Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2407 E COAST HWY111111111 lill 11111111111111111111111111 lill III lill *NEW FILE* 2407 E Coast Hwy APPLICATION FOR "AAVAL IN CONCEPT" : NO.0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FEE: r �n APPROVAL IN CONCEPT BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - As required for permit application to the California Coastal Commission pursuant to California Administrative Code, Section 13210 and 13211. i Property Address: 2,LT- 0 q E, C O C E77 - -W\1 General Description of Proposed Development: i_ hSl (N Ca 9 �18U ! � I FOF ±t]Agsh Applicant: 1� '~i 1 J�'� V L 1��`� f ,at ��—U PtX V1 Applicant's Mailing Address: Z-4� Q-DA.:..T I i coy MMOA PA-�2t ()-l- C12�2S Applicant's Telephone 4) 6-13. DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE The I have reviewed the plans for the foregoing development including: and find 1. The general site plan, including any roads and public access to the shoreline. 2. The grading plan, if any. 3. The general uses and intensity of use proposed for each part of the area covered in the application; They comply with the current adopted City of Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and any applicable specific or precise plans or That a 1 1 F Pa ✓✓vt i f A ✓yl<'W'�rnet4 has been approved and is final A copy of any variances site,plan review, resubdivision, use permit, or other issued permit is attached together with all conditions of approval and all approved plans including approved tentative tract maps. On the basis of this finding, these plans are approved in concept, and said approval has been written upon site plans, signed and dated. Should this City adopt an ordinance deleting, amending, or adding to the Zoning Ordinance or other regulations in any manner that would affect the use of the property or the design of a project located thereon, this approval in concept shall become null and void as of the effective date of this said ordinance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and state and local ,guidelines adopted thereunder, this development: • Has received a final Exemption Declaration or final Negative Declaration (copy attached). Has been determined to be ministerial or categorically exempt. t� • Has received a final Environmental Impact Report (copy Attached). All discretionary approval legally required of this City prior to issuance of a building permit have been given and are final. The development is not subject to rejection in principal by this City unless a substantial change in it is proposed. This concept approval in no way excuses the applicant from complying with all applicable policies, ordinances, codes, and regulations of this City. Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Attachments: W.p.1 a� �JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director 54n K Re pore Avvi PAID "I ✓alit 4-<, 5 e {' By Plr=,hvt�r���qC���•M�P��yy NOTE: No building permit will be issued until apprg4al is received from C.C.C. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a, t• �� `tY' WP511PLANNING�DARLEEMFORMSW.PRLCONP.DOC -, w STAT€ OF CAUFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gowmor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST AREA = o 245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 EXEMPTION LETTER P.O. BOx 1450 LONG BEACH, CA 908024416 - (310) 590-5071 DATE: August 16, 1995 NAME: Rothschild's Restaurant c/o James Patricola 2407 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 LOCATION: 2407 E. Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, Orange County PROJECT: Expand hours of operation of an existing restaurant from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. to 10 a.m. to 12 midnight. No other change is proposed. This is to certify that this location and/or proposed project has been reviewed by the staff of the Coastal Commission. A coastal development permit is not necessary for the reasons checked below. _ The site is not located within the coastal zone as established by the California Coastal Act of 1976, as amended. _ The proposed development is included in Categorical Exclusion No. adopted by the California Coastal Commission. _ The proposed development is judged to be repair or maintenance activity not resulting in an addition to or enlargement or expansion of the object of such activities (Section 30610(d) of Coastal Act). The proposed development is an improvement to an existing single family residence (Section 30610(a) of the Coastal Act) and not located in the area between the sea and the first public road or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach (whichever is greater) (Section 13250(b)(4) of 14 Cal. Admin. Code. _ The proposed development is an improvement to an existing single family residence and is located in the area -between the sea and the first public road or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach (whichever is greater) but is not a) an increase of 10% or more of internal floor area, b) an increase in height over 10%, or c) a significant non—attached structure (Sections 30610(a) of Coastal Act and Section 13250(b)(4) of Administrative Regulations). _ The proposed development is an interior modification to an existing use with no change in the density or intensity of use (Section 30106 of Coastal Act). E7: 7/90 Page 2 _ The proposed development involves the installation, testing and placement in service of a necessary utility connection between an existing service facility and development approved in accordance with coastal development permit requirements, pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30610(f). The proposed development is an improvement to a structure other than a single family residence or public works facility and is not subject to permit requirement (Section 13253 of Administrative Regulations). The proposed development is the rebuilding of a structure, other than a public works facility, destroyed by natural disaster. The replacement conforms to all of the requirements of Coastal Act Section 30610(g). XX Other: The proposed expansion of hours of operation is not a change in use and will not intensify existing use of the site. Please be advised that only the project described above is exempt from the permit requirements of the Coastal Act. Any change in the project may cause it to lose its exempt status. This certification is based on information provided by the recipient of this letter. If, at a later date, this information is found to be incorrect or incomplete, this letter will become invalid, and any development occurring at that time must cease until a coastal development permit is obtained. Truly yours, By: fiti"JP U Title: Staff Analyst 5070F COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH D -P- P�FM'INUTES Pre Ayes Absi REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: ROLL INDEX CALL All Commissioners were present. (Commissioner Pomeroy sent arrived at 7:35 pm.) EX-OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: Kenneth Delino, Assistant City Manager, Planning and Building Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney James Hewicker, Planning Director Patty Temple, Planning Manager Jay Garcia, Senior Planner Christy Teague, Associate Planner Rich Edmonton, City Traffic Engineer Joanne MacQuarrie, Secretary Minutes of July 6, 1995 Minutes 4 7-6-95 * Motion was made and voted on to approve the July 6, 1995, * * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Approved ant Public Comments: None Public Comments Posting ofthe Agenda: Posting of the Ken Delino, Assistant City Manager, Planning and Building, stated that the Agenda Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 14, 1995, in front of City Hall. 3f COMMISSIONERS 2'so ctly'`�9 �?o•, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Amendment No. 825 (Public Hearing) Agenda Item No.l Request to initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to permit "bars" and "theater/nightclubs" in the RSC, A. 825 APF, RMC and M-1-A Zoning Districts as well as various Specific Area Continued Plans and Planned Community Districts Citywide, subject to the securing. to 8-10-95 of a use permit in each case. INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach Ken Delino, Assistant City Manager, Planning and Building summarized previous action by the City Council which separatedthe definition of "restaurant" into three categories: "restaurant," "bar" and "theater/nightclubs." Tonight's requested action is essentially a housekeeping one to put the definition into all of the codes and to indicate in the Table of Allowable Uses where the additional definitions of "bars" and "theater/nighclubs" is allowed. Assistant City Attorney Clauson explained that the definitions are not being placed into any district where they were not potentially allowed before, but by virtue of creating separate definitions for "restaurants," "bars" and "theater/nightclubs," the proposed action became