable reduction in volume of the traffic around midnight or 1 o'clock on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Diane Martin, 323 Narcissus Avenue stated that she and Gary live in the front of Carmelo's and that the sound comes forward into their house. For one whole summer, they played Zorba the Greek really late at night and the pounding sound is like a jackhammer going through their house. When you are trying to sleep, you can really feel it as well as hear it. There are some nights when the sound is not so loud, it is not consistent. Our complaint is the pounding base sound. Gene Rooten, Goldenrod resident, stated she is not directly impacted by Carmelo's, however noted: • Similar complaints from many different areas with restaurant establishments. • The need to follow our rules, variances and laws within the City. • Maybe there is some way to acoustically control the sound. • Security guard use. • Laws not being enforced. • Possibility of closing off patios at 10:00 p.m. Judy Manto, Proprietor of Carmelo's Restaurant at 3520 E. Coast Hwy noted the following: • At that location for 22 years. • Will do anything to make life easier for everybody. • I have done structural changes to Carmelo's to help witi, noise problems. • I employ security people and have given them the directive That if 12 INDEX I� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 INDEX problems arise, call the police. " We no longer have Brazilian music, never had reggae. We have a tiny dance floor. Patrons are not allowed to remove beer bottles from the establishment, it is against the law. • 1 am doing my best for the neighborhood and certainly to keep mine a viable business. • 1 am tired of being put on the defensive. • 1 have a clean establishment. • 1 want to stay in this community and be a good neighbor. • 1 like what I am doing and employ a lot of nice people. 1 don't want to sell, but if I do the next person who goes in there might not be as law- abiding as I am. Commissioner Kiser asked what structural changes had been made to mitigate noise. Does the entertainment include more than four individuals playing? Do you leave the main front door towards Coast Highway open during the time when the music is played? If your operation ended up being conditioned to require the front door to be used as it is now, just opened for patrons exiting and entering when live music is being played, that would not create a problem for your business? The reason I ask is because if that is in fact the way you have been operating the restaurant, then that wouldn't be a change at all in the operation. Ms. Manto answered that we now keep the French doors on either side of the entrance closed at all times; put up glass partitions around the patio; and plants are placed against the area where the bands play, which is the lounge area. We are primarily a restaurant with entertainment. The entertainment is made up of usually 4 instruments and on occasion a singer. The doors are no longer kept open, however, it is the only way patrons come in and out. I would be willing to go along with that condition, however, I don't relish further restrictions nor being put under the spotlight and defending myself, but if that is the case, of course I will do it. Commissioner Gifford asked if the show ever included dancers as well. Ms. Manto answered that at one time they had two Brazilian girls who would come out, but. that ended over a year ago during the summer. Chairperson Tucker asked about the closing times on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays and what time does the music stop. Ms. Manto answered that the music stops at 1 o'clock and all liquor is to be off the tables by 1:30 a.m., and lights off by 2 o'clock. Chairperson Tucker asked staff about the hours of operation including live entertainment. 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 Ms. Temple, referring to handwritten page 36, answered that condition 6 limits the restaurant operation as well as dancing and live entertainment until 12:30 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 1:30 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. The live entertainment is not allowed before 9:00 p.m. nor the dancing before 10:30 p.m. Chairperson Tucker stated that the band music on Thursday needs to stop at 12:30 a.m. The terms of the permit says that the subject restaurant, including dancing and live entertainment shall be permitted to operate until 12:30 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 1:30 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. Ms. Monto noted that the band takes a break at that time and so records are played. We are going a bit beyond that 12:30 a.m. sometimes. Thomas Edwards, appearing on behalf of Carmelo's noted the following: • Operational changes - physical changes were made around November 1999; no citations have been received since that time. • The citations up to October 1999 occurred as a result of open windows, which was a violation. However after the policy of instituting windows being closed at all times, no further violations have been cited. • There has been an increase in the amount of security. • Security people have been known to remove bottles and glasses from patrons who leave the premises. • The complaint record of 1999, of the 23 complaints, 22 were from Mr. Martin. • The changes made with the glass partitions and series of plants were made after Mr. Sinasek had made the original citations earlier in 1999. • The restaurant has never been cited for their hours of operation. • Regarding the rules and ordinances, Carmelo's is in full compliance with the use permit, they are presently not in violation of any existing ordinance. • No citations issued for a period of two years. • The applicant has been responsive to any and all concerns. • Security is present on the patio and at the entrance. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edwards noted that the noise activity occurring is that as patrons leave, there is valet parking that causes noise from keys and moving cars. Kitchen people come in at 6 in the morning to clean up and get ready for the day. Patrons may be walking to other bars in the area and leaving their cars in the parking lot. We have not had a particular complaint about beer bottles until it was raised here this evening. Commissioner Gifford stated that with respect to condition 10 that the music and live entertainment be confined to the interior of the building, we have based on the memos that Code Enforcement has submitted, an absolute statement that the music is carrying over to See's parking lot and behind Christof's Salon, so obviously outside the interior of the building. Mr. Edwards stated that on or about June 71h as amended October 1990, 14 INDEX 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 Carmelo's obtained the amended Use Permit 1908. The Planning Commission at that time approved condition 10 that states, 'that live entertainment in the restaurant shall be limited to a four piece combo and that all music and live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the building and all doors and windows of the restaurant and lounge shall remain closed during such activity, except for the main entrance door facing East Coast Highway.' What they were speaking about at that time was the music and live entertainment was going to be put in the body of the building /restaurant and confined to the interior and all the windows and doors were to be closed. The idea being that it could not be out in the patio area. There were a series of restaurants in 1990 that were allowed to have amplification out in the patios. Carmelo's took care of closing the doors and windows except the door on PCH and they instituted voluntarily on top of that the closing of that door. All the music is in fact in the interior of the building. They have not allowed at any time, speakers or amplification since then. Commissioner Gifford noted that the music is heard outside the building and therefore, not confined. The problem is there is no distinction between the playing of the music and the sound of the music. The playing of the music is taking place inside the building, whereas the Planning Commission has processed a lot of use permits for restaurants around town and it has always been considered that the reason the doors and windows are closed is part of that to contain the sound in side. Mr. Edwards added that in 1990 as a Planning Commissioner, the concern voiced was for people who were trying to create more than a restaurant. There may have been places in the Cannery Village area and the Lido Marina Village where the way they got around that is that they would start the music very early so it really became a nightclub as opposed to a restaurant with music. That was the distinction. Commissioner Selich, referring to condition 10, asked staff if they concur with Mr. Edward's interpretation? Ms. Clauson answered yes. I agreed that it was a valid interpretation. It does not say that sound shall not be heard or the sound shall not escape and in the context of the entire condition, I agreed that was a reasonable interpretation. Commissioner Gifford asked about the terms of intent. Mr. Hewicker's comments during the June 7, 1990 hearing looking for how it could be achieved to assure that no sound is transmitted from the building. I know that we have processed a lot of applications since I have been on the Commission where the condition is that sound is contained in the interior. Ms. Clauson stated that is correct, but in this case the condition was determined to be sufficient to make sure no sound left the facility as opposed to a condition that no sound shall leave the facility. I agreed that it was a reasonable interpretation that if they confined the live entertainment to the interior and 15 INDEX I� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 closed all the doors and windows that the sound would be confined. That condition was sufficient to accomplish that result. However, you are making an analysis tonight as to whether the conditions need to be changed because that has not been accomplished. The sound does leave. They were meeting the condition because all the windows were closed. Public discussion was closed. Commissioner Selich stated that from what we have heard tonight there are two major issues before us, the noise from patrons leaving the restaurant and music. The decision before us is, has sufficient evidence been presented to us tonight that conditions of the use permit are being violated or that detrimental activity to the surrounding community is taking place that we should call this back up for review and have a public hearing on it. It seemed like we had more testimony on the noise related to people departing the restaurant and the activities around the restaurant as it is closing. I have not heard anything presented tonight that indicates that the noise coming out of here is any different or any more disruptive than the noise we have coming from other restaurants in Corona del Mar. One of the problems we have is the interface between the commercial and residential area there and the businesses have different types of noise during different times of the day. We have a situation when you live next to commercial property there is a higher level of noise to be expected than if you are living three or four blocks off Coast Highway. I have not heard anything that would cause me to bring this back for review. It gets down to the businesses of trying to be a good neighbor and do what they can to control the noise from the patrons in their area. I would guess that if you took a petition around every restaurant in Corona del Mar, you would get 26 signatures complaining about after hour noise from people leaving the restaurants. If it is a problem, it is a lot bigger than Carmelo's and to single them out on this issue, is not particularly fair. In terms of the music coming out of the restaurant, I have been involved with this for some time. Some of the remedies that were done to the property came out of the homeowners association interests. My conclusions are similar to those of the Code Enforcement staff and I believe are valid in terms of the noise. I never noticed the vibrations, you could hear the music when the traffic was cycling but it was not overly loud or obnoxious and in my opinion we have all these code standards we can adhere to. I have listened to the noise as recently as three weeks ago and I don't hear anything that was overly disturbing or loud. I have heard no evidence tonight to change that opinion. My inclination is not call it up for review. Commissioner Gifford noted that we sometimes put residents in a difficult position because if they come before us and have not complained, we ask them why they haven't complained and if they make regular complaints to document their disturbances, then we perhaps say that they complain too much. I believe that the standard that has been set, while we have looked at permits such as for the Maritime Museum, Mama Gino's and for Windows, when we talk nhotrt sni ind � -Ina confined to the interior it has always meant thc+ no sound of music or of loud crowds should leave the building. That has gone to the 16 11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 point where we have had people install baffles to protect just against the opening of the main ingress and egress either to a deck or to the front of a building. I believe that the fact that sound is leaving the building is showing that the use permit as it is currently in effect, doesn't meet the standard we have set for ourselves for protecting the health, safety and welfare of residents. We need to look at the use permit and conform it however it needs to be conformed to meet the standard that we have been applying to all the other restaurants. I certainly thank Commissioner Selich for addressing the fact that there may be other restaurants who are no worse or better than Carmelo's. But they are not the ones that are before us tonight and I think we have to deal with the issue that is before us and my recommendation would be to call the permit up and to do what we need to do to conform it to the standard that I believe we have set so that it is the intent that sound not leave the building is implemented by the conditions that are in the use permit. The conditions that are in there currently, do not give that result. Commissioner Agajanian noted he is sensitive to the noise issue and that the quality of life is very important for our residents and supports Commissioner Gifford's position on this and would be inclined to call this up and see if there is something we can do to help. Commissioner Kiser noted he does not agree with things that have been said about the reasonableness of trying to confine all noise or sound from music or entertainment within a building. I personally don't think that is reasonable and I don't know if it is even possible. Given that we have had credible testimony that there could be a detriment to the peace and welfare of the community related to the operation of the restaurant, and because there has been some question raised tonight about compliance with hours of operation and hours of entertainment, I think it is appropriate to bring the matter for hearing to consider the present use permit. Personally, I think the most important thing we could do is to integrate and clarify these various use permits that have been issued over the years so that we have something clear and the live entertainment permit could be conformed so that we would not have these questions. I would call it up. There may be solutions that are not far from the present allowed use once we clarify what that use is. For instance, I suggested before just keeping the door closed in the evenings when there is live entertainment would be a partial solution, possibly the full solution. I think the combination of looking at it, there has been enough evidence tonight that it should be looked at more carefully and possibly with the increased enforcement and minor changes we would have a restaurant and operation that does not raise such concerns within the community. Commissioner McDaniel noted he is not in favor of calling this back up. I agree with Commissioner Selich comments about this being a mixed -use area that will have its concerns for activities throughout the day. My main concern is what is going on in the parking lot in the evening and I am not sure that the applicant or owner can do a whole lot about that. I know if you play a drum, it is difficult for that noise to stay within the walls. I don't know how that noise could be 17 INDEX I(� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2001 contained although I understand what we are trying to do there. I would not be in favor of calling this up. Chairperson Tucker stated these are tough matters and involve balancing many interests. Anytime there is commercial next to residential we have these issues. We have to make a decision on what we have heard. I am bothered by the lack of people on the south side of the highway, we seem to have most of the complaints being the ones that are just north of the facility with the crowds leaving at night. The police complaints seem to have come mainly from Mr. Martin as opposed to some of the other neighbors who were also on the south side. I don't doubt it is bothersome to him but ultimately condition 14 calls for the disturbance to the community. If there had been several people who had shown up to complain about the music, I would be more persuaded to bring this matter back. It is our goal, especially in the new permits we see, to try to figure out how to keep all the sound inside that we can keep inside. It is a worthy goal but an unrealistic goal to keep all the sound inside and should not be the basis for calling this permit back based upon the other evidence we have in terms of the code enforcement officer. At this point, I am going to side with not bringing it back for further review. I hope that the Carmelo's folks will bring in their hours of operation to be consistent with the permit and that the front door is closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich that based on the evidence presented tonight that the Planning Commission not call the Use Permit 1908A for review. Commissioner Kiser clarified with staff that if the Commission is split on the matter, as it is likely we will do tonight, that motion does not carry. Ms. Clauson answered that the action that is being decided tonight is whether to call this matter up for review. If you do not have an affirmative action vote to do that, it is not being called up. Commissioner Kiser stated that the matter before us to call it up, the vote should be yes to call it up or no, to not call it up. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to set Use Permit No. 1908 A for review by the Planning Commission on November 8, 2001. Ayes: Gifford, Agajanian, Kiser Noes: Selich, Tucker, McDaniel Excused: Kranzley Commissioner Selich withdrew his original motion is INDEX 11 tae" "gyp e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: October 18, 2001 y PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 2 u 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell C�4ep0.N�� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Appeal Period: 14 days REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Carmelo's Ristorante - Use Permit No. 1908A 3520 E. Coast Highway SUMMARY: Discussion of noise related complaints generated by live entertainment and patrons. ACTION: If sufficient cause exists, set Use Permit No. 1908 Amended for review by the Planning Commission on November 8, 2001. INITIATED BY: Planning Department LOCATION: Approximately 50 feet east of the northeast comer of the intersection of East Coast Highway and Narcissus Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: Retail, Service & Commercial ZONING DISTRICT: RSC (Retail, Service & Commercial) Introduction Carmelo's is an existing restaurant originally authorized in 1979 with the approval of Use Permit No. 1908. Since then, 5 separate amendments have been approved which have authorized the addition of an outdoor patio facing East Coast Highway, live entertainment and dancing. Over the time, there have been occasional complaints from residents in proximity to this location on both the north and south side of E. Coast Highway. Because of these complaints and the follow -up investigation, the establishment has been found from time to time to be operating inconsistent with the conditions of approval, in the areas of live music, noise and property maintenance. When discovered, the city has notified the operator of the issues and worked with the operator to gain compliance. Although they have been responsive to addressing the complaints, problems seem to reoccur. Since 1998, a resident across E. Coast Highway who lives on Narcissus Avenue has not been satisfied with the operation and the attempts to control noise issues. One of several letters of the complaint is attached as Exhibit No. 1 and a petition requesting that the live entertainment permit be revoked is attached as Exhibit No. 2. Staff has prepared the following map showing the proximity of the restaurant to the affected property. .6 Vicinity Map Restaurant with outdoor patio Parking Parking and residential uses To the east: Res %a To the south: Retail commercial and food uses e42e rrr elo's Retail commercial Parking —' � C 3gpf�� Pare g CgS'T�I epo �F e 'cO �PJ Carmelo's Ristorante 3520 E. Coast Highway Use Permit No. 1908 Amended Current Development: Restaurant with outdoor patio To the north: Parking and residential uses To the east: Retail commercial and food uses To the south: Retail commercial and food uses To the west: Retail commercial Carmelo's Ristorante October 4, 2001 h Pate 2 of 6 d Backeround Code Enforcement staff has observed the situation and taken noise measurements. Three reports from Code Enforcement are attached as Exhibit No. 3. Apparently, the music from the band and noise from patrons on the outdoor patio and patrons waiting to enter the facility filters through the ambient traffic noise of East Coast Highway. Patrons waiting to enter the facility presently queue on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant when the restaurant is busy. Allegedly, this noise negatively impacts the property that is located approximately 340 feet away on the south side of East Coast Highway. The restaurant is located on the north side of the highway. The impact seems to occur mostly during breaks in traffic when the ambient noise is lower and later in the evening when traffic volumes diminish. Noise measurements taken by Code Enforcement staff indicate no violation of the Community Noise Control Ordinance, but the noise is audible at the residence of the complainant. Staff has met with the operator to better understand how the restaurant operates. Glass sound barriers were installed after the initial construction of the patio to help mitigate sound. Additionally, the main entry door that faces East Coast Highway is not held open as in the past, even though the Use Permit would permit the door to remain open. The door is only open for ingress and egress. The operator indicates that a security service is provided on busy evenings when a queue forms. This typically occurs on Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings. The business owner assures staff that security and restaurant personnel have been advised of ongoing noise issues in an attempt to control patrons dining on the patio and waiting to enter. Staff has not identified any present violation of Use Permit No. 1908 as amended. However, condition #14 authorizes the Planning Commission to add or modify the conditions of approval or recommend revocation of the permit if there is a determination that the use is detrimental to the general welfare of the community. Notice of this proceeding has been sent to the restaurant operator and the complainant. HistorV The history of live entertainment at the facility begins with the third amendment to the use permit that was approved on June 23, 1983. The amendment authorized live entertainment characterized as classical or semi - classical music inside the building and six tables with chairs on the patio for a waiting area. No table service was permitted on the patio, and music and live entertainment was restricted to the interior of the building and "generally limited to classical or semi - classical music." No restrictions were placed upon sound amplification. Attached as Exhibit No. 4 is the minutes, findings and condition's of approval reflecting these actions. In 1989, the city became aware of a change in the operational character of the live entertainment. A four -piece combo began entertaining patrons and dancing was occurring without authorization. This violation led the restaurant operator to file for an amendment to the use permit which was approved on June 7, 1990. A copy of the minutes, findings and conditions of approval is attached as Exhibit No. 5. The permit authorized live entertainment and dancing subject to conditions. The four -piece combo was authorized to perform in conjunction with dancing. Again, no limitation on sound amplification was adopted; however, sound was to be, "confined to the interior of the building and Carmelo's Ristorante October 4, 2001 Page 3of6 )0, all doors and windows of the restaurant and lounge" were to "remain closed at all times." Condition No. 16 required an evaluation of the permit 120 days after approval that included an evaluation of the sound by a qualified engineer. This review was conducted, and on October 4, 1990, the permit was amended to permit the front door of the restaurant to be propped open during the live entertainment activities (See Exhibit No. 6). Discussion The issue of whether or not sound amplification was ever permitted by the use permit been raised, as the live entertainment permit limits music to incidental background music with non - amplified acoustical instruments. Furthermore, no sound amplification, brass or percussion instruments were permitted. As stated previously, the 1983 and 1990 use permit amendments are silent on these topics. A copy of the current live entertainment permit is attached as Exhibit No. 7. Staff has reviewed the record in an attempt to rectify this inconsistency between the use permit and the live entertainment permit. No clear reference to sound amplification, acoustical or non- acoustical instruments, brass or percussion instruments was found in the staff reports, applications, project description or minutes. The only reference to amplification devices and the type of instruments is contained in a field survey memo from the project architect dated August 29, 1990 and in comment letters from the public. The field survey memo indicates the presence of a speaker system and a keyboard and is attached as Exhibit No. 8. References to brass and drums are mentioned in comment letters. Staff believes that these references indicate that there was a general understanding that sound amplification, non - acoustic instruments, brass and drums were part of the four -piece combo under consideration. Lastly, it is interesting to note that the field survey memo indicates the installation new acoustic ceilings and wall panels for enhanced sound attenuation. This memo is accompanied with work orders and invoices for the sound mitigation devices. In conclusion, staff believes that the inconsistency between the live entertainment permit and the use permit is an unfortunate oversight and that the provisions of the use permit reflect the intended permitted use. The error possibly was caused by the fact that 10 years elapsed between the issuance of the use permit and the live. entertainment permit and optimal interdepartmental coordination was not achieved. One factor that might impact the discussion is Section 5.28.040(3) of the Municipal Code. This section prohibits sound from live entertainment activities from being audible from an adjacent property or public right of way. It has been suggested that this standard be used for enforcement purposes. The problem with this standard is that doors are routinely opened for ingress and egress and noise spills out. Secondly, the city has historically used the Community Noise Control Ordinance and the Loud and Unreasonable Noise Ordinance as the standard for enforcement purposes. For these reasons, Planning staff and the City Attorney's office believes that the standard contained within Section 5.28.040(3) is difficult to enforce. Physical mitigation measures could possibly include the following items; replacement windows with double pane windows that cannot be opened, enhanced wall and ceiling construction, a double set of entry doors acting as a sound vestibule and changes to the patio walls. Carmelo's Ristorante October 4, 2001 Page 4 of 6 �� As previously discussed, Code Enforcement personnel have already investigated the situation, and determined that the restaurant and live entertainment operation complies with the Community Noise Ordinance. Therefore, the section of the Municipal Code most applicable in the case is the Loud and Unreasonable Noise Ordinance (Chapter 10.28). It is this chapter of the Code which makes it unlawful for any person or property owner to willfully make any loud and unreasonable noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to any "reasonable person of normal sensitivities" While this term is not defined in the Code section, it does provide a series of factors and standards to be used in determining whether a violation of this section has occurred. These can be used in addition the mandatory use permit determination of detriment to the peace, safety and welfare of the neighborhood to evaluate this case. An excerpt of Section 10.28.010 is attached as Exhibit No. 9. Conclusion Staff sees two primary options for the Planning Commission: 1. If the Commission believes that the restaurant operation may be detrimental to the neighborhood, the Commission could set a hearing to consider mitigation strategies and possible new conditions of approval. This report can be presented at a future public hearing where all parties can be heard. Notices can be sent to neighbors in the area, which may or may not uncover additional aggrieved persons. 2. The Commission might believe that the restaurant operation effects a person who might not be of normal sensitivity. If this is the case and a finding that the general community is not negatively impacted is made, no further action by the Commission would be necessary. This finding would not preclude future involvement by the Commission if future activities give rise to additional complaints. Furthermore, a decision to take no action would not condone any violations of the Use Permit or Municipal Code either in the past, present or future. Lastly, this option would not prohibit future code enforcement activities if warranted. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director �'• =9 i Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Carmelo's Ristorante October 4, 2001 1 Page 5of6 Exhibits 1. Undated letter from the complainant stamped, "Received 7/3/01 City Attorney's Office." 2. Petition to revoke Carmelo's late night entertainment permit dated 6/29/01. 3. Code Enforcement reports dated 8/11/01, 8/03/01 and 11/19/99. 4. Excerpt of minutes from the 3d amendment to UP No. 1908 approved on June 23, 1983. 5. Excerpt of minutes from the 5a' amendment to UP No. 1908 approved on June 7, 1990. 6. Excerpt of minutes from October 4, 1990 that modifies Condition #10 of UP 1908. 7. Live entertainment permit. 8. Field survey memo dated August 29, 1990. 9. Section 10.28.0 10 -Loud and Unreasonable noise. k.\2001 \10- 18pc \UP1908 - Carmelos \UP1908 review.doc Carmelo's Ristorante October 4, 2001 C� Page 6 of 6 J Exhibit No. 1 a� 3 2 3 N a r a I s s u s A v e n u e Corona del Mar. California 92625 Telephone 949.6 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Robert Burnham, City Attorney JUL 0 3 2001 n."ORNErS I have a on - going problem with Carmello's Bar /Restaurant. They are unable to keep their live music from playing on my property; and the music plays from 10:00 to 2:00 am, four nights a week I can not get to sleep until the music stops at 2:00 am. I have spoken to Judy Monto, the owner, she refuses to do anything about the noise. I have spoken to the property owner Walter Boice, at Realonomics 3500 PCH, Suite 1, in Corona del Mar. He advised me to call city manager. I have spoken to City manager, Homer Bludau, and his assistant, Sharon Wood. The city manager advised me that Carmelo's was being fined for their noise violations. I have filed a complaint with the police, and now I have to call the police every week. I got the police reports for last year in which the neighbors, including myself, made over 120 calls about Carmello's with problems from loud music to fights to peeing in public and on our properties. That's over two calls a week. The city permit states the music must be classical and all doors and windows must be closed during the playing of this music. Carmello's plays pounding music, (usually Brazilian) full blast and their front door is constantly open all night long. They violate their permit every night that the band plays. People outside the restaurant are scream- ing, car alarms are going off, cars are honking at 2:00 am., but what's bad for me is that the drums pound through the ground and our whole house pulsates unbearably. Enclosed is a proposal I hope you will consider. Gary Martin �q Exhibit No. 2 PETITION TO REVOKE CARMELLO'S LATE NIGHT ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT Mayor and City Counsel We have had repeated problems with unacceptably loud music and noise late into the night at Carmello's Restaurant, 3520 East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, Time after time, Carmello's has been informed of the problem, with no Improvement. They have been fined by the police many times and still refuse to cooperate. Therefore, we, the undersigned, have no choice but to request their permit for late night entertainment be revoked. Name (Print) Gary Martin Address: 323 Narcissus Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Date 6 -29 -01 ati Exhibit No. 3, 3b J MEMORANDUM To: File (Use Permit 1908A) From: Code Enforcement Supervisor Subject: 3520 E. Coast Hwy. (Carmelo's) Noise from live entertainment Date: August 11, 2001 This memo is a follow -up to the memo dated August 3, 2001. The results of our evening investigation are not too different from that memo and comments. The main difference was the lack of patron queuing at the entrance to the patio. Although, at times, there were as many as fifteen patrons at the front patio entrance, there was not the Thursday night queue be to and around the front sidewalk. During the evening hours of 10:00 p.m to midnight on Saturday, August 11, 2001, we arrived and were located in the See's parking lot across the street from the subject property and in the parking lot behind Christopher II Hair Company. The music and crowd noise behind See's was clearly audible during the absence of ambient automobile traffic noise. The live entertainment and crowd noise ranged from, approximately, 45 to 50 decibels. The automobile traffic noise ranged from, = approximately, 50 to 65 decibels. While in the lot behind Christopher II Hair Company, during the final hour of our visit, the live entertainment noise ranged from, approximately, 45 to 51 decibels. The crowd noise ranged from, approximately, 45 to 50 decibels. And, again, the automobile traffic noise ranged from, 50 to 65 decibels. Also, the bass sound from the live entertainment was audible but not very significant and the overall crowd noise was not as significant as on a Thursday evening. Based on this information, it would appear that the ambient automobile traffic noise would, therefore, be the standard for the residential portion of this mixed -use property. One should, also, consider the fact that the residential property, which is the subject of this investigation, is well out of the 100 foot distance which qualifies for Noise Zone 111 in making this determination. End of report. 