necessary. Replying to questions from Chairman Ridgeway and Commissioner Kranzley, Ms. Clauson stated that prior to the Council action, the three uses were processed under the restaurant definition. Before the definitions were changed, bars and theater/nightclubs were permitted, subject to securing a use permit, in the RSC Districts throughout the City and in various Planned Community Districts. Commissioner Gifford stated the Balboa Peninsula Advisory Committe, studying enforcement problems on the peninsula, found that there is a hugely disproportionate number of liquor licenseses, per capita on the peninsula, compared to the rest of the county and to other cities in the -2- 4. COMMISSIONERS A Mott. All CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX couniy. She said she would consider supporting the action if the specific area plans specified in the staff report, Newport Shores, Mariners' Mile, Cannery Village/McFadden Square, and Central Balboa were removed from the proposal, or she would support a motion to continue the action to allow additional study of the proposal. Motion was made to continue Amendment 825 to the August 10, 1995 on * Planning Commission meeting, to allow further study and review by staff. Discussion ensued between the Commissioners and staff regarding the appropriateness of adding bars and theatre/nightclubs to the permitted use in the specified Specific Area Plan districts. Mention was made that each component should be evaluated separately for inclusion into the specified areas, and to consider separating "bars" and "theatre/nightclubs" into individual definitions. It was suggested that the Commission should be provided with the number of businesses already in existence that would fall within the definitions of "bars" and "theatre/nightclubs"in the areas designated in the proposed amendment. Ayes Motion voted. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. No. 826�ublic Hearing) Agenda Item No.: Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to add "nail salons" to the table of permitted uses in the RSC, APF and RMC A. 826 Districts, as well as various Specific Area Plans, to delete the use permit Approved requirement for "nail salons" within various Specific Area Plans, and to add specific parking requirements for retail and service establishments to the Harbor View Hills Planned Community District. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Assistant City Manager Ken Delino stated that as a result of City Council action establishing a distinct definition for "nail salons" under the Personal -3- Mot All COMMISSIONERS J'�� �f•9p�� p9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Services category, this definition must now be added to various sections of the Municipal Code. In response to a question from Commissioner Selich, retiring Planning Director Jim Hewicker stated that to the best of his knowlege, within all the City shopping centers there are reciprocal parking agreements for all the uses within the center. If a nail salon wanted to go into a center where a use permit was required, parking would have to be provided for not only the restaurant and retail uses within the center, but also additional parking, for the salon itself. This amendment does not include all areas of the City, primarily it excludes some of the larger Planned Community areas where shopping center parking is not a major problem, but for the smaller centers and strip commercial areas a new nail salon would be required to provide one parking space for each 80 square feet of gross floor area. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. * Motion was made and voted on to approve Resolution No. 1397 and to ion Ayes recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 826. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 827 (Public Hearing) Agenda Item No.3 Request of the Irvine Company to amend Districting Maps No. 49 and 50, rezoning property from the APF-H and O-S Districts to the P-C (Planned A. 827 Community) District and adopt Planned Community District Regulations. Approved LOCATION: 500 Block of Newport Center Drive. Generally located at the southwesterly corner of Avocado Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road; bounded by San Joaquin Trills Drive, Avocado Avenue, San Nicholas Drive, Newport Center Drive and Santa Rosa Drive. Parcel No. 1 of P.M. 13/41, Parcel -4- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Tuly 20,1995 ROLL CALL _ INDEX No. 1 of P.M. 21/18, Parcel No. 1 of P.M. 54/23, Parcel No. 1-4 of P.M. 192/1-2, Parcel No. 1 of P.M. 27/43 and a Portion of Block 93 of the Irvine's Subdivison. ZONE: APF-H, O-S OWNERS: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach; First American Trust, Santa Ana; Boyd Biggins,, Burbank; Ron E. Presta Trust, Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The Irvine Company on behalf of the property owners. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. Tom Redwitz, Vice President, The Irvine Company, addressed the Planning Commission and replied to a question from Commissioner Adams as to the reason for the proposed action. He explained that the existing parking for Block 500, per the City zoning ordinance, indicates that the parking was deficient, even though presently there appears to be an abundance of available parking space. In order to bring the existing structures into compliance with the zoning ordinance, Planning staff recommended that a Planned Community text be adopted for the area. Mr. Redwitz continued that no additional development is proposed, it is simply to provide standards that are consistent and bring the entire project into conformance with City code. In reply to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Redwitz stated the occupancy rate of Block 500 was 87%. Responding to Chairman Ridgeway, Advance Planning Manager Patricia Temple stated that the Newport Center areas not under the P-C zoning were Blocks 200, 300, 600, 700 and'the Country Club. She further explained that it had been a long-range goal of Planning staff to fashion a comprehensive P-C for the entire Newport Center area, and hence the recommendation to pursue the P-C zoning for Block 500 was suggested to the The Irvine Company. -5- Mot All COMMISSIO�N\ERS p qoA� �0, �1.1" �"p9A � �R CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Tulv 20,1995 ROLL CALL ion 71 i i INDEX Responding to queries from Commissioner Adams and Chairman Ridgeway, Assistant City Manager Delino stated that in this case, the parking surplus will allow the conversion of commercial office to medical office which has a more stringent parking requirement. Ms. Temple further clarifed that, in this case, a change of use from commercial to medical office could be accomplished with a building permit as long as the parking requirement was satisfied. An increase in entitlement would necessitate amending the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Under the provisions of the General Plan, there could be a transfer of square footage from other locationsto this this or other locations, if the parking proved adequate and if the transfer received approval from both the Planning Commission and. the City Council. 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 Resolution No. 1398 and to Ayes recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 827. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No 1851 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Agenda Item.No. Request to change the operational characteristics of an existing restaurant 1851 G to change the permitted hours of operation from between the hours of UP 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 Approved midnight. LOCATION: 2407 West Coast Highway. Lot 1, Block `B", Tract No. 470, located on the southwesterly corner East Coast I-Eghway Begonia Avenue. of and ZONE: RSC APPLICANT: Rothschild's Restaurant, Corona del Mar OWNER: Helmut Reiss, Laguna Beach -6- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX In referring to a paragraph in the staff report regarding the waiver of certain restaurant development standards, Commissioner Adams stated he would like additional information supplied pertinent to those specific standards. Discussion ensued among staff and the Planning Commissioners as to what information would be most helpful and the most effective manner of presenting it. Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson explained that there must be a connection between the changes of use proposed in an amendment and the conditions imposed, or a connection to a problem. Chairman Ridgeway opined that in the original application for a use permit an entire summary is provided regarding the project's physical and operational characteristics, and it would be burdensome to require the type of information being suggested for issues previously deliberated, however, violation of a use permit should be brought to the attention of the Commission. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that there are many restaurants with physical characteristics that are such that they could not meet today's standards, but they have been operating in the City for years. Assistant City Manager Ken Delino stated that the development standards data would be provided to the Commission by expanding the Project Characteristics Table portion of the staff report format to include a comparison of the existing project characteristics with requirements in the Zoning Code. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. James Patricola, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Patricola explained that Rothschild's Restaurant is currently undergoing a change of ownership from Mr. Hehnut Reiss to Mr. Patricola and his wife, Heidi Patricola, daughter of Mr. Reiss. Mr. Patricola referred to Rothchild's eighteen year record of providing fine dining and being a responsible and participating member of the community. The request for a two hour expansion of hours, from 10:00 p.m. until midnight, would allow the restaurant to better serve their customers. He added that he was presenting to the Commission statements by 21 area residents, indicating they had no objection to the expansion. He stated he agreed with the Findings and Conditions of Approval. -7- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Adams commended Mr. Patricola on Rothchild's unblemished 18 year record. He commented that often problems of restaurants that are located in close proximity to residential areas stems from disturbances caused by illumination, noise from patrons, and noise and odors associated with trash dumping. The nighttime expansion of operating hours can exacerbate problems when it interferes with the sleeping of nearby residents. Commissioner Adams reminder Mr. Patricola that if problems should arise, the use permit could be called up for review. by the Commission. Responding, to the above, Mr. Patricola explained that in his talks with nearby residents regarding the proposed expansion of hours, he did become aware of some of their concerns regarding delivery traffic, and arranged for alternate routes by the service vehicles. Dr. Lila Crespin, 707 Begonia Avenue, representing herself and husband, Mr. Emil Crespin, appeared before the Planning Commission to request denial of the subject application, and opined that the willingness of the applicant to satisfy residents' concerns is only recent. Dr. Crespin stated it has been up to persons such as she to vigilantly monitor the operation and this in itself is very burdensome. She cited several grievances relating to employees parking off site when the restaurant's use permit states all employees are to park on -site; noise from patrons; and parking lot lighting. She stated that originally Rothchild's had opened as a beer, cheese and wine delicatessen -restaurant and a subsequent use permit amendment permitted floor area expansion and valet parking. Dr. Crespin presented to the Commission a letter, signed by 10 Begonia Avenue residents, requesting denial of the expansion of hours as it would adversely affect their lives. Dr. Crespin added she had been informed by the Liquor Board that Rothchild's intends to incorporate and that as difficult as it as been trying to satisfy her concerns dealing with the restaurant's private ownership, dealing with a corporation would prove impossible. Discussion followed. Commissioner Adams stated he would like a map showing the locations of those persons who signed the aforementioned -8- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX letter, and if problems arise such as described by Dr. Crespin, he should be contacted so he can ask that the use permit be reviewed. Dr. Crespin questioned the need to stay open until midnight, being a beer and wine establishment, and how the restaurant can monitor the arrival and departure of its patrons. She indicated that all signatories of the letter are residents of the 700 block of Begonia Avenue, between East Coast highway and 4th Avenue. Commissioner Pomeroy voiced his concurrence with Commissioner Adams in that the Commission cannot take action unless it is aware a problem exists. He stated that, to his knowledge, no complaint, has been brought to his attention regarding this use permit and gave his phone number for future use by anyone present. Mrs. Marilyn Ellis, 621 -Begonia Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, representing herself and her husband, Mr. Neal Ellis, and addressed the continuing problem caused by service truck traffic on Fourth Avenue even though there is a posted sign that prohibits vehicles over 3 tons. She stated'that, in the past, she has made calls to Mr. Phil Sansone, former Council Member, the Police Department, and Western Waste regarding her complaints. Mrs. Ellis said that employees not only park on the street, but she indicated they also change their clothes on the street. She opined that service traffic, on -street parking problems and disturbances caused by noisy patrons will worsen if the Commission approves the expansion of hours. Commissioner Adams questioned that if customers arrive five minutes before midnight, would they be served a meal and thereby leave the restaurant one or one and one-half hours later, or would they be turned away. Mr. Patricola answered normally the customers would be served a quick drink rather than a meal. Mrs. Heidi Patricola addressed the Planning Commission and depicted the Corona del Mar area as being a quiet and sleepy area with few dining establishments serving food as late as mentioned above. She described Rothchild's clientele as not being the type to come in for a "quick bite," but perhaps for an after -show coffee and dessert. She continued the restaurant is attempting to attract the customer who might arrive at 5 minutes to -9- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 10:06 or 11:00 p.m., so they could be served and their dining would be completed by midnight. In reply to a question by Commissioner Adams whether or not a compromise of a 11:00 p.m. closing would be acceptable, Mrs. Patricola stated her belief they had already compromised as the majority of nearby restaurants had a 2:00 a.m, closing. Discussion followed between Mr. and Mrs. Patricola and the Commission whereby Mrs. Patricola stated The Quiet Woman had a 2:00 a.m. closing, and Mr. Patricola stated they would be violating their liquor license if they were to service alcoholic drinks past closing time. Mr. Patricola stated that a, reason for requesting the expansion of hours was to generate as much revenue as possible, although it is not expected that sales would increase right away. Mrs. Patricola stated that as they would be in violation of their license if they served liquor past their present closing time of 10:00 p.m., they often must force the patrons out. She opined that the midnight closing would allow a more relaxed atmosphere for the patron and hence a more final, quieter and less neighbor -disturbing departure. Mr. Patricola said the extension of hours would allow a more gradual restaurant closing, and there would be less staff on the premises after 10:00 p.m. He stated he was aware that all employees were to park on site, that there were 23 on -site spaces available. He added not all employees drove their own car, some took public transportation and some carpooled. An average of 6 to 8 employees would be working at one time. There being no one to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy commented he was familiar with problems that have occurred in Corona del Mar over time due to restaurants being located in close proximity to residential uses. He opined that management could exercise control over their employees, but had little control over its patrons. Still, he believed the applicant's statement that the later closing hour could benefit the nearby residents as management would have the opportunity to close down in a more gradual manner, could work. Commissioner Pomeroy repeated his earlier remark that if a problem arises or continues to exist, he should be contacted personally, and he would request that the permit be brought back to the Commission for review. -10- Mo t: Aye: Now COMMISSIONERS i�T�ct CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX ion * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit "A." Commissioner Kranzley stated his support of the motion and commented that as a resident of West Newport, he considered himself somewhat of an expert on noise. He added that if anyone were to witness public intoxication, or a violation of a use permit of this restaurant or any restaurant in his community, it is that person's obligation to take measures towards correction of the offense. Commissioner Adams stated he would not be supporting the motion as he had not heard any compelling reason for the expansion of hours, in fact he had heard testimony that other restaurants did have a midnight closing hour, but didn't stay open until then. He believed a compromise closing hour of 10:30 p.m. would be appropriate to see if there were less neighborhood disturbances Commissioner Gifford stated her support of the motion adding she felt it gave the applicant opportunity to maximize the restaurant operation and perceived need of the customers. It also affords the restaurant opportunity to be responsive to the concerns expressed by its residential neighbors. She would, therefore, also be prepared to support a review of the use permit, should it become necessary. * * * * * Motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. * Findin s: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. -11- COMMISSIONERS �O 9pA0 \`G'j CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES July 20, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental' impact. 4. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping, exterior illumination and underground utilities for the subject restaurant site will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,. morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That the development standards pertaining to perimeter walls, landscaping, exterior illumination and underground utilities shall be waived. 3. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 4. That the hours of operation shall be limited between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, daily. 5. That all applicable previous conditions of approval from Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) shall remain in effect. 6. 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 -12- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 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. 7. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. Use Permit No. 3561(Summerhouse) Agenda Item No. Request to permit the construction of an 84 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the PC District (previously approved as UP 3561 Emerald Village and commonly referred to as "Summerhouse"). The Approved proposal also includes: a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off-street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full-time valet parking service. LOCATION: 3901 East Coast Highway ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: James C. Thomas, Jr., MD. Las Vegas, Nevada OWNER: Southern California IBEW-NECA Pension Plan, Glendale, California -13- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Ridgeway clarified that a letter from the Corona del Mar Residents Association requesting the subject application be continued for one month had been rescinded as requested. Christy Teague, Associate Planner explained that the supplemental attachment document received by the Planning Commissioners contained additional conditions incorporated by the City Council into the 1989 project application and which had been omitted from Exhibit "A" of the subject application. Kenneth Delino, Assistant City Manager, Planning and Building, commented on the letters that had been recently received, copies of which had been forwarded to the. Commission. He explained that the present application was an exact duplicate of the 1989 application. Mr. Delino called the Commission's attention to the graphics on display, which were renderings of the previous 1989 application, and showed various perspectives of the proposed project. Commissioner Gifford referred a recently received letter from the Corona del Mar Residents Association, dated July 16, 1995, and received by the City July 20, 1995. She questioned if there was a defect in the City's notification procedure as the letter asserted that the Notice of Public Hearing was not received in a timely manner by many of the affected residents. Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson replied that the postmark verified that the Notification was mailed within the requirements of the Municipal Code. Chairman Ridgeway commented that he found in his review of the Policy Manual that it is within the authority of the Commission not to accept into the record documents that are received the date of the hearing and felt that this policy issue should be discussed at an upcoming meeting. Commissioner Selich questioned if the proposed project was indeed the exact project with 84 units as proposed in 1989. Jay Garcia, Senior Planner explained that the 1989 project was approved for 85 units, however the plans that were issued for building permits were for 84 units. Responding to a question from Commissioner Thomson whether or not story poles had been erected during the approval process of the previous application to show the actual lines of the proposed project, Mr. Delino stated the poles were usually not requested by the Commission unless a variance to exceed the height limit was being requested. The ,subject -14- COMMISSIONERS 0 01\8col k V. RM0011\111i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Tuly 20.1995 ROLL CALL INDEX proposal does not exceed the height limit except for providing for the stair and elevator tower within the cupola to be constructed to a height of 39.5t feet in the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District, which is included' in the Use Permit application. Commissioner Thomson questioned the point for measuring the ridge height, and Christy Teague, Associate Planner, explained it is measured from the grade directly below; and at any point above natural grade, the project cannot exceed the height limit. Responding to queries from Commissioner Gifford and Chairman. Ridgeway, Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager addressed the Planning Commission and summarized the environmental studies prepared for each previous project application. Because of the extent of the original initial study, staff continued to rely on that information to support the certification for a Negative Declaration for subsequent projects. She continued that this was appropriate action because the original project was much larger than the subsequent ones approved for the site, and the circumstances surrounding the project did not change significantly. The primary impacts associated with the project are grading, off -site transport of soils, and noise impacts to units. There was no significant impact to traffic in the original study or any of those items which might encounter a change over time in terns of the base line or the circumstance in which the project was approved. The CEQA guidelines allow subsequent projects to rely on previously certified documents so long as the information is still pertinent and complete, and that there are no additional impacts beyond those originally anticipated and no additional mitigation measures required as part of the new approval. Under these prerequisites, she stated there was no time limit associated with the validity of a previously certified environmental document. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Mr. David Neish, 19100 Von Karman, Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92675, representing the applicant, Dr. James Thomas, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Neish stated that after the 1989 application received approval by both the Planning Commission and City Council, it later received approval by the Coastal Commission and a Coastal Development Permit was issued for the plan. Construction began, but was halted due to financial reasons. He -15- COMMISSIONERS �Nlloi , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Tuly 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX said the present applicant has developed other medical and care facilities in the Southern California region. The applicant has reviewed the past history and public hearing records and accepts all the past agreements, resolutions, findings and conditions applied to the applications approved by the City in 1989. Mr. Neish stipulated concurrence with the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A" as well as the revised conditions contained in the addendum report. There are no modifications or adjustments to the plan intended He stated there was a complete set of working drawings at the City that were approved, upon which building permits were issued. Mr.. Neish compared the size of the proposed project with the previous site applications and reiterated that the applicant is requesting nothing more than what was approved by the City in 1989. Responding to questions from Commissioner Kranzley and Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Delino stated that of three classifications of senior care -type facilities, staff knew of no other exact -type facility in the City. In replying to queries from Commissioner Thomson as to the appropriateness of the proposed plan for today's Senior Citizen's needs, Mr. Neish stated that the habits and needs of the Senior Citizen anticipated to occupy this project today are the same as those anticipated for the 1989 project. As a member of the Planning Commission which approved the 1989 project, Commissioner