3� MEMORANDUM To: File (Use Permit 1908A) From: Code Enforcement Supervisor Subject: 3520 E. Coast Hwy. (Carmelo's) Noise from live entertainment Date: August 3, 2001 During the hours of 10:00 p. m. to midnight on Thursday, August 2, 2001, we arrived and were located in the parking lot of See's Candies and, later, behind Christopher's II Hair Company across the street from the subject property. The purpose of our visit was to ascertain the amount and degree of noise coming from the live entertainment at the subject property. It is important to note, however, during the time of our visit to the subject property, there were three or four distinct noise sources, depending upon which parking lot we were located. In the See's lot there were three distinct ambient noise sources, i.e. passing automobile traffic noise, facility crowd noise and live entertainment noise. While at the See's location, during pauses in the ambient traffic noise, the noise from the live entertainment could be heard, usually, on an equal basis to the noise from the crowd. At times the crowd created more noise than did the live entertainment. When the ambient traffic noise and the crowd noise could not be heard the live entertainment noise was audible. The noise from the live entertainment and from the crowd was difficult to distinguish above the ambient traffic noise. While located in the parking lot behind Christopher's, four distinct sounds were audible. Probably, the most notable noise was that from the crickets in the landscaping. Additionally, noise was heard from passing traffic, facility crowd noise and live entertainment. The bass noise from the live entertainment, during the absence of ambient traffic noise and crowd noise, was audible from this location. Generally, the facility crowd nisi was on an equal basis as the live entertainment noise. Although the bass noise was not particularly loud, it was audible above the noise from the crickets, again, when the crowd and ambient traffic noise was not present. In summation, during the times of continual traffic and crowd noise, the noise from the live entertainment was not audible above the ambient. When the traffic noise was absent, the noise from the crickets was as loud as the crowd noise absent any screams or high 3a pitched laughter from the facility. The bass noise was audible during the lapses in traffic and crowd noise. It was, also, audible with the cricket noise, although not very significant. Between the time of our arrival and departure, there was a continual queuing of patrons at the front patio. The queuing began promptly at 10:00 p.m. and ended at midnight. The noise reported as crowd noise included any noise associated with the queue. End of report. M 9 MEMORANDUM To:. File (Use Permit No. 1908) From: Code Enforcement Supervisor Subject: Noise from Live Entertainment (Carmelo's) Date: November 19, 1999 Noise was monitored in the parking lot behind 3451 E. Coast Highway. This lot is contiguous to the residential property occupied by the complaining party. During the evening of November 18, 1999 the following observations and noise measurements were made: 9:50 p.m. Ambient noise was approximately 52 dB with peaks to 58 dB Patron noise from outside the facility was 45 to 50 dB (the patron queue line was to the comer of the exterior patio at the driveway) Noise from live entertainment was immeasurable 10:15 p.m. Hom alarm beeping at See's Candy parking lot was 76 dB 10:20 p.m. Noise from live entertainment was 50 dB 10:37 p.m. 11 11 11 11 " 54 dB 11:00 p.m. Patron noise was 50 -54 dB (The patron queue line was half way around the front of the exterior patio on the public sidewalk) 11:15 p.m. Noise from live entertainment was 50 dB 11:20 P• m. 52 dB 11:30 p.m. 11 11 11 11 " 53 dB Exhibit No. 4 , 35 COMMISSONERS June 23, 1983 � F m = m m ' City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLLCALLI 111 1111 1 INDEX Use Permit No. 1908 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item n6 Request to amend a previously approved u<e permit which allowed the establishment of the La Strada Restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages on property located in the C -1 District. The proposed amendment is to allow USE PERMIT the addition of live entertainment (i.e. classical or NO. 1908 semi - classical music) inside the building, and the (Amended) addition of six umbrella tables with chairs in the patio area in front of the restaurant to bt used for limited serving of soft drinks and ice cream on an occasional basis. AND AND variance No. 1100 (Public Hearing) Recuest to waive all of the recuired off- street parking spaces in conjunction with the additional "net public Item :7 area" in the patio area of the La Strada Restaurant. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No. 158 -41 (Resubdivision No. 645) located at 3520 East Coast Highway, on the northerly VARIANCE side of East Coast Highway, between. NO. 1100 Narcissus Avenue and Orchid Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Manto -Brady Enterprises, Newport Beach BOTH OWNER: Lola Bernice Paltz Trust, First t APP, OVLD Interstate Bank Trustee, Newport Beach CONDI- TIONALLY Planning Director Hewicker presented background information on the proposed requests. (((I 1 In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Planning Director Hewicker referred to Condition. No. 3 of E xhibit "B" and suggested that the condition be worded as follows, "That all music and live entertainment shall be restricted to the interior of the building and shall be generally limited to classical and semi - classical style as proposed by the applicant." -20- 3 z � r c c > n m D Tun— 23. 19P1 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Bill Thom, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Thom stated that the live musical entertainment is being requested to provide the old -world ambiance for the new image of the restaurant. He stated that the request for the tables, chairs and umbrellas in the patio area will be for the purpose of patrons waiting for inside service and also will provide for a Europea11 atmosphere. lie stated that they have no inte.ntin s cf '-- _- - n- ai lir .. n_ good beverages in the patio area. He further stated that the net public area of the restaurant will not be increased because there will be no service of additional customers with the proposed use of the patio area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Thom stated that they are willing to stipulate that the cocktail area would not be utilized for the service of food, with the exception of hers d'oeuvres. Mr. Thom further stated that there would be no service of alcoholic beverages or food in the patio area. Mr. Thom stated that the request for the outside tables on the patio area is for the purpose of visibility and attraction. Mr. Thom stated that they envision only evening service hours, no daytime service hours are being requested at this time. Commissioner Balalis stated that if a lunch service is anticipated, this would be the time to include such service into the requested use permit. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Planning Director :'.ewicker stated that the applicant is currently allowed to operate under the existing use permit during the lunch hour, but at a reduced floor area on the interior of the buildi.nq. Mr. Thom stated that there is currently not a demand for the lunch service, however, he stated that the applicant would be desirous of keeping the lunch service option. Vice - Chairman winburn commended the applicant for keeping his parking lot open during the day for the public to utilize, even though the applicant himself does not utilize the parking lot during the day. -21- 3� � x � r c m - m a =ono 3 J 0 b - N 7 June 23, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES R O L L CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I INDEX Mr. Thom stated that since the applicant has been in operation, not even half of the parking spaces have been utilized by the restaurant use. In response to a question posed by vice - Chairman winburn, Mr. Thom stated that they will stipulate that there will be no food service in the patio area. However, he stated that if the patio area is deemed to be public service area, rather than a visual enhancement to the restaurant use, he stated that the applicant would then st close down the corresponding square footage inside the building, with the provision that food service be allowed in the patio area. Planning Director Hewicker suggested that the applicant could continue to be open during the lunch hour, on a limited square footage inside the building and have the patio area; and, be open with the full square footage during the evening hours and have the patio area, with the stipulation that there be no alcoholic beverages or food served on the patio area. He stated that this would be preferable to having the staff police whether or not the applicant is utilizing the interior of the building for food service. He stated that it is much easier for the staff to observe what is occurring in the outside patio area. Planning Director Hewicker also suggested that there could be a review at the end of six months of the patio operation. He stated that at the six month review, the patio operation can be allowed to continue as approved, or the patio operation can be modified. Planning Director Hewicker further suggested that an additional condition be imocsed wtich would relate to the maintenance of the parking lot, providing for the replacement of the wheel stops and the removal of the weeds which would enhance the appearance of the existing parking lot. -22- 3� r r c c v y D a x m Of June 23, 1983 t Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I I INDEX Motion All Ayes Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 1908 (Amended) and Variance No. 1100, subject to the findings and conditions of Exhibit "B ", with revisions suggested by the Planning Director relating to the service hours and square footage; stipulation that there shall be no alcoholic beverages or food served in the patio area; review at the end of six months by the Modifications Committee for the patio operation; condition relating to the maintenance of the parking lot; and, revision to Condition No. 3 relating to the music and live entertainment, which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: F*611041ref`D 1. That the proposed addition of six umbrella tables with chairs in the front patio area of the subject restaurant and the addition of live entertainment will not significantly increase the parking demand for the restaurant, inasmuch as the tables will have limited use as a secondary waiting area and the serving of after - dinner espresso and coffee to diners. 2. That the granting of a variance to waive a portion of the required off- street parking spaces is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. The waiver of the additional parking spaces for the subject restaurant and the addition of live entertainment (i.e. semi - classical and classical music) will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or incurious to property and improvements in thn. neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That all previous conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 1908 (Amended) as approved by the City Council on February 22, 1982, shall be fulfilled. -23- 3y r J z � r c m m June 23, 1983 MINUTES itv of Newport Beach R O L L CAU I 1 1 1 1111 1INDEX 2. That no more than six umbrella tables and 24 chairs shall be permitted in the front patio area of the restaurant. 3. That all music and live entertainment shall be restricted to the interior of the building and shall be generally limited to classical and semi - classical style as proposed by the applicant. 4. That no alcoholic beveraces or food of anv kind shall be served in the patio area. 5. That the proposed restaurant shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted floor plan and site plan. 6. That the applicant may continue to be open during the lunch hour, on a limited interior square footage basis as previously approved; and, may continue to be open during the evening hours with the full interior square footage as previously approved. 7. That the use of the patio area shall be reviewed at the end of six months by the Modifications Committee. S. That all weeds and debris in the parking lot shall be removed and all broken wheel stops replaced. The parking lot shall be kept clean and well maintained at all times. ■ The Planning Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. -24- I �� Exhibit No. 5 11 COMMISSIONERS 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 7, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 1908 (Amended)(Public Hearing) item No.7 UP1908A Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages, live entertainment and valet parking. The proposed Approved amendment includes a request to change the operational characteristics of the restaurant so as to permit nighttime dancing in conjunction with a live entertainment dance combo whereas the approved live entertainment is limited to classical or semi- classical music. The proposal also includes a request to change the permitted closing hours of operation of the restaurant facility from 11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 midnight, Friday and Saturday, to 12:30 a.m., Sunday through Thursday and 1:30 a.m., Friday and Saturday. The proposed amendment also involves a request to provide 10 tables and 40 seats in the outdoor patio area where no more than 8 tables and 24 seats are currently permitted. The proposal also includes modifications to the Zoning Code so as to provide additional parking spaces in an existing off -site parking area across the alley from the restaurant use by using tandem spaces, and to allow one additional on -site parking space which encroaches into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No. 158-41 (Resubdivision No. 645) located at 3520 East Coast Highway, on the northerly side of East Coast Highway, between Narcissus Avenue and Orchid Avenue, (restaurant site); Lots 4 and 5, Block U, Tract No. 323, located at the northwesterly corner of East Coast Highway and Orchid Avenue (Off -site Parking Lot No. 1); and Lots 1 and 3, Block 441, Corona del Mar, located on the northwesterly side of Orchid Avenue, between East Coast Highway and Second Avenue, in Corona del Mar. (Off -site Parking Lot No. 2). ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Carmelo Manto, Newport Beach OWNER: First Interstate Bank, Newport Beach 3 -29- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 7, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, J. A. King & Associates, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He submitted 14 letters signed by residents living adjacent to the subject site stating their support of the restaurant. Mr. King reviewed the previous uses of the subject restaurant, and he explained that the applicant is currently requesting an amendment to the use permit so as to reflect the existing operation. Mr. King explained that the restaurant has never advertised public dancing; that customers voluntarily danced in response to the music that was being played; as a result of the letter from the City to the applicant stating that dancing is not a permitted use, the dancing ceased; the applicant concurs with staffs recommendations regarding the parking requirement; and the Off -site Parking Agreement with the adjacent property owner has been put on file at the City. Mr. King concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of Condition No. 7. He indicated that the music will commence at 9:00 p.m. Mr. King stated that Dining Area No. 4 has. consistently closed early; however, he requested that the dining areas closest to the lounge 'area be allowed to remain open until 10:30 p.m. He suggested posting the area so as not to allow dancing until the second dining area is closed, and the dancing be allowed to commence after the dinner hour of 10:30 p.m.. Mr. King stated that the applicant has agreed to post the area prohibiting dancing so as to enforce the regulation. Mr. Carmelo Manto, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano regarding the letter dated September 1, 1989, that was mailed to the applicant, Mr. Manto concurred with the request that the Planning Commission review the operation 90 days from the Subject public hearing. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Manto indicated that the outside patio would remain open after 10:30 p.m, during the summer months. Discussion ensued regarding the activity between the outside patio and the restaurant, and the sound from the music would be heard outdoors. Mr. King explained that the center door that leads into the restaurant will open for customers to enter or leave the restaurant facility; however, he said the double doors adjacent to the music area will be permanently closed throughout the year. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Manto -30- M COMMISSIONERS V 1W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 7, 1990 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX explained that the doors are not required to be unlocked by the Fire Department, and the intent is to keep the doors permanently locked. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Manto explained that a dance combo is currently providing entertainment. Mr. Gary Martin, 323 Narcissus Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he requested that the entertainment be denied inasmuch as the existing music is disturbing the neighborhood. He indicated that the music currently extends beyond 11:00 p.m. on week days and on weekends. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding the applicant's compliance with the previously approved conditions, Mr. King replied that from the time the applicant received the foregoing letter from Code Enforcement Officer, the restaurant has kept the double doors closed. He indicated that after the air conditioning was installed, there was' not the temptation to open the double doors, and the speakers from the sound system were adjusted so as not to transmit outdoors. In response to a question posed. by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. King explained that the double set of doors in the lounge area consist of wood and glass that are not double glazed. Commissioner Pers6n suggested a condition regarding sound attenuation that would address the expressed concerns. Chairman Pomeroy indicated that sound emitting from the traffic on East Coast Highway is very evident for all of the residents in the area. Mr. Hewicker stated that the Planning Commission has previously requested from applicants the services of an engineer practicing in acoustics to advise what measures can be taken so as to be assured that no sound is transmitted from the building. Commissioner Edwards supported the suggestion to review the use permit in 90 days, and an acoustical analysis requirement that would include sound attenuated glass. Mr. Martin reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he stated his concern is the Latin music that is being played instead of the previously approved semi - classical music. �5 -31- �� COMMISSIONERS Im ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 7, 1990 MINUTES Z" — ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Royal Radkey, 330 Mayflower Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the concerns regarding the sounds transmitting from the restaurant. He referred to the restaurant's participation in the Corona del Mar Christmas Walk by stating that it was difficult to hear if entertainment was actually being played indoors while the double doors were closed. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1908 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", including the following modifications: amend Condition No. 6 to state that "dancing shall not be permitted before 10:30 p.m. "; amend - Condition No. 7 stating that Dining Area No. 4 would close at 9:00 p.m. and Dining Area No. 3 would close at 10:30 p.m.; and add Condition No. 16 requesting "that the Planning Commission shall review the use permit in 90 days." Commissioner Pers6n suggested that the use permit be reviewed in 120 days and a report from an engineer practicing in acoustics be submitted concerning the sound attenuation of the building as a -result of specific testing during the summer months" for the reason that the air is more dense and sound travels in the summer months. Commissioner Di Sano agreed to the revision to Condition No. ` 16 and stated that the residents would also have an opportunity to appear before the Planning Commission regarding concerns that they may have with respect to the restaurant's operation. All Ayes The foregoing motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. Use Permit No. 1980 (Amended) Findin s: 1. That the proposed restaurant is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking .exists to serve the subject restaurant. 4. The waiver of development standards as they pert,::, to landscaping, building setbacks, underground utilities, -32- ire Z" — COMMISSIONERS "k CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JLLIIC i, 1736 'MINUTES. ROLL CALL INDEX illumination and walls surrounding the restaurant site, will not be detrimental to the adjoining properties. 5. That the design of the project or proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 6. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 7. That the Police Department has indicated that they have no objections to the proposed restaurant operation. 8. The approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces for a portion of the required off - street parking will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 1908 (Amended) under the circumstances of this case will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDMONS: 1. That the subject project shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1908 and related amendments shall be fulfilled. 3. That 33 daytime and nighttime (after 5:00 p.m.) parking spaces shall be provided in Off -Site Parking Lot No. 1 and 14 nighttime parking spaces shall be provided in Off -site 1 -33- June 7, 1990 COMMISSIONERS" MINUTES ImCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL ltyOEX Parking Lot No. 2 for a total of 33 daytime parking spaces and 47 nighttime parking spaces. 4. That an amended off -site parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council providing 4 additional parking spaces (33 total) within Off -site Parking Lot No. 1. 5. That the on -site vehicular, pedestrian circulation system shall be subject to further review by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That the subject restaurant, including dancing and live entertainment shall be permitted to operate until 12:30 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 1:30 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. However, live entertainment shall not be permitted before 9:00 p.m. and dancing shall not be permitted before 10:30 p.m. 7. Dining Room No. 4 shall be closed by 9:00 p.m. and Dining Area No. 3 shall be,closed by 10:30 p.m. when the dancing is permitted. 8. That the development standards pertaining to landscaping, building setbacks, underground utilities, illumination and walls surrounding the restaurant site are hereby waived. 9. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 10. That live entertainment in the restaurant shall be limited to a four piece combo and that all music and live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the building and all doors and windows of the restaurant and lounge shall remain closed during such activity. 11. That a Cafe Dance Permit for the proposed dancing shall be approved by the City in accordance with Section 5.32.030 of the Municipal Code. 12. That valet parking service shall be provided at all times during the restaurant's operation. 13. The out -door patio shall be limited to no more than 28 seats. M COMMISSIONERS A q OL �? � SQ`4 �� Ocnd c^? � yp q.� Of ON L i- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 7, 1990 MINVTES ROLL CALL INDEX 14. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace; morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 15. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 16. That the Planning Commission shall review Use Permit No. 1908 (Amended) in 120 days, and that a report from' an engineer practicing in acoustics shall be submitted concerning the sound attenuation of the building as a result of specific testing during the summer months. ndment N (Public Hearin � Item No.B Reque to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal A708 Code so to establish the Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) Dist n cont'd to 6 -21 -90 INITIATED BY: e City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Plannin Director, requested that this item be continued to the June 21, 1 0, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to ntinue this item to the June All Ayes 21, 1990, Planning Commission meets . MOTION CARRIED. • R R Amendment No. 709 (Public Hearing) Item No -9 A709 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach 'cipal Code so as to establish the Residential Overlay District. (Res.1228, INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Approved The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, -35- J Exhibit No,,, 6, COMMISSIONERS o� N October 4, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 1908 (Amended).(Public Hearing,) item xo.a Request to review the Planning Commission's June 7, 1990 UP1908(A) approval of Use Permit No. 1908 (Amended) which permitted a change in the operational characteristics of the existing Carmelo's Approved Restaurant so'as to permit nighttime dancing in conjunction with a live entertainment dance combo whereas the previous live entertainment was limited to classical or semi - classical music. The approval also included a request to change the permitted closing hours of the restaurant facility from 11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 midnight, Friday and Saturday, to 12:30 a.m., Sunday through Thursday and 1:30 a.m., Friday and Saturday. The approval also included 4 additional seats on the outdoor patio (28 seats total) and the provision of 4 additional parking spaces in an existing off -site parking area, across the alley from the restaurant, by using tandem spaces. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No. 158 -41 (Resubdivision No. 645) located at 3520 East Coast Highway, on the northerly side•of East Coast Highway, between Narcissus Avenue and Orchid Avenue, (restaurant site); and Lots 1, 3 and a portion of Lot 5, Block 441, Corona del Mar, located on the northwesterly side of Orchid Avenue; between East Coast Highway and Second Avenue, in Corona del Mar (off -site parking lot). ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Carmelo Manto, Newport Beach OWNER: First Interstate Bank, Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, addressed the letter from Acoustical Impacts International, dated September 12, 1990, that was attached to the staff report wherein he stated that the measurements of the noise from the live entertainment were performed on September 8, 1990, at 11:00 p.m. and not August 14, 1990, as reported in the letter. 10- T� COMMISSIONERS W October 4, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL III Jill INDEX In response to questions posed by Chairman Debay and Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Laycock replied that public notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the restaurant site, and so the Planning Commission has the authority to revise the original conditions of approval if it is their desire to do so. He indicated that staff did not receive complaints concerning the restaurant since the Planning Commission meeting of June 7, 1990, and the Police Department stated that no complaints had been reported to their department. James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the complaint in the staff report that was reported by a staff member indicating that the front entry door was allowed to remain open for an extended period of time during the live entertainment which was in violation of Condition of Approval No. 10. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, J. A. King and Associates, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King indicated that the adjacent neighbors were contacted when acoustical adjustments were being made at the restaurant and subsequently, the restaurant has not received any noise complaints. Mr. King concurred that the main entrance door to the restaurant was left open during the stammer months up to 11:00 p.m.; however, he stated that the double French doors are securely locked and sound proof glass has been installed adjacent to the band. Mr. King explained that the main entrance doors remain open during the warm summer months to allow the waiters to serve food and drinks to the patrons sitting on the patio. He said the only other alternative to service the patio would be to modify the front end of the restaurant and to create a different type of access. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. King replied that the main entrance doors stay open during the early evening to accommodate the patron and waiter traffic; however, the doors are closed at 11:00 p.m. Mr. King explained that the results of the noise test demonstrated that the open double doors behind the band that are now securely locked were the problem, and not the main entrance doors. Mr. King requested that the Planning Commission modify Condition No. 10 so as to allow the main entrance doors to remain open -11- 'J�O� COMMISSIONERS October 4, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX during the summer months. Mr. King stated that with the exception of Condition No. 10, the applicant has complied with all of the conditions approved by the Planning Commission on June 7, 1990. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. King replied that the applicant has made every attempt to personally contact residents that previously expressed concerns regarding the noise emitting from the restaurant. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. King replied that the applicant has requested that Condition No. 10 be modified to delete the main entrance door from being closed - when live entertainment is in progress. He further replied that he did not have the decibel ratings that were measured by Acoustical ' Impacts International available at the meeting. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the staff report which states that the acoustical study indicated "the level of such noise cannot be measured inasmuch as it is equal to or lower than the surrounding traffic noise." In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Hewicker replied that the Planning Commission has the option to modify Condition No. 10 if desired. Commissioner Di Sano and Commissioner Pers6n discussed the feasibility of modifying the condition to permit the main entrance doors to remain open during the hours of live entertainment. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the condition be amended to state "that the main entrance door facing East Coast Highway may remain open from June 1 to October 15 to facilitate summer patio use." Chairman Debay commented that the neighborhood has not complained about noise emitting from the restaurant, and the Planning Commission has the option to bring back the use permit if there are future complaints. Chairman Debay concurred with the suggestion to modify the condition. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the Planning Commission reconsider requesting specific dates to allow the main entrance doors to remain open inasmuch as there are warm evenings throughout the year. Commissioner Pomeroy concurred with Mr. Hewicker's suggestion. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. Hewicker replied that the Planning Commission may call back the use permit _12_ 63 COMMISSIONERS 9O pN October 4, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX if there are future noise complaints and Condition No. 10 were amended. Mr. King stated that the applicant has given the adjacent neighbors the applicant's personal office telephone number if they have any complaints. In response to .questions posed by Chairman Debay, Mr. King replied that appetizers and drinks are primarily served to patrons who are sitting and talking on the patio. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1908 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" as All Ayes approved on June 7, 1990, with the modification to Condition No. 10 that "..and all doors and windows of the restaurant and lounge shall remain closed during such activity except for the main entrance door facing East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar." MOTION CARRIED. Condition No. 10: That live entertainment in the restaurant shall be limited to a four piece combo and that all music and live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the building and all doors and windows of the restaurant and lounge shall remain. closed during such activity, except for the main entrance door facing East Coast Highway. hj�gCication No. 3729 Continued Public Hearin Zten No.s Request to co er an appeal of the Modification Committee's M3729 approval of the su application which included a request to construct a wall and wro iron fence that would encroach 10 Cont. to feet into the required 10 foot t yard setback along Bamboo 10 -13 -90 Street. Said fence would range from a ht of 6 feet 11± inches to 7 feet St inches, where the Zoning Code ws a maximum of 3 feet in height for any construction in the requiro 0 foot :runt yard setback. The Modification Committee's approval i ' ed the height of the wall and wrought iron fence to 6 feet in he -13- S Exhibit No. 7 5 S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVENUE DIVISION 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 Judy Manto Carmelo's Restaurant 3520 E Coast Hwy Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Date Issued: May 19, 2000 PERMIT TO CONDUCT LIVE ENTERTAINMENT The City of Newport Beach does hereby authorize live entertainment activities to be conducted at the above indicated facility. This permit is issued to Judy Manto and is not transferable to any other enterprise. The approval of this permit is contingent on the compliance with the regulations for operation as defined by Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 5.28.041. This permit may be revoked for any of the following reasons: (a) The permitee has ceased to meet the requirements for issuance of the permit. (b) The establishment has been operated in an illegal or disorderly manner or in violation of any of the regulations set forth in Section 5.28.041. (c) Music or noise from the establishment for which the permit was issued interferes with the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. (d) The permitee, or any person associated with him as principal or partner, or in a position or capacity involving total or partial control over the establishment for which this permit is issued, has been convicted of a criminal offense involving moral turpitude. (e) The live entertainment shall be limited to a four piece combo and that all music and live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the building and all doors and windows of the restaurant and lounge shall remain closed during such activity, except for the main entrance door facing East Coast Highway. (f) The live entertainment shall be limited to incidental background music shall be limited to non - amplified acoustical instruments. No sound amplification, brass or percussion intruments shall be permitted at any time. (g) The permitee has responsibility to inform the live entertainment groups as to the necessity to limit the volume of their music and singing so as not to jntrude on the surrounding areas. (h) Comply with all conditions; of e Use Permit. Approved by: x \ 4 Date: cc: City Manage Police Department 5� Exhibit No. 8 lls FIELD OBSERVATION MEMO Rio. 1 RON YEO FAIA ARCNRECT, INC. 500 JASMINE AVENUE CORONA DELMAR. CALIFORNIA 92625 TELEPHONE(714)644$111 PROJECT: (' r Pln' R-qf-Alirpnt R Ttpr date: 8/29190 day: Wed. time: 10:15 A.M. weather: clear S- CHEDULE STATUS• 1. Doors are locked closed and weatherstripped. 2. Bandstand stage enlarged, r»c[^n�Grt,71�^ 3 New - kevboard pulpit installed - looks great. 4 Curtain & acoustic panel installed behind bandstand - looks good - but a 1 -1/2" panel would have been better. 5 Acoustic ceiling installed - not "lineage travertone" but OK. 6 Sonotrol wall panels installed - looks Rood - but cut joints should have had the fabric roll back. It will frav unless a metal or wood trim is added. NEXT STEP: 1 Evaluate existing speaker system - make recommendations regarding: new built-in— units and "listen back" speaker as per Stage 1 & 2 proposal from Dick Doetkott. 2. Make recommendations on lighting. 3 Authorize Acoustical Impacts to do studv prior to September 15th. G (',ontnrt complaining neighbors 5 Make any adjustments and send the Acoustic Report to the City. ACTION ITEM FOR: ISSUED FIELD ORDER N KINGMAN ACOUSTICS, INC. PH. 714-673 -8237 1437D N. `d?.HZANITA ST, ORANGE, CA COST Page AHM L 1 Carmelo's :520 E.NacificCoastHwy Corona6elM.ar,CA. 92625 Final Billing InWCiCE# MOM Wontrol# 820250) carmelo', Li20 E.PacificccastHwy ( 714 ) n75-M2 9Y2 08/28/9u met ?0 08/29/90 Furnished and installed 12'x 12' glue -up ceiling Using Armstrong Highspire. Thank you for using Kingman Acoustics, Inc. it was a pleasure to be of service! 714 u33-T -Bar 1S °,6 000 1866.00 This invoice is -'u- upon receipt' A'S Sri ♦$* 11; 10 h ,t 30 r *t 1.0% lntarest Jter 60 ,days LA56. VV -age ARM 1KJNGMAN ACOUSTICS. INC. PH. 714 -539 -8227 1437D N. MANZANITA ST. ORANGE. CA 92887 fl Carmelo's 3520 E.PacificCoastHwy COronaDelMar,CA. 92625 S lnvoice4 866201 ti- ontrol# 220249) Carmelo's 3520 E.NacificCoastHwy CoronaDeiMar,CA. 92625 (714) 675-1922 o2/28/•.90 Net L0 Q8 /29/90 2nd Billing Furnished and installed . wall panels. i'hank you for u_zr_ Kingman Acoustics, Inc. It was a pleasure to be of service! 714 633-1 -3ar This Invoke is -Jue Upon receipt! P1.t ib L�J M:?t SJ •Ka 1.5% interest. after Su �3y3 n,-3.int '*j ---- Cni•L inv,:,i(_,I - - -. - - - - 2000.000 2000.Gu i 2fj'_'Q. '(: �3 Jage :ARM {'.LMGMAN ACOUSTICS. INC. PH. 114- 939.8227 14370 N. 161A.NZANfTA ST. ORANGE, CA :2587 3520 E.PacificCoastHwy CoronaDelMar,CA. 92625 JUO l• , M1 1V O Invoic_# 866101 (Control# 820235) Carmelo's 3520 E.racificCoastHwy CoronaDslMar`,CA. 92625 (714) 675 -922 Ct3/03 /9U f4et U 08/03/90 1 Deposit Billing For installation of ceiling tiles and wall sound,•panels i Thank you for using Kingman ACLU: LiCS, Inc. It was a pleasure to be of service! 714 633 -T -Bar lid 6 /3 /sv OCO 1000.000 1000_UO 1.5 Lnnis i . alter SU days I anOU1'.L au2 this 1M /O1Gu' = =______...____ -. J l- CHANDLER'S REFRIGERATION 1702 West 5th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703 • (714) 973 -1771 Quotation To: Street Address: City, State & Zip: Telephone: PROPOSAL AND BID CONTRACT Contractor's License 495859• . Carmello's Job Name: 3520 Pacific Coast Hwy. A/C Unit for Bar Area Corona del mar, CA 92625 675 -1922 Job Description and Terms of Sale; Person to Contact: 7erldy Chandlers proposes to install a new 2 ton -pac)'aged heat pure on the roof with two (2) supply registers and one (1) ret-=n air grille in t e bar area as back: -up to the existing 3 tan unit. 70=11* Ct',andler's to install a new roof counted 400 Cff•f exhaust fan for maxi- - mLn air flow changes and better ca:tfort. Above includes necessary materials, taxes, labor, crane, duct work, t -slat, electrical and condensate ezzLiz_. :DD: $ 563.00 for a :^ - U efficiency &:rake filtration filter installed in the new 2 ton unit a and existing 3 ton unit. /- r1 ! r =L'DZS: Title 24 plans or placheck. For a total price including all taxes. unless modified by payment schedule as indicated below. $ 6 92.00 Conditions printed on reverse side of this pace are part of this agreement PAYMENT SCHEDULE.�f —% Down. Then total is due upon completion of work. Completion is determined to be upon equipment start up when customer receives beneficial csage of installation or repair work or filing of "Notice of Completion" by Chandler's Refrigeration.....0 S 2 2 Down Payment nal paymen rOf $ ai ��T� due upon completion. Any retention held to be paid within 10 days after beneficial use of the installation or job completion. This offer is good for 1 3 days from 5 /11 19 ' _ CONTRACTORS are required bylaw to be licensed and regulated by the Contractors' State License Board. Any questions concerning a contractor maybe referred to the registrar of the board whose address is: Contractors' State License Board — 1020 N Street — Sacramento. California 95814. Acceped: Chandler's Refrigeration Title: robert Barbano – Service Vznager i,y Laura Northrop Date: Lair 11.- 1 can Accepted, Buyer'^ Name: �- `— - As Authorized Signature Title: Date: G- SONSHINE GLASS & MIRROR 1742 WEST KATELLA AVENUE, UNIT 3 - ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92667 (714) 543 -7773 - LICENSED & BONDED TONY CASILLAS SOLO TO �Se2C�zqU< -'/V- Y SMIPPEO TO -aA - I /9 71 //i " �/1 / �6 -.CS /.. 7Z 1 ranc!' I n Z--1 l\ \ 1 T. iin o� 7-71 7r " /Please pay frohq this invoice. ACCOUNTS OVER 30 DAYS PAST DUE ARE SUBJECT TO A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1.5 PERCENT PER MONTH. i Exhibit No. 9 10.26.095 cement of this chapter while such person is en- 9a in the performance of his/her duty. \be e event the alleged violator cannot be locrder to serve any notice, the notice shall be to be given upon mailing such notice by rego citified mail to the alleged violator at his o address or at the place where the vioccurre in which event the specified time peabating a violation or applying for a varall comet a at the date of the day fol- lowmailing of s notice. (Ord. 95 -38 § 11 (pa5) 10.26.100 Severability. If any provision, clause, sent ce, or paraeraph of this chapter, or the application ere of to any person or circumstance shall be held valid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provis ns of this chapter which can be given effect without inval- id provisions or application and, to this en the provisions of this chapter are hereby declared t severable. (Ord. 95 -38 § 11 (part), 1995) (Newpon Beach 8.01) 314 Chapter 10.28 LOUD AND UNREASONABLE NOISE* Sections: 10.28.005 Policy. 10.28.007 Loud and Unreasonable Noise is Prohibited. 10.28.010 Loud and Unreasonable Noise. 10.28.020 Loud and Raucous Noise from Sound - Making or Amplifying Devices Prohibited. 10.28.040 Construction Activity Noise Regulations. 10.28.045 Real Property Maintenance — Noise Regulations. 10.28.050 Exceptions. Sound - amplifying equipment — See Chapter 10.32. Prior history: 1949 Code § 4208; Ords. 1191, 1802, 87 -11, 87 -17 and 93 -7. 10.28.005 Policy. It is found and declared as follows: A. The making, allowing, creation or mainte- nance of loud and unreasonable, unnecessary, or unusual noises which are prolonged, unusual, annoy- ing, disturbing and/or unreasonable in their time, place and use are a detriment to public health, com- fort, convenience, safety, general welfare and the peace and quiet of the City and its inhabitants. B. The necessity in the public interest for the provisions and prohibitions contained and enacted is to declare as a matter of legislative determination and public policy, and it is further declared that the provisions and prohibitions contained and enacted are in pursuance of and for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, conve- nience, safety, general welfare and property and the peace and quiet of the City and its inhabitants. (Ord. 20014 § 1, 2001) 10.28.007 Loud and Unreasonable Noise is Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person or property owner 1P to make, continue, cause or allow to be made any loud, unreasonable, unusual, penetrating or boister- ous noise, disturbance or commotion which annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace and quiet within the limits of the City, and the acts and things listed in this chapter, among others, are declared to be loud, disturbing, injurious and unreasonable noises in violation of this Chapter, but shall not be deemed to be exclusive. (Ord. 2001- 4 § 2, 2001) 10.28.010 Loud and Unreasonable Noise. It is unlawful for any person or property owner to willfully make, allow, continue or cause to be made, allowed, or continued, any loud and unrea- sonable, unnecessary, or disturbing noise, including, but not limited to, yelling, shouting, hooting, whis- tling, singing, playing music, or playing a musical instrument, which disturbs the peace, comfort, quiet or repose of any area or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensi- tivities in the area, after a peace or code enforce- ment officer has fast requested that the person or property owner cease and desist from making or continuing, or causing to make or continue, such loud, unreasonable, unnecessary, excessive or dis- turbing noise. The factors, standards, and conditions which should be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section has been committed, include, but are not limited to, the fol- lowing: A. The level of the noise; B. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual; C. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; D. The level and intensity of the background (ambient) noise, if any; E. The proximity of the noise to residential or commercial sleeping areas; F. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; O. The density of inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; 315 10.28.007 H. The time of day and night the noise occurs; I. The duration of the noise; J. Whether the noise is constant, or recurrent or intermittent; and K. Whether the noise is produced by a commer- cial or noncommercial activity; L. If the noise is produced by a commercial activity, whether the use is lawful under the provi- sions of Title 20 of this Code and whether the noise is one that could reasonably be expected from the commercial activity. M. Penalties. Any person who violates any provi- sion of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, unless the violation is deemed an infraction pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.04.010 of this Code. (Ord. 200111 § 3 (part), 2001: Ord. 95 -38 § 3 (part), 1995) 10.28.020 Loud and Raucous Noise from Sound - Making or Amplifying Devices Prohibited. A. It is unlawful for any person to cause, allow or permit the emission or transmission of any loud or raucous noise from any sourid- making or sound - amplifying device in his possession or under his control: 1. Upon any private property; or 2. Upon any public street, alley, sidewalk or thoroughfare; or 3. In or upon any public park, beach or other public place or property. B. The words "loud and raucous noise," as used herein, shall mean any sound or any recording there- of when amplified or increased by any electrical, mechanical or other device to such volume, intensity or carrying power as to unreasonably interfere with the peace and quiet of other persons within or upon any one or more of such places or areas, or as to unreasonably annoy, disturb, impair or endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of other persons within or upon any one or more such places or areas. C. The word "unreasonably," as used herein, shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of the hour, place, nature and circumstances of the (Newport Beach "I) U q r 10.28.020 emission or transmission of any such loud and rau- cous noise. D. Penalties. Any person who violates any provi- sion of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor un- less the violation is deemed an infraction pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.04.010 of this Code. (Ord. 2001.4 § 3 (part), 2001: Ord. 95 -38 § 3 (part), 1995) 10.28.040 Construction Activity —Noise Regulations. A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of seven a.m. and six -thirty p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grad- ing, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal holiday. C. No landowner, construction company owner, contractor, subcontractor, or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under their direction and control to operate any tool, equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section. D. Exceptions. 1. The provisions of this section shall not apply to emergency construction work performed by a private party when authorized by the Building Di- rector or designee. 2. The maintenance, repair or improvement of any public work or facility by public employees, by any person or persons acting pursuant to a public works contract, or by any person or persons per- forming such work or pursuant to the direction of, (Ncwpon Buch MI) 316 or on behalf of, any public agency; provided, how- ever, this exception shall not apply to the City of Newport Beach, or its employees, contractors or agents, unless: a. The City Manager or department director determines that the maintenance, repair or improve- ment is immediately necessary to maintain public services; b. The maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours; c. The City Council has approved project speci- fications, contract provisions, or an environmental document that specifically authorizes construction during hours of the day which would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section. E. Penalties. Any person who violates any provi- sion of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor un- less the violation is deemed an infraction pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.04.010 of this Code. (Ord. 2001-4 § 3 (part), 2001: Ord. 95-38 § 3 (part), 1995) 10.28.045. Real Property Maintenance— Noise Regulations. A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall; while engaged in maintenance of real property, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, except between the hours of seven a.m. and six - thirty p.m., Monday through Friday, nor on any Saturday, except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in maintenance of real property, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal holi- day. C. No landowner, gardener, property mainte- nance service, contractor, subcontractor or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under their direction and control to operate any tool, -JD kK equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section. D. After January 1, 1996, mechanical blowers, as defined in Section 6.04.055, shall not be operated at a noise level that exceeds an A- weighted sound pressure level of seventy (70) dBA, as measured at a distance of fifty (50) feet. After January 1, 1999, such equipment shall not be operated at a noise level that exceeds an A- weighted sound pressure level of sixty -five (65) dBA, as measured from a distance of fifty (50) feet. E. Exceptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the following: 1. Emergency property maintenance authorized by the Building Director, 2. The maintenance, repair or improvement of any public work or facility by public employees, by any person or persons acting pursuant to a public works contract, or by any person or persons per- forming such work or pursuant to the direction of, or on behalf of, any public agency; provided, how- ever, this exception shall not apply to the City of Newport Beach, or its employees, contractors or agents, unless: a. The City Manager or department director determines that the maintenance, repair or improve- ment is immediately necessary to maintain public service, b. The maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, c. The City Council has approved project speci- fications, contract provisions, or an environmental document that specifically authorizes construction during hours of the day which would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section; 3. Greens maintenance on golf courses conduct- ed between the hours of six a.m. and eight p.m and all other types of golf course maintenance between the hours of seven a.m. and eight p.m., provided no maintenance activity commences before six a.m. F. Penalties. Any person who violates any provi- sion of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor un- less the violation is deemed an infraction pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.04.010 of this Code. 10.28.045 (Ord. 2001.4 § 3 (part), 2001: Ord. 95 -38 § 3 (part), 1995) 10.28.050 Exceptions. The provisions of Sections 10.28.040 and 10.28.045 shall not be construed to prohibit such work at different hours by or under the direction of any other public agency in cases of necessity or emergency. (Ord. 2001.4 § 3 (part), 2001: Ord. 95 -38 § 3 (part), 1995) 316 -1 (Newpon Bah sou JC7.-33'01(TuEI 15 08 Application No. Name of Appellant or person filing:, CIT`' OF S.3 TEL 9496443039 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Gary Martin Address: 323 Narcissus Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RECEIVED ro) ?. 001 1 P2:12 OF'F:CF, ar Luc fiXCLERrk Phone: Cfi Y �1b BEACH Date of Planning Commission decision: Q nn k R 20 () L Regarding application of. for (Description of application filed with Planning Commission) Discussion of noise related complaints generated by Carmelo's live entertainment and patrons. Reasons for Appeal: caused by Carmelo's To find a solution to resolve the unreasonable loud noise disturbances Restaurant /Bar. Date 10.31-a 1 Date Appeal tiled and Administrative Fee *4atved: 000 • 'J" ( , 20 C7 \. Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within thirty (30) days of the filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NSMC Sea 20.95.050) ee Appellant Planning (Furnish one eel of mailing labels foe maning) Flta APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.04013 Appeal Fee: $298 pursuant t6 Resolution No. 2001 -48 adopted on 8 -28-01 (eff. 711101) (Deposit funds with Cashier In Account 1f2700--5= November 7, 2001 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission RE: CARMELOS RESTRAUNT Dear Commission , RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NE ^PT r- ,EA. ^,H AM Nov 13 2001 PM 71819110111112111213141616 i �A+j 'Iv K rt • W Regarding your recent meeting regarding the noise issues at Carmelo's Restaurant in CDM. Please review the accompanying documents. 1) This is a copy of a story we did on Carmelo's in 1995, for the Orange County Register. I thought it might provide for interesting discussion as you review the Carmelo's noise issue. In the photos you can clearly see the patrons dancing, in a rock and roll style, which is commonly associated with loud rock and roll music. In fact the night we did the column stuck in my memory because as a resident of CDM I was surprised they were "getting away" with having the music so loud, and with dancing - as other restaurants in town were prohibited at the time from allowing dancing. You can obtain a full copy from the OC Register reprints department, if desired. 2) Attached is a copy of my previous letter to the commission, which I think may have had the second page omitted from delivery. I was unable to attend, but my representative only found the first page provided to the public, possibly the second page was lost while faxing. Please note, I am not directly affected by the noise at Carmelos, however as a resident I am affected by the overall urban noise, and noise coming from party boats in the harbor. My concem is that if one business is allowed to affect residents near it, then other businesses will be allowed to further impact my quality of life. T Robert Walchli Corona del Mar 106 q /2) I . j.', i , Oc AFTER DARK It's the U.N. on PH at Carmelo's W UA" VMI`WIIIII` MW at na I Kt. =6,, HAPPUPMG MW Isl- J� From the desk of Robert Walchli October 18, 2001 RE: Carmetos - Corona del Mar Dear Planning Commission: I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting regarding the noise from Carmelos Restaurant in Corona del Mar due to a previous engagement, but I wish to have my concerns reviewed by the Commission and placed into the record. The issue here is noise. The right of one individual or business to create noise stops when it infringes upon another's right to peace and quiet. Though out our city we have individuals and businesses who care not for the rights of anyone but themselves and their right to "party," to the detriment of those with the unfortunate happenstance to live nearby. THIS MUST STOP! A very simple solution is No noise whatsoever should travel beyond the property line of the person or business creating such noise. While accommodations may need to be addressed relating to construction noise - which is already regulated to working hours. Certainly such a policy should be in effect for self- created noise such as live bands, taped music, yelling, fighting and such. Especially late at night when it is reasonable to assume the average person would be resting,or conducting their private lives inside their dwelling, and a reasonable expectation of peace and quiet would prevail in a residential neighborhood. I read today in the Daily Pilot that code enforcement made a decibel test, from across the street (PCH) from Carmelos. They said the noise emitting from the restaurant was lower than that of passing traffic. This test was made at Sees Candy, approximately 300 feet away from the restaurant. Please note, the traffic passes much closer to the test site, so it naturally would be louder. 5 I submit to you that ANY noise heard 300 feet from its source is TOO DAMM I-OUDIII To compare passing traffic (which late at night is sporadic) to the heavy throbbing bass drum beat of live music, that permeates through walls, and human bodies is incorrect. Studies have shown the stress caused by such throbbing music can cause medical and emotional problems in people subjected to the noise. (Lab tests on rats subjected to "Rap" music resulted in the subjects insantiy.) I would suggest that anyone and everyone affected by ANY noise emanating beyond the property line at Carmelos could have grounds for legal action and recover damages for stress and emotional trauma against both Carmelos, and the City of Newport Beach. This is not to mention potential liability for financial damages caused to affected residents by lowered property values resulting from the continuance of such a menace. It is the City's and this Commission's responsibility to protect it's citizens from those who would seek to harm them, whether that harm comes from the attack of a robber or from being robbed of the right to sleep and and conduct peaceful lives in their own homes. I stand with the residents who are affected by this unnecessary noise, and request the City and this Commission, take immediate action to force Carmelos to reduce the noise to a level that cannot be heard beyond their property line, irregardless of what surrounding environmental noise may or may not be present (that is a separate issue). This town belongs to the residents, not to businesses or out of town visitors intent on destroying our quality of life for their own profit or pleasure. I question if Carmelos is in fact an asset to Corona del Mar. As near as I can tell is is not heavily patronised by local residents, instead drawing on a late night LA "club" clientele. If they are not willing to be good neighbors, do we really need this business in our town? Please note, I live by the beach and am not directly affected by the noise at Carmelos. I am however affected by the general "party" noise that prevails through out the city, and which is contributing to the destruction of our quality of life. The outcome of this Commission's decision may affect problems relating to the noise coming from party boats in the harbor, and late night noise at the beach itself - both of which are detrimental to the residents affected by those situations. The bottom line is: This is our town - WE LIVE HEREIIi Thank You, Robe Walchli Corona del Mar q sg 4 ��O City of Newport Beach Campbell, James From: Newman, Tim Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 1:56 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Carmelo's City of Newport Beach Police Department Memorandum October 18, 2001 TO: James Campbell, Planning Department FROM: Capt. Tim Newman, Detective Division SUBJECT: Carmelo's Restorante- Use Permit No. 1908A Paoe 1 of 1 RECEIVED BY PLANN'NG DEPARTMENT CITY Or AM OCT 18 2001 PM 71819110111112111213141516 FILE GUY At your request, our department has reviewed calls for police services to the subject address for the period October 15, 2000 through October 15, 2001. This query focused only on loud noise, loud music, or similar related disturbances. During this period of time there were 35 such calls. Of these events, the same reporting person called the police 29 times. Four other calls were from anonymous or unidentified persons, and two were from other identified reporting persons. In virtually all of these events, the callers reported something similar to "the music is too loud" and/or that the establishment's doors were open. An officer responded to each of these incidents. Typically the call was resolved one of two ways- the officer contacted a responsible person from the business and advised he or she of the complaint, or there was no obvious violation occurring while the officer was present. No further law enforcement action was taken in any of these incidents. Tim Newman, Captain Detective Division ,)1 10/18/2001 3 2 3 N a r c i s s u s A v e n u e CORI�Ctl Y I lJlifornia 92625 Fax 949.673.1310 Tel 949.675.0270 '01 M -5 A8 :32 G A R Y m A R T i n OFFICE F OF BEACH City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Gary Adams, Mayor 12.3.01 I have been speaking to our neighbors about the problem we have with unreasonable noise coming from Carmello's Nightclub /Bar /Restaurant in Corona del Mar. Their live music starts at 10:00 p.m. and exceeds its required 12:30 a.m. shutoff time, going until 2:00 a.m., four nights a week. The people on the patio are getting drunk and screaming. Fights occur. Some drunks urinate on our properties. Horns are honking, car alarms are going off, at times it's unbearable and many of us cannot get to sleep until the music stops and the drunks go home around 2:30 a.m. We are requesting that Carmelo's go back to their previous entertainment hours, closing at 11:00 p.m. during the weekdays and 12:30 a.m. during the weekends. This would help our community a great deal and we are hoping to get your support. Gary Martin Date 1 a 45 Copies Sent To: Alayor lQ Council Member Manager ❑ rney Date Copies Sent To: �� C E yor THOMAS COLE EDWARDS, �uncit Member A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Manager 1235 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 FULLERTON. CALIFORNIA 92832.1 30 A10 .01 ��0Attorney.. TELEPHONE IVA) 871 -1132 r n FAX ()I<) 691 -5620 I OFFICE OF THE CITY CLER7{ November 27, 2001 CITY OF f4C1yPORT 8EACH O Mayor Gary Adams and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 93663 Re: Carmelo's Restaurant/ Agenda Item for December 11, 2001 Mayor Adams and Members of the City Council: Please be advised that I represent Carmelo's Restaurant operators of the restaurant located at 3520 E. Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar, CA, which is the subject of an appeal from the Planning Commission, by an individual to the City Council for the meeting of December 11, 2001. HISTORY On or about June 7, 1990 as amended October 4, 1990, Carmelo's obtained amended use permit No. 1980. The planning commission at that time unanimously approved the terms and conditions of approval. The individual appealing this matter to the council, Mr. Martin, is the same party who objected eleven years ago to the issuance of the Use Permit. As of this date Carmelo's is not in violation of its use permit. Moreover, since in or about the summer of 1999, my client has not been cited for any infractions. The restaurant has continuously recognized the need t o b:: a good neighbor sand,has updated its procedures accordingly. - Even in the past when there were unfounded complaints about noise, Carmelo's met with neighbors to insure that it operated as a good neighbor. In addition, Carmelo's voluntarily installed glass partitions in front of the building, as well as landscaping, to alleviate any potential sound from escaping. The partitions were successfully installed on or about October 16, 1999. Moreover, in an attempt to be certain that Carmelo's was not creating noise problems, it also retained a sound expert who verified that Carmelo's was not violating any sound ordinance of the city, a fact that was verified by the city. As has been the case from the beginning, the traffic noise generated from Pacific Coast Highway far exceeds any potential noise emanating from the restaurant. ) 1 The comments of Commissioner Pomeroy at the October 4, 1990 meeting when the Use Permit was originally granted and reviewed by the Planning Commission are compelling, wherein he affirmed that: "...Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the staff report which states that the acoustical study indicated 'the level of such noise cannot be measured inasmuch as it is equal to or lower to the surrounding traffic noise .... '• THOMAS COLE EDWARDS, INC. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Page 2 Carmelo's November 27, 2001 With regard to noise complaints, Carmelo's acknowledges that there have been complaints about the noise. However they have principally been the complaints of the appellant, Mr. Martin. As an example, in 1999, our investigation disclosed that of the 23 complaints received, 22 emanated from one individual, the appellant, Mr. Martin. As reported to the Planning Commission on October 18, 2001, by the Newport Beach Police Department, for the period of October 15, 2000 through October 15, 2001, there were 35 complaint calls regarding noise. Of the 35 calls 29 were from Mr. Martin, the appellant. There were 4 other calls from anonymous sources. The operational characteristics of Carmelo's have not changed since October 4, 1990. However, Carmelo's has become a more successful restaurant. Carmelo's understands the concerns of all citizens and has to the fullest extent possible acted in good faith to deal with their concerns. Utmost in Carmelo's mind is to act as a good citizen and a good neighbor. My client has, with noise monitors, visited the location of the complaints and the monitors are drowned out by the traffic from Pacific Coast Highway. On October 18, 2001, the Newport Beach Planning Commission, pursuant to the direction of the Newport Beach City Council, met to review the operation of Carmelo's Restaurant. This action was initially instituted by Mr. Martin, the appellant in the present item before the Council. The Planning Commission took no action against Carmelo's. As set forth before the Planning Commission and again reiterated to this Honorable Council : 1. Carmelo's is in full compliance with the use permit granted by the city. 2. Carmelo's has not been cited for any violation. 3. Carmelo's is not in violation of any city ordinance, nor has it been cited for any violation. 4. The complaints against Carmelo's have been generated principally by one person, the Appellant, Mr. Martin. And in the testimony before the Planning Commission, the same person was the principal person to complain about the noise from the band. Mr. Martin lives across Coast Highway from the restaurant and is approximately 350 feet away at the closest spot to Carmelo's. 5. There is no law enforcement action sought by the Police Department. 