Pomeroy commented on the extensive interaction between the applicant, residents and the applicant at that time which improved and down -sized the project. Mr. Sy Teller, 465 Fourth Avenue, Laguna Beach, addressed the Planning Commission, and stated that he had been the project architect from its inception in 1987. At the Commission's request, Mr. Teller approached the display area and described the make-up of the project, layer by layer. Included among the more salient features described by Mr. Teller were the view corridor allowing a view into Buck Gully from Pacific Coast Highway and the area of the garden park, concepts which responded to some of the original concerns regarding the overall building size. Mr. Teller explained that the entry or vehicle drive court drops down 7 to 9 feet below street grade at East Coast Highway. The architectural style of bleached -out shingles, garden trellises, white picket fencing reflects a style commonly -16- COMMISSIONERS AO � \0 <29, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX seen in the surrounding residential areas. Mr. Teller said that a great deal' of attention was given to providing outside resident independence in the form of view lawn terraces, gardens, and a look -out site. He stated the cupola houses the elevator and adds focus to the project. Mr. Phil Sansone, 215 Marguerite Ave., Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission as Chairman of the Corona del Mar Residents Association, and stated he wished to withdraw the aforementioned letter regarding late notification which requested continuance of the public, hearing. He explained some of the reasons which prompted the letter, and summarized the modifications the Association wanted incorporated into the conditions of approval as follows: Condition No. 33: That drainage of the property be engineered away from Buck Gully. Condition No. 38: Under no conditions shall Marguerite Avenue north of PCH be used for construction vehicles over 3 tons. Condition No. 41: That no unit be partitioned. Condition No. 59: That the landscape sprinkler system on the Buck Gully side be such that it can be operated independently, sufficient to reach the base of the proposed project's property line, and that it be marked for easy recognition and operation by Fire Department and the facility management personnel. Mr. Sansone addressed Condition No. 47 and suggested the City initiate a study to move the Morning Canyon traffic signal to the intersection of Seaward Road and East Coast Highway. Regarding Condition No. 58, Mr. Sansone requested that language be added to ensure the establishment of a view park. Mr. Kenneth Catanzarite, 1 Canyon Court, addressed the Planning Commission, and stated as owner of the property at 352 Hazel Drive, he did not receive a Notice of Public Hearing and asked for a continuance. At the request of Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Catanzarite pointed out his property as it appeared on a displayed aerial photograph. Mr. Catanzarite questioned the accuracy of the displayed renderings, and stated that the project property was not properly noticed, and that there was confusion between the proposed project's plans and those of the previous project, and he requested a thirty day continuance of the public hearing. For the record, Mr. Catanzarite said that the motivation for not making any changes to the 1989 project plans, was that the applicant had no -17- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS A 2rJp� c4y`�9oh�"�0,9. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20,1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX was needed before ascertaining if the proposed project was the best use of the property to which Commissioner Pomeroy commented that it was not within the Planning Commission's purview to decide whether or not a project is economically feasible, but rather a consideration of the City Council. Ms. Helen Rae Sues, 408 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and said that because of the legalities involved, she must make the following statement in order to have it entered into the record. She, continued that there was a gentlemen in the Orange County Health Department who would like to dialog with the Planning Commission in regard to this development. She indicated the gentleman she was referencing was Dr. James Webb of the Orange County Health Department Vector Control, and suggested that a conversation with Dr. Webb regarding an environmental, concern pertaining to Buck Gully would render the environmental report obsolete. Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, appeared the Planning Commission as President of the Corona del Mar Community Association. Mr. Nichols voiced his concerns regarding the changes that have occurred since the Negative Declaration's certification. He suggested that the development of the Downcoast area and surrounding roads, including the toll road, have resulted in increased traffic in and through Corona del Mar. He cited the potential unknown impacts the Bonita Canyon toll road may cause, and addressed earlier traffic mitigation measures such as the third lane at Marguerite Avenue that have been removed. Mr. Nichols stated that the removal of crosswalks by the State Highway Department results in increased traffic speeds and makes crossing Coast Highway more difficult. He questioned the viability of the proposed project and that if the project failed economically, it could be converted into a hotel or other use that would be difficult for the City Council to reject. Ms. Patty McDonald, 320 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, and stated as realtor, she had sold approximately twenty homes on Hazel Drive and Poppy Avenue and addressed Condition No. 60 relating to construction parking and queried what route was proposed for -19- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20,1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX construction trucks and how long a construction period was anticipated. Responding to Ms. McDonald's comment, Chairman Ridgeway suggested she request that there be no construction traffic permitted on Hazel Drive during the construction period. . Mr. Walter Ziglar, 327 Poppy Avenue, addressed the Planning Commission and voiced his concern regarding density that such a proposed project would impose. He stated that though a congregate care facility, might be needed in Newport Beach, its location at one-way Hazel Drive , and Coast Highway was not appropriate and did not allow for safe and adequate ingress and egress He questioned where the residents and employees would park stating there was no parking available on Poppy Avenue and though Condition No. 45 states that residents shall not own cars that are parked or stored on the facility property, he contended that residents would own cars and would be parking them somewhere. Mr. David Neish reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he would address some of the aforementioned comments and concerns. He stated that the project will be built according to City Code; parking will be confined to the subject property. He said the project would not be contemplated if the applicant did not feel it was economically viable. Mr. Neish said the proposed project would generate 50% less traffic than was previously generated, and the project will have absolutely no impact on the toll road. Mr. Neish stated the applicant would agree to a condition that there be no construction traffic on Hazel Drive. Referring to the length of the construction period, Mr. Neish advised that though the architect indicated 11 months, allowing for the unexpected he would anticipate 18 months maximum. Mr. Neish agreed to Mr. Sansone's suggested modifications to the Conditions of Approval, as follows: Condition No. 59 to add language to satisfy the concerns regarding an independent sprinkler system on Buck Gully; Condition No. 58: Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy the developer shall improve the public right-of-way adjacent to the view lookout subject to the approval of the Community Services Department. Condition No. 41: Eliminating "beds" and adding that occupancy would be limited to 100 occupants. Condition No. 47: to add to the existing Condition a requirement to have the City -20- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tuly 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Traffic Engineer study the feasibility of changing the traffic signal from Morning Canyon to Seaward. Responding to a query from Chairman Ridgeway regarding facility parking, Mr. Neish explained that 46 parking spaces are, proposed, 18 are designated for employee parking, which is the maximum number of employees that will ever be on the site at one time. This number of spaces is assuming that each employee drives his own car, while- in reality, Mr. Neish stated, some of the employees will be using public transportation or , car-pooling. There are two spaces reserved for the facility's two transport vans, and 26 spaces remaining for residents and guests. Mr. Neish continued that typically congregate care facilities allow 0.6 to .75 spaces per residential unit. In an older age group, 75 to 90 years, a ratio of 0.2 to 0.3 spaces per residential unit is customary within the industry. This project is proposing .52 spaces per unit. Mr. Neish referred to the landscaped garden area located on the top level of the parking structure. He explained that during the approval process of the 1989 project, parking was a major concern, and at that time, the City Council stipulated in the conditions that the parking structure be reinforced so if, sometime in the future it became necessary„ the area could be converted into parking. Conversion would provide for an additional 11-15 parking spaces. This same condition will be included in the present project. Also, included in the previous approval and in the current project's conditions of approval (Condition No. 57), is a stipulation, after the project is fully occupied, the applicant will monitor the parking demand and provide the resulting data to the City Traffic Division. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Chairman Ridgeway reopened the Public Hearing. Ms. Patty McDonald reappeared before the Planning Commission and addressed the adverse visual impact upon the residential area that would be looking onto what she perceived to be the parking garage at the base of Buck Gully as well as the top level garden area if it were converted to parking. She expressed her -21- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Moti 'fiJo c�.99G�'"p9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX concerns whether or not these two areas would be sufficiently camouflaged with mature landscaping. Replying, Mr. Neish explained the lower level referred to is actually living quarters, and submittal of a landscaping plan is included in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Kenneth Catanzarite reappeared before the Planning Commission to express his concern regarding the type of ventilation system proposed for subterranean parking and its noise level rating, and also requested being shown a 43 foot setback, referred to earlier, adjacent to his property. Mr. Neish reappeared before the Planning Commission. He explained that the ventilation system would be installed up through the roof, and stated if he had previously referred to a 43 foot setback from the facility to the adjacent property, he was mistaken. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy stated he had been involved in the public hearings 'for the previous two applications for the subject property and acknowledged the various changes and modifications leading to the current application. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3561 subject to :)n the Findings and Conditions of Approval, as modified, contained in Exhibit "A" of the staff report, and in the revised Exhibit "A' of the addendum, and incorporating the changes that were discussed during this Public Hearing and agreed to by the applicant. Commissioner Thomson addressed Condition No. 35, mechanical equipment sound attenuation, and Assistant City Manager Delino replied that the maximum sound level referred to of 55 dBa was within the City's sound level standards being recommended to the City Council. Commissioner Adams addressed Condition No. 33. Discussion followed with Chairman Ridgeway, Commissioner Adams and Mr. David Neisb, whereby Condition No. 33 is to be modified adding language "That to the marimtmz extent possible the velocity of concentrated runoff from the A11 COMMISSIONERS �F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20,1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX project shall be away from Buck Gully and shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design." Ayes Motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the project will comply with all applicable City and State, Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located, except the height of the proposed stair/elevator tower. 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. That adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 4. That the building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. 5. That the building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 6. That the building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces inasmuch as the project has provided increased setbacks from public streets and adjoining residential property. 7. That the structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit for the building height. -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �p 90 0 � '1 c��9 oA4C,K� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20,1995 ROLL CALL ' 711 INDEX 8. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property with the proposed development. 9. That the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with valet parking service 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 or. improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modifications are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 10. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 11. That Section 13.05.010 of the Municipal Code requires that public improvements be completed in commercial areas prior to the issuance of Building Permits for a new structure. 12. That the sidewalk along East Coast Highway is the only pedestrian access between the Shore Cliff Development and the business district of Corona del Mar on the southerly side of East Coast Hiighway. 13. That it has been demonstrated that the traffic to be generated by the proposed project will not exceed that which would be generated if the base traffic generation rate were applied to a project developed at the base floor area ratio. 14. That the projections of traffic to be generated by the project have been based on standard traffic generation rates generally applied to an elderly personal care facility. -24- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �r\\2l'opdj 9`�h c<` R CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tuly 20.1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 15. That the proposed project is a single use development that will be restricted to an 84 unit (100 bed) elderly personal care facility upon which the traffic equivalency was based. 16. The proposed use and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend itself to conversion to a higher traffic generating use. 17. That the proposed structure and use are compatible with the . surrounding area. 18. That the increased floor area ratio will not result in significant impairment of public views. 19. That the site is physically suitable for the floor area proposed, considering that a 0.5 F.A.R office or retail use with 0.25 above grade structure parking could be constructed on the site which would contain approximately the same building floor area and building bulk as the proposed project. 20. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3561will 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 or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site -25- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tulv 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any modifications or extension to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be , provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to fiuther review by the Traffic Engineer and shall be modified in the following manner: a. Parking shall not be permitted within the circular motor court so as to provide required emergency vehicle access to the project. b. That the driveway design shall conform to Sight Distance Standard Plan 110-L. c. That the proposed drives and ramps shall not exceed a 15 percent slope with change of grade not to exceed 11 percent. 6. That an access ramp be constructed per City Standard No. 181-L at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive; that unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages; and that all deteriorated portions of curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages. -26- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES OW01,61)P\Vm`�221tti, If CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That all work within the East Coast Highway right-of-way be completed under an Encroachment Permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 8. That the intersection of the East Coast Highway and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 mile per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping with the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 9. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the City's Utilities Department and the Orange County Sanitation District. 10. That the County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 11. That a minimum of 46 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the proposed development. 12. That the construction shall meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Administrative Codes - Titles 19 and 24. 13. That Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 14. That the entire building shall be sprinklered. 15. That the building shall be equipped with smoke detectors and a fire alarm system. -27- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \� 1MIKOW CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 16. That all exit stairways must lead to an exit path that is continuous to a public way. 17. That access to the building for Fire Department use shall occur at each exit point and the main lobby. 18. That a Class I standpipe shall be required at locations designated by the Fire Department. 19. That consideration of the use of ramps and exiting may have to be given in building design if non -ambulatory residents occupy the building. 20. That the planter shown on the site comer at East Coast Highway and Buck Gully shall not exceed 24 inches in height. 21. That valet parking service be provided at all times unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. 22. That all employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 23. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Hazel Drive, East Coast Highway and adjoining properties. 24. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Section 20.06.050 A3 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. This shall not preclude the applicant from requesting a modification for the size, number and location of proposed project signs in accordance with Section 20.06.100 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 25. That any proposed landscaping adjacent to the public right-of-way shall be approved by the Public Works Department. -28- COMMISSIIO\N\ERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20,1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 26. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 27. That the landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Community Services Department, and the approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 28. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such .a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 29. That the development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 30. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 31. That the grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimise impact of haul operations. 32. That an erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. -29- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1995 ROLL I I I I I I I I CALL I INDEX 33. That to the maximum extent possible the velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be away from Buck Gully and shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 34. That grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 35. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBa at the property line. 36. That units shall be sound attenuated to a maximum of 45 cBA CNEL for the interior living areas and 65 dBA CNEL for exterior living areas associated with individual units, as measured from the area expected to experience the highest sound levels. Measurement and certification of compliance with this condition shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by a registered engineer practicing in acoustics. 37. ' That the excavation area shall be fenced to prevent safety hazards during the grading and building phases. 38. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works -30- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tvlv 90.1.995 ROLL CALL INDEX Department. There will be no use of construction vehicles over 3 tons on Marguerite Avenue, north of Pacific Coast Highway. 39. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped space. 40. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 41. That the facility shall be limited to a maximum of 85 units and 100 occupants. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department a copy of the report that is submitted to the State of California indicating the number of individuals residing on the premises, and the number of available beds. 42. That it is the intention of this use permit to constitute the official zoning of the subject property in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code, the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and said use permit shall run with the life of the property or until such time as the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan are amended. 43. That the occupancy of the facility shall be limited to persons 62 years of age or older. (A younger spouse of a qualified resident may occupy the facility.) State law may further restrict occupancy to persons 62 years of age or older. 44. That any ancillary commercial uses in the structure shall be for the use of residents and their guests and shall not be available to members of the general public. -31- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tuly 20.1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 45. That the residents of the project shall not be permitted to own cars that are parked or stored on the subject property. 46. That the garden area above the subterranean parking lot shall be constructed of building materials that will permit said garden area to be converted to additional parking spaces, if needed, in the future. 47. That the developer shall pay his fair share of the traffic signal at the. intersection of Seaward Road and East Coast highway should Caltrans technical warrants for a signal be met within five years of the occupancy approval for the project. A bond shall be posted to secure this obligation. That the City Traffic Engineer will conduct a study regarding the feasibility of moving the traffic signal from Morning Canyon and East Coast ITighway to Seaward Road and East Coast Highway. 48. That the Edison transformer serving the site be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L. 49. That during the construction period, all construction parking shall be on site, or on an approved off -site location. 50. That the project be designed to meet the standards of the current fire codes. 51. • The Planning Commission may add 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. 52. 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. -32- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES O9p O �C,i�9A, ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r..i_. nn -Innr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r..i_. nn -Innr COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tuly 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX the slope of Buck Gully shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department, and that the system be installed as approved by the Building and Fire Departments. 60. That during the construction period, all construction parking shall be onsite, or on an approved off -site location. There shall be no construction traffic on Hazel Drive. 61. That the applicant shall be responsible for grading the top. portion of Buck Gully adjacent to the site, including the installation of sidewalk and landscaping, subject to the approval of the Community Services Department. Use Permit No. 3562 (Public Hearing) Agenda Item No.6 Request to establish an outdoor sales facility involving the sale of home furnishings and decorator items on property located in the RSC-H District. UP 3562 Continued LOCATION: 100-200 West Coast Highway. Lots 1-3 and a portion of to 8-10-95 Lot 4, Tract No. 210, located at 100-200 West Coast Highway, on the northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive, across from Bayshores. ZONE: RSC-H APPLICANT: Wendy Wong OWNER: Horwin/Gordon Property, Newport Beach Ken Delino, Assistant City Manager, Planning and Building, addressed a site plan of the project on exhibit, describing the building locations and features of the project site. Referring to the project staff report, page 3, he indicated a correction regarding the number of on -site parking spaces should be noted: the number should be 14 spaces which includes two -34- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tu1v 20,1995 ROLL CALL INDEX spaces for the handicapped. Chairman Ridgeway inquired as to the approved location of the flower cart presently occupying an area on the comer of the property. Discussion ensued among Chairman Ridgeway and staff. Jay Garcia, Senior Planner, stated the location of the cart under the provisions of the use permit was as shown on the exhibit. He explained that staff had met with the owner of the flower cart and staff had agreed to allow the cart to remain in the corner location until such time as the present application was determined, at which time the cart will either be moved to the pemritted location or the cart owner will make application to amend the . use permit, if she can renegotiate her lease with the property owner. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Stephen Sutherland, 2101 15th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, representing the applicant and also the Mariners Mile Association. Replying to an inquiry from Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Sutherland explained that the applicant, Wendy Wong was currently out of the country. Ms. Wong operates a 3000 square foot business, The Silk Road, in Atrium Court in Fashion Island, which she intends to move to the subject property. He summarized the past history of the property since 1982, when it was first developed for the display of rental automobiles, followed by a used car facility and a boat sales operation. The site, vacant since 1987, borders the second busiest intersection in the City for traffic count. Mr. Sutherland described the business operation as being the outdoor display and sales of home decorator items including fountains, columns, and cast iron patio -type items. Responding to a question from Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Sutherland answered that the project had been reviewed by the Mariners Mile Association and it was his opinion that if this type of business was being considered for a comparable site in Mariners Mile, it would be appropriate. Chairman Ridgeway voiced his concerns with the proposed 6 foot wrought iron fence and unpleasant esthetics created by the outdoor display of the proposed items. Discussion ensued among the Commissioners. Commissioner Adams opined that the proposed use might look favorable or unfavorable -35- COMMISSIONERS O 9pA0 CFiy9���X�0,9. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX depending on how it is accomplished, and while he did not feel the use proposed to be the best use of the property, it would be better than looking at weeds coming up through the pavement. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the application be conditioned whereby the site be maintained so that it is architecturally and esthetically pleasing allowing the Commission to review the use permit should the property deteriorate. Chairman Ridgeway proposed reversing the display area with the parking area; Commissioner Pomeroy voiced his disagreement with this reversal proposal. Commissioner Thomson suggested restricting the height limit of . the displayed items. Mr. Ted Bean, Real Estate Enterprises, representing the property owner, Mr. Leonard Horwin, appeared before the Planning Commission. He informed the Commission that considerable time had been spent with the applicant and representatives of the product line before agreeing to a one year lease. Commissioner Adams stated he would like the proprietor to be present at the public hearing so as to allow the opportunity to speak with and ask pertinent questions of the applicant. He felt that the Commission could develop conditions that would ensure that the merchandise were displayed in an orderly fashion. It would be his recommendation to request of the applicant a sketch of the manner in which the merchandise is to be displayed and how the fence would appear. Commissioner Adams stated he did not find the proposed project to be any less desirable, in appearance, than some of the marine oriented businesses in the area, but did ask that the application be continued until such time as the applicant could be present. Mr. Sutherland reappeared before the Commission and assured the Commission that the applicant was an experienced business person and the merchandise would be displayed in a tasteful manner. He requested that the public hearing not be continued until the next meeting as he was unsure if either the applicant or himselfwould be available at that time. Commissioner Gifford expressed her desire to work with the applicant to satisfy the needs of both exposure and security of the merchandise to be -36- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r„ i.,,)n 1a4r1 ROLL CALL INDEX displayed. Discussion with staff followed whereby it was determined the zoning code permitted retail use on the site, however the outdoor display use required a use permit. Commissioner Gifford stated the possibility of interspersing landscaping with the merchandise to arrive at a more pleasing product. She said she would support a continuance of the public hearing until such time as the applicant or representative of the applicant could be present to discuss the concerns of the Commission. Commissioner Kranzley stated he would not be supporting the application and voiced his concern as a bicycle commuter with the dangers of having a traffic distraction on such a heavily trafficked intersection as Dover Drive and Coast highway. He described the bicycle trail as being zero at one point at the intersection, that the vehicle lanes narrow from three to two, and that passer-bys might more easily focus, and thereby be distracted, by the relatively small items on display compared to some other use. Commissioner Pomeroy commented he believed that Condition No. 6 adequately addressed some of the concerns being discussed. In answer to a question from Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Sutherland stated there had been no discussion between himself and the applicant regarding reducing the outdoor sales area from 5,000 square feet to an area substantially less. Whereby, Chairman Ridgeway said he was concerned with the impact of the fencing and size of the display area, and he would support continuing the application until the applicant or the applicant's representative could'be present to discuss the issues of concern. Chairman Gifford requested that the applicant provide a design of the proposed outdoor sales area, the fencing proposed, signage, and whether or not there could be some greenery interspersed in the layout. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested the applicant consider downsizing the outdoor display area and moving it away from the fenced in area, creating a buffer. -37- Motio Ayes Noes Motiol All A, COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20 1995 MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. n Motion was made and voted to continue Use Permit No. 3562 to the * * * * * August 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. * Modification No. 4324 Agenda Item No. Request for 3 foot balcony encroachment scaled back to 2 feet by Modifications Committee. M. 4324 LOCATION: 221 Via Firenza. Portions of Lots 960 and 961, Tract No. Set for Review 907. 8-10-95 Assistant City Manager, Ken Delino, stated Commissioner Gifford had requested this item be reviewed by the Planning Commission. * Motion was made and voted on to call this item up for review at the 1 res August 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Additional Business Addition, Business a) City Council Follow-up: Ken Delino, Assistant City Manger, informed the Planning Commission that the City Council would be reviewing Planning Department Priorities and Reorganization at the City Council meeting of July 24, 1995. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the Planning staff prepare a regular follow-up summary of Council actions on items that have been recommended by the Planning Commission. b) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to' the Economic Development Committee- None -38- al 1 s. COMMISSIONERS A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tlilv 20 1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX c) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee - None d) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting:- Commissioner Gifford asked staff for a follow up on the status of the vacant parcel adjacent to the McDonalds' project parking lot and the conditions regarding the directional signs. e) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a fixture agenda for action and staff report -None f) Requests for excused absences: Commissioner Pomeroy was excused from the August 10, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. g) Discussion of staff report format: Ken Delino, Assistant City Manager, asked for the Planning Commission's continued input in the reformatting of the staff reports as they are intended to be a working and useful document for the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: 11:50 P.M. MICHAEL KRANZLEY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -39- Adi ourn. �EWPogr CrIY OF NIEWPOI[LT BEACH Hearing Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 33wNEWPORTBOULEVARD Staff Person: q� .* NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9260 (7x4) 644-32�; FAX (ra) 641-s250 Appeal Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Rothschild's Restaurant (Helmet Reiss - Applicant) 2407 West Coast Highway July 20, 1995 4 Dana Aslami (714) 644-3212 14 days SUM114ARY: Request to change the operational characteristics of an existing restaurant to: Change the permitted hours of operation from between the'hours of 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight. REQUIRED