6. Carmelo's has always acted in good faith to resolve any concerns including taking the extra precautions of advising patrons how to conduct themselves, and monitor noise. With regard to other complaints before the Planning Commission such as noise from bottles being picked up in the trash area, Carmelo's has since the Planning Commission meeting investigated the allegations. Carmelo's specifically determined that the noise is not generated by anyone at Carmelo's. Rather the trash was being left out at night after closing and someone or somebody was sifting through the trash in the early morning and thereby creating the noise. Carmelo's has changed it trash schedule as a result. Regarding other complaints about people drinking. The security detail of Carmelo's which is probably as heavy as any in the area, continues to police regularly. Unfortunately, there are at least four other THOMAS COLE EDWARDS, INC. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Page 3 Carmelo's November 27, 2001 bars in the area. Carmelo's can not be held responsible for the actions of other establishments in the area. Carmelo's has and continues to run a highly professional operation and aggressively monitor its operation as well as the behavior of its patrons. Carmelo's acts as a good neighbor to all persons in the area. It is respectively requested that the council take no action in this matter. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, THOMAS COLE EDWARDS, INC. A PROFESSION CO RA N By THOMAS C. EDWARDS Attorney at Law TCE/clh CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Meeting Date: November 27, 2001 ° PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 9 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell �'tieowMr NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 6443200: FAX (949) 6443229 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL / PROJECT: Carmelo's Ristorante - Use Permit No. 1908 Amended 5 'Zl �pl 3520 E. Coast Highway SUMMARY: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision not to review Use Permit No. 1908 Amended, ACTION: Continue the discussion of the item to December, 11, 2001 APPELLANT: Mr. Gary Martin, 323 Narcissus Avenue Discussion On October 18, 2001, The Planning Commission considered evidence and testimony regarding the operation of Carmelo's Ristorante. The discussion was initiated by the City due to complaints received from area residents regarding noise from live entertainment activities. The question presented to the Planning Commission was whether of not there is there sufficient cause to hold the Carmelo's Use Permit for review. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Planning Commission was unable to develop a consensus and deadlocked 3 -3 on the issue. This action has the effect of not initiating a formal review of Carmelo's use permit. On October 31, 2001, Mr. Gary Martin, filed an appeal of the action. Mr. Martin testified at the Planning Commission meeting and he maintains that the Carmelo's operation negatively impacts his peace and quiet. The appeal has been placed upon this agenda within 30 days of the filing of the appeal as required pursuant to Chapter 20.95 Appeals and Calls for Review. Staff has requested that the matter be continued to December 11, 2001 due to holiday scheduling and workload. The appellant has agreed to the continuance request. A full supplemental report will be prepared and transmitted with the December 11, 2001 agenda. Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE JAMES W. CAMPBELL Planning Director Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Police Department Memorandum December 11, 2001 TO: Patty Temple, Planning Director FROM: Capt. Tim Newman, Detective Division SUBJECT: Carmelo's Ristorante- Use Permit No. 1908A Our department has reviewed calls for police service data for the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 (year to date). The analysis focused on Carmelo's and three other locations in the Corona del Mar area. Our query only identified loud noise, loud music, or similar noise - related disturbances. Since our department was asked to provide data on these establishments pursuant to a public records act request, this information may be discussed during the public hearing. CALLS FOR POLICE SERVICE (Loud music, loud noise calls only) Year Bandera Five Crowns 1998 1 4 1999 1 2 2000 - - 2001* - - TOTAL 4 6 *Data for 2001 is year to date Quiet Woman Carmelo's - 1 - 31 6 37 3 30 9 99 Bandera- calls were from a different reporting party (two were regarding the same incident) Five Crowns- four of the calls were from the same identified reporting person; two were from another identified caller Quiet Woman- six calls were from the same reporting person, three were from an unidentified caller Carmelo's- 75 calls were from the same identified caller, 11 from others, 13 were anonymous Tim Newman, Captain 11 } Police CODES 415 Noise Disturbance 415 M Noise Disturbance Music 487 Grand Theft 488 Petty Theft 586 Parking t� 242 Fights 927 Unkown Trouble PC- Patrol Check 390 Drunkeness 502 Drunk Driving C6R Checking Officer 261 Rape 459 Burgalary TS Traffic Stop 245 Assult Deadly Weapon V- Vehicle Cab Taxi S Stop 602 Drunk and Disorderly 919 Keep the Peace HS Health Safety Bar Bar Check 902 T Non Injury Traffic Accident 902M Medical Aid 928 LST Lost Property 925C Suspicious Circumstance MC VIOC Municipal Code Violation BP Business and Profession 594R Vandalism SS Subject Stop FU Follow Up �adt'� �atlS Oct 31 Zea Page 1 Form: E „u Requested By: NB /1184 At Position: REC ------------- - - - - -- - EVENT HISTORY INQUIRY” Event Number: NB010050009 Date /Time: 05- Jan - 2001/00:43:41 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB010120005 Date /Time: 12- Jan - 2001/01:02:36 Pri: 4 Type: 415M, Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB010120045 Date /Time: 12- Jan - 2001/10:24:57 Pri: 4 Type: 487R Case: NB01000374 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB010190005 Date /Time: 19- Jan - 2001/00:41:09 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB010190046 Date /Time: 19- Jan - 2001/10:27:00 Pri: 4 Type: 2618 Case: Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG =1, k Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB010250177 Date /Time: 25- Jan - 2001/23:55:42 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: NB01000818 Disposition: 1015 Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB010260069 Date /Time: 26- Jan - 2001/13:16:07 Pri: 4 Type: 488R Case: NB01000833 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB010300064 Date /Time: 30- Jan - 2001/09:59:57 ?ri: 4 Type: 488R Case: NB01000973 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG vocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB 'vent Number: NB010390147 Date /Time: 08- Feb - 2001/22:43:49 ?ri: 5 Type: 586 Case: Disposition: OTH Disp Group: DG .ocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Oct 31 17:03 2001 Page 2 Event Number: NB010540007 Date /Time: 23- Feb - 2001/01:29:49 Pri: 2 Type: 242J Case: NB01001792 l`y Disposition: 1015 Disp Group: DG C Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ✓ �� ' Event Number: NB010700026 Date /Time: 11- Mar - 2001/01:24:58 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB010820010 Date /Time: 23- Mar - 2001/00:52:54 Pri: 2 Type: 927 Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB010840004 Date /Time: 25- Mar - 2001/00:21:34 Pri: 2 Type: '242J, Case: Disposition: FI Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB010840046 Date /Time: 25- Mar - 2001/04:00:13 Pri: 2 Type: 459A Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) ' Event Number: NB010890006 Date /Time: 30- Mar - 2001/00:33:51 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: ` Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011050006 Date /Time: 15- Apr - 2001/00:43:29 Pri: 4 Type: 415M, Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: N13011100076 Date /Time: 20- Apr- 2001/12:22:14 Pri: 4 Type: 488R Case: NB01003819 Disposition: RPT Disp, Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011170007 Date /Time: 27- Apr- 2001/01:21:10 Pri: 5 Type: C6R Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011170221 Date /Time: 27- Apr- 2001/23:16:55 Pri: 5 Type: BAR Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Oct 31 17:03 2001 Event Number: NB011230200 Date /Time: 03- May - 2001/23:07:25 Pri: 3 Type: HS Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011240022 Date /Time: 04- May - 2001/02:30:03 Pri: 2 Type: 245J. Case: NB01004338 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) G` Event Number: NB011380007 Date /Time: 18- May - 2001/01:00:11 Pri: 5 Type: TS Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011440180 Date /Time: 24- May- 2001/23:36:21 Pri: 5 Type: V Case: Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011510178 Date /Time: 31- May- 2001/23:35:50 Pri: 4 Type:,415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011510179 Date /Time: 31- May - 2001/23:49:54 Pri: 5 Type: C6R Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011520211 . Date /Time: 01- Jun - 2001/23:17:35 Pri: 4 Type: 415M: Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011530166 Date /Time: 02- Jun - 2001/11:27:58 Pri: 4 Type: 488R Case: NB01005467 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011530337 Date /Time: 02- Jun - 2001/23:42:11 Pri: 5 Type: TS Case: Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011540019 Date /Time: 03- Jun - 2001/00:59:33 Pri: 3 Type. 415) Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG 1ocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 3 Oct 31 17:03 2001 Event Number: NB011590228 Date /Time: 08- Jun - 2001/23:01:59 Pri: 3 Type: 415) Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011600019 Date /Time: 09- Jun - 2001/01:20:54 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: ND011610025 Date /Time: 10- Jun - 2001/01:32:16 Pri: 5 Type: BAR Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011610089 Date /Time: 10- Jun - 2001/09:40:27 Pri: 4 Type: 488R Case: NB01005806 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB011680033 Date /Time: 17- Jun - 2001/02:08:11 Pri: 2 Type: 502 Case: Disposition: UTL Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NBO11730001 Date /Time: 22- Jun - 2001/00:01:06 Pri: 4 Type: 415M: Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011780219 Date /Time: 27- Jun - 2001/23:19:16 Pri: 4 Type: 415M; Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011800002 Date /Time: 29- Jun - 2001/00:15:41 Pri: 4 Type: 415M: Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011820026 Date /Time: 01 -Jul- 2001/01:13:14 ?ri: 3 Type: 415,' Case: disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG vocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event. Number: NB011870017 Date /Time: 06- Jul - 2001/00 :51:37 ?ri: 4 Type: 415M) Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG jocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 4 Oct 31 17:03 2001 Event Number: NB011870245 Date /Time: 06 -Jul- 2001/23:40:40 Pri: 3 Type: 415) Case: Disposition: C4 Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB011940006 Date /Time: 13 -Jul- 2001/00:52:19 Pri: E Type: 415* Case: NB01007429 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB011950044 Date /Time: 14 -Jul- 2001/02:56:51 Pri: 2 Type: 459A Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB012010014 Date /Time: 20 -Jul- 2001/00:56:11 Pri: 4 Type_ 415M Case: Disposition: OTH Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB012060018 Date /Time: 25 -Jul- 2001/01:49:01 Pri: 2 Type: 459A Case: )isposition: UNF Disp Group: DG location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB012080017 Date /Time: 27- Jul - 2001/01:24:35 ?ri: 4 Type: 415M ; Case: )isposition: UNF Disp Group: DG vocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB EEvent Number: NB012110032 Date /Time: 30 -Jul- 2001/05:49:23 ?ri: 2 Type: 459A Case: )isposition: UNF Disp Group: DG location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB012140163 Date /Time: 02- Aug- 2001/19:09:46 ?ri: 5 Type: TS Case: )isposition: CITE Disp Group: DG location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB went Number: NB012150260 Date /Time: 03- Aug - 2001/23:38:09 ?ri: 5 Type: TS Case: Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB 3vent Number: NB012360225 Date /Time: 24- Aug- 2001/22:55:10 ?ri: 5 Type: TS Case: )isposition: CITE Disp Group: DG location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 5 I Oct 31 17:03 2001 Event Number: NB012370031 Date /Time: 25- Aug- 2001/01:30:30 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB012370298 Date /Time: 25- Aug- 2001/23:07:19 Pri: 3 Type: 415P Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB012570010 Date /Time: 14- Sep- 2001/01:33:17 Pri: 5 Type: CAB Case: Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: ND012570215 Date /Time: 14- Sep- 2001/23:28:58 Pri: 5 Type: S Case: NB01010311 Disposition: 1015 Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB012590028 Date /Time: 16- Sep- 2001/01:57:12 Pri: 4 Type: ASSIST Case: Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB012700004 Date /Time: 27- Sep- 2001/00:39:53 Pri: 5 Type: C6R Case: Disposition: 919 Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB012700218 Date /Time: 27- Sep- 2001/23:22:15 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG ,ocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB012730021 Date /Time: 30- Sep- 2001/01:03:18 ?ri: 4 Type: 415M) Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG ,ocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB012780165 Date /Time: 05- Oct - 2001/18:42:52 Pri: 4 Type: PC Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG .jocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: N13012780199 Date /Time: 05- Oct - 2001/22:02:52 ?ri: 4 Type: 415M4 Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG vocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 6 0 Oct 31 17:03 2001 Event Number: NB012920023 Date /Time: 19- Oct - 2001/01:09:09 Pri: 3 Type: 415 Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB012930007 Date /Time: 20- Oct - 2001/00:20:51 Pri: 3 Type: 415 Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB012990004 Date /Time: 26- Oct - 2001/00:37:50 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 7 Page 1 � ©C 84 At Position: REC EVENT HISTORY INQUIRY Event Number: NB000040044 Date /Time: 04- Jan - 2000/11:09:29 Pri: 4 Type: 488R Case: NB00000101 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB000070188 Date /Time: 07- Jan - 2000/23:31:33 Pri: 4 Type: C6R Case: "1 Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000200172 Date /Time: 20- Jan - 2000/23:53:57 Pri: 4 Type:�415M Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB j Event Number: NB000210012 Date /Time: 21- Jan - 2000/01:21:55 Pri: 4 Type: C6R Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Jocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000210022 Date /Time: 21- Jan - 2000/02:03:03 ?ri: 3 Type: 415 Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG vocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ? ?vent Number: NB000210024 Date /Time: 21- Jan - 2000/02:16:11 ?ri: E Type: 415 *3 Case: )isposition: ADV Disp Group: DG ',ocation: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) went Number: NB000220018 Date /Time: 22- Jan - 2000/01:24:18 ?ri: 4 Type: 415M> Case: )isposition: UNF Disp Group: DG ,ocation: CARMELOS @.3520 COAST HWY E ,NB 'vent Number: NB000230025 Date /Time: 23- Jan - 2000/01:45:33 ?ri: 3 Type: 415- Case: )isposition: ADV Disp Group: DG vocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB went Number: NB000260026 Date /Time: 26- Jan - 2000/08:29:41 )ri: 2 Type: 459A Case: )isposition: UNK Disp Group: DG ,ocation: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Oct 31 17:05 2001 Event Number: NB000370017 Date /Time: 06- Feb - 2000/01:17:19 Pri: 3 Type: TS Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000430150 Date /Time: 12- Feb - 2000/21:24:06 Pri: 2 Type: 902M Case: Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB000430167 Date /Time: 12- Feb - 2000/23:04:24 Pri: E Type: 927* Case: Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB000440013 Date /Time: 13- Feb - 2000/00:55:11 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: i Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000490011 Date /Time: 18- Feb - 2000/01:24:33 Pri: 4 Type: 415M) Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000510007 Date /Time: 20- Feb - 2000/00:21:01 Pri: 3 Type: V Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000560008 Date /Time: 25- Feb - 2000/00:43:57 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000700013 Date /Time: 10- Mar - 2000/01:31:38 Pri: 3 Type: V Case: NB00002330 Disposition: 1015 Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000710018 Date /Time: 11- Mar - 2000/01:11:07 Pri: 4 Type: 415M> Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: N13000770014 Date /Time: 17- Mar - 2000/00:52:50 Pri: 3 Type: 415 Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 2 Oct 31 17:05 2001 Event Number: NB000770022 Date /Time: 17 -Mar- 2000/01:45:09 Pri: 2 Type: 502 Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: N13000770023 Date /Time: 17- Mar - 2000/01:47:10 Pri: 4 Type: 242R Case: Disposition: 1022 Disp Group: DG „ Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000910009 Date /Time: 31- Mar - 2000/01:07:45 Pri: 4 Type: 415M) Case: Disposition: OTH Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000980003 Date /Time: 07- Apr- 2000/00:10:32 Pri: 3 Type: 415, Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000980006 Date /Time: 07- Apr- 2000/00:26:50 Pri: 4 Type: BAR Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000980010 Date /Time: 07- Apr - 2000/01:10:13 Pri: 2 Type: 242J Case: NB00003361 Disposition: RPT Disp`Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000990013 Date /Time: 08- Apr- 2000/00:56:03 Pri: 4 Type: 415M, Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB000990198 Date /Time: 08- Apr- 2000/22:12:54 Pri: 5 Type: C6 Case: disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ?vent Number: NB001050019 Date /Time: 14- Apr- 2000/01:21:11 Pri: 4 Type: 415M, Case: disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG vocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ?vent Number: NB001130001 Date /Time: 22- Apr- 2000/00:04:35 Dri: 2 Type: FIGHT Case: disposition: FI Disp Group: DG .location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 3 Oct 31 17:05 2001 Event Number: N13001190014 Date /Time: 28- Apr- 2000/01:10:06 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location% CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB001250159 Date /Time: 04- May - 2000/22:01:59 Pri: 2 Type: 602N Case: Disposition: UTL Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB001260005 Date /Time: 05- May- 2000/00:48:23 Pri: 4 Type: 415K Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: N13001320155 Date /Time: 11- May- 2000/21:39:50 Pri: 5 Type: BAR Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB001340118 Date /Time: 13 =May- 2000/12:51:18 Pri: 4 Type: 487R Case: NB00004868 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB001400006 Date /Time: 19- May- 2000/00:34:32 Pri: 2 Type: 919 Case: Disposition: GOA Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB001540013 Date /Time: 02- Jun - 2000/01:28:58 Pri: 5 Type: BAR Case: Disposition: C4 Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB001580070 Date /Time: 06- Jun - 2000/11:33:04 Pri: 4 Type: 928LST Case: NB00005848 '� Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG `' Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: N13001610005 Date /Time: 09- Jun - 2000/00:56:47 , Pri: 3 Type: 415) Case: j Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB 3vent Number: NB001680004 Date /Time: 16- Jun - 2000/00:18:22 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG jocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 4 Oct 31 17:05 2001 Event Number: NB001770006 Date /Time: 25- Jun - 2000/00:16:05 Pri: 4 Type: 415K Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E_,NB Event Number: NB001820003 Date /Time: 30- Jun - 2000/00:17:21 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: NB00006823 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB001830036 Date /Time: 01 -Jul- 2000/02:36:48 Pri: 2 Type: 925C Case: Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB001950196 Date /Time: 13 -Jul- 2000/23:12:43 Pri: 5 Type: V Case: Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB001970277 Date /Time: 15 -Jul- 2000/21:53:09 Pri: 4 Type: 415M% Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB002030014 Date /Time: 21- Jul - 2000/01:09:53 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB002040263 Date /Time: 22 -Jul- 2000/22:48:04 Pri: 4 Type: 4151 Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG vocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB 'Event Number: NB002100031 Date /Time: 27 -Jul- 2000/23:02:00 Pri: 4 Type: MCVIOL Case: disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG vocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB002100120 Date /Time: 28 -Jul- 2000/11:20:33 ?ri: 4 Type: 488R Case: NB00008320 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG vocation: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) ;vent Number: NB002230069 Date /Time: 10- Aug - 2000/09:43:51 ?ri: 4 Type: 488R Case: NB00008889 disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG vocation: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Page 5 Oct 31 17:05 2001 Event Number: NB002240009 Date /Time: 11- Aug - 2000/00:37:21 Pri: 4 Type: 415Nb Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB002250285 Date /Time: 12- Aug- 2000/23:35:54 Pri: 3 Type: 415P,, Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB002380018 Date /Time: 25- Aug - 2000/02:17:52 Pri: 3 Type: 390 Case: NB00009499 Disposition: 1015 Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB002400030 Date /Time: 27- Aug - 2000/02:00:17 Pri: 3 Type: 415 Case: Disposition: FI Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB002450008 Date /Time: 01- Sep- 2000/00:50:33 Pri: 4 Type: 415M; Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: ND002540056 Date /Time: 10- Sep - 2000/08:33:54 Pri: 2 Type: 459A Case: Disposition: FAL Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB (CARMELOS) Event Number: NB002540155 Date /Time: 10- Sep- 2000/21:01:31 Pri: 4 Type: B &P Case: Disposition: UTL Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB002590005 Date /Time: 15- Sep- 2000/00:32:26 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB002660001 Date /Time: 22- Sep- 2000/00:06:22 ?ri: 2 Type: 927 Case: Disposition: UTL Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB002730003 Date /Time: 29- Sep- 2000/00:11:55 ?ri: 4 Type: 415M- Case: i Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG ,ocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 6 Oct 31 17:05 2001 Event Number: NB002800009 Date /Time: 06- Oct - 2000/00:42:07 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB002800073 Date /Time: 06- Oct - 2000/13:32:33 Pri: 4 Type: 928 Case: NB00011085 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB002890004 Date /Time: 15- Oct - 2000/00:19:28 Pri: 5 Type: C6R Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NE002940006 Date /Time: 20- Oct - 2000/00:46:22 Pri: 3 Type: 415: Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB002940011 Date /Time: 20- Oct - 2000/01:24:06 Pri: 3 Type: 415` Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB002990159 Date /Time: 25- Oct - 2000/23:51:56 Pri: 4 Type: 415M` Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS .@ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB003010009 Date /Time: 27- Oct - 2000/01:30:13 Pri: 4 Type: ASSIST Case: Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number:.NB003010017 Date /Time: 27- Oct - 2000/04:08:14 Pri: 2 Type: 459A Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NE003070167 Date /Time: 02- Nov - 2000/23:20:07 Pri: 5 Type: TS Case: Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB003080005 Date /Time: 03- Nov - 2000/00:30:05 Pri: 5 Type: TS Case: Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 7 Oct 31 17:05 2001 Event Number: NB003080008 Date /Time: 03- Nov - 2000/00:41:13 Pri: 5 Type: V Case: Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB003140167 Date /Time: 09- Nov - 2000/23:37:58 Pri: 5 Type: V Case: Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB003220005 Date /Time: 17- Nov - 2000/00:53:27 Pri: 4 Type: 415M; Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB003230191 Date /Time: 18- Nov - 2000/23:19:51 Pri: 5 Type: TS Case: Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB003310023 Date /Time: 26- Nov - 2000/01:52:51 Pri: 2 Type: 502 Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB003350127 Date /Time: 30- Nov - 2000/22:52:30 Pri: 5 Type: TS Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB003380015 Date /Time: 03- Dec - 2000/01:15:49 Pri: 5 Type: BAR Case: Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB003380116 Date /Time: 03- Dec - 2000/15:49:02 Pri: 4 Type: 928LST Case: NB00013079 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB003420157 Date /Time: 07- Dec - 2000/23:30:15 Pri: 4 Type: 415M; Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB003430002 Date /Time: 08- Dec - ,2000/00:08:39 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 8 Oct 31 17:05 2001 Event Number: NB003430011 Date /Time: 08- Dec - 2000/01:10:53 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB003520016 Date /Time: 17- Dec - 2000/01:57:21 Pri: E Type: 915* Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB003570003 Date /Time: 22- Dec - 2000/00:09:17 Pri: 4 Type: 415M> Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 9 Oct 31 RadlD Page 1 Form: E: Request Position: REC EVENT H Event NumDei: Date /Time: 10- Jan - 1999/02 :28:29 Pri: E Type: 927* Case: NB99000328 Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB990430040 Date /Time: 12- Feb - 1999/07:50:01 Pri: 2 Type: 459A Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB990480005 Date /Time: 17- Feb - 1999/00:39:36 Pri: 3 Type: 415, Case: Disposition: 1022 Disp Group: DG i Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB990520045 Date /Time: 21- Feb - 1999/07:33:18 Pri: 2 Type: 459A Case: Disposition: 1022 Disp Group: DG Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,MB ( CARMELOS) 'vent Number: NB990570001 Date /Time: 26- Feb - 1999/00:08:32 Pri: 3 Type: 415; Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB990600050 Date /Time: 01- Mar - 1999/10:59:02 Pri: 3 Type: V Case: NB99001951 Disposition: FI Disp Group: DG :,ocation: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB990640009 Date /Time: 05- Mar - 1999/01:02:20 ?ri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG -location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB990780016 Date /Time: 19- Mar - 1999/02:46:29 ?ri: 4 Type: C6R Case: Disposition: OTH Disp Group: DG 'location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB ',vent Number: NB990850006 Date /Time: 26- Mar - 1999/01:13:11 ?ri: 4 Type: 488R Case: Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Oct 31 17:08 2001 Event Number: NB990930230 Date /Time: 03- Apr - 1999/23:31:20 Pri: 4 Type: MISC Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB990940099 Date /Time: 04- Apr - 1999/18:23:05 Pri: 2 Type: 925C Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB990960108 Date /Time: 06- Apr - 1999/16:00:01 Pri: 4 Type: 594R Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991050163 Date /Time: 15- Apr - 1999/23:34:58 Pri: 4 Type: 415M> Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991060006 Date /Time: 16- Apr - 1999/00:41:53 Pri: E Type: 415 *, Case: NB99003370 Disposition: 1015 Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991150028 Date /Time: 25- Apr - 1999/02:28:12 Pri: 2 Type: 925 Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: N13991210066 Date /Time: 01- May- 1999/08:53:07 Pri: 3 Type: 902T Case: NB99003906 Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991350248 Date /Time: 15- May - 1999/22:40:24 Pri: 4 Type: C6R Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991430006 Date /Time: 23- May- 1999/00:40:34 Pri: 4 Type: 415K Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991470181 Date /Time: 27- May - 1999/23:55:04 Pri: 4 Type: 415M; Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 2 Oct 31 17:08 2001 Event Number: NB991560009 Date /Time: 05- Jun - 1999/00:48:17 Pri: 3 Type: 415 Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB , Event Number: NB991620004 Date /Time: 11- Jun - 1999/00:52:26 Pri: 3 Type: SS Case: Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991620011 Date /Time: 11- Jun - 1999/01:45:32 Pri: 3 Type: 390 Case: Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991660008 Date /Time: 15- Jun - 1999/00:42:49 Pri: 4 Type: FU Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991740213 Date /Time: 23- Jun - 1999/21:54:51 Pri: 4 Type: 415M- Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991760009 Date /Time: 25- Jun - 1999/02:10:24 Pri: 4 Type: ASSIST Case: Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991820196 Date /Time: 01 -Jul- 1999/23:04:24 Pri: 4 Type: BAR Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991840002 Date /Time: 03 -Jul- 1999/00:03:19 Pri: 4 Type: 415M_,, Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991850016 Date /Time: 04 -Jul- 1999/00:37:09 Pri: 4 Type: 41SR Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB991890005 Date /Time: 08 -Jul- 1999/00:51:52 Pri: 4 Type: 415M; Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 3 Oct 31 17:08 2001 Event Number: ND991920244 Date /Time: 11 -Jul- 1999/21:04:37 Pri: 4 Type: 41514; Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992100236 Date /Time: 29- Jul-1999/23:44:45 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992180008 Date /Time: 06- Aug- 1999/00:43:20 Pri: 3 Type: TS Case: Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992180216 Date /Time: 06- Aug- 1999/22:57:27 Pri: 4 Type:,415M,; Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992190023 Date /Time: 07- Aug- 1999/01:04:34 Pri: 4 Type: 4159 Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: N13992190270 Date /Time: 07- Aug - 1999/23:14:27 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992230197 Date /Time: 11- Aug- 1999/21:50:18 Pri: 3 Type: 415; Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992240231 Date /Time: 12- Aug- 1999/23:39:22 Pri: 3 Type: 415; Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992310210 Date /Time: 19- Aug- 1999/23:05:53 Pri: 3 Type: V Case: MULTIPLE Disposition: 1015 Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992330025 Date /Time: 21- Aug- 1999/01:21:51 Pri: 4 Type: 41514; Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 4 Oct 31 17:08 2001 Event Number: NB992330252 Date /Time: 21- Aug- 1999/21:43:39 Pri: 4 Type r�415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992380188 Date /Time: 26- Aug- 1999/23:53:24 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992460189 Date /Time: 03- Sep- 1999/23:18:19 Pri: 3 Type: 415; Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992470034 Date /Time: 04- Sep- 1999/02:17:19 Pri: 3 Type: SS Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992610006 Date /Time: 18- Sep- 1999/00:17:51 Pri: 3 Type: 415' Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992610021 Date /Time: 18- Sep - 1999/01:02:44 Pri: 2 Type: 925C Case: Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992690014 Date /Time: 26- Sep- 1999/00:40:06 Pri: 3 Type: 415) Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992750004 Date /Time: 02- Oct - 1999/00:10:23 Pri: 4 Type: 415P Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992800048 Date /Time: 07- Oct - 1999/09:34:13 Pri: 2 Type: 488 Case: NE99010129 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992800154 Date /Time: 07- Oct - 1999/22:45:42 Pri: 4 Type: C6R Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 5 Oct 31 17:08 2001 Event Number: NB992810087 Date /Time: 08- Oct - 1999/14:47:54 Pri: 2 Type: 488 Case: NB99010168 Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992830009 Date /Time: 10- Oct - 1999/00:35:03 Pri: 4 Type: 415M� Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992870150 Date /Time: 14- Oct - 1999/20:59:01 Pri: 3 Type: S Case: Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB99287015G Date /Time: 14- Oct - 1999/21:42:17 Pri: 3 Type: TS Case: NB99010368 Disposition: 1015 Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992880005 Date /Time: 15- Oct - 1999/00:26:55 Pri: 4 Type: 415M� Case: Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB992940162 Date /Time: 21- Oct - 1999/22:28:23 Pri: 4 Type: BAR Case: Disposition: C4 Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB993010193 Date /Time: 28- Oct - 1999/22:36:50 Pri: 4 Type: BAR Case: MULTIPLE Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB993010201 Date /Time: 28- Oct - 1999/23:22:49 Pri: 3 Type: 390 Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB993020001 Date /Time: 29- Oct - 1999/00:04:27 Pri: 3 Type: B &P Case: NB99010824 Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB993020176 Date /Time: 29- Oct - 1999/22:31:38 Pri: 4 Type: PC Case: Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 6 Oct 31 17:08 2001 Event Number: NB993170207 Pri: 3 Disposition: ADV Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Date /Time: 13- Nov - 1999/23:58:52 Type: 415390 Case: Disp Group: DG ( CARMELOS) Event Number: NB993180022 Date /Time: 14- Nov - 1999/01:41:20 Pri: 4 Type: 415M Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB993200076 Pri: 4 Disposition: RPT Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB993210078 Pri: 4 Disposition: RPT Location: 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Date /Time: 16- Nov - 1999/12:18:38 Type: 928LST Case: NB99011453 Disp Group: DG ( CARMELOS) Date /Time: 17- Nov - 1999/14:23:19 Type: 487R Case: NB99011493 Disp Group: DG ( CARMELOS) Event Number: N13993360148 Date /Time: 02- Dec - 1999/23:12:37 Pri: 4 Type: MISC Case: Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB993360150 Date /Time: 02- Dec - 1999/23:38:16 Pri: E Type: FIGHT Case: NB99011960 Disposition: 1015 Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Event Number: NB993370013 Date /Time: 03- Dec - 1999/01:59:08 Pri: 3 Type: 415 Case: NB99011963 Disposition: 1015 Disp Group: DG Location: CARMELOS @ 3520 COAST HWY E ,NB Page 7 i,9Vit,T VA-!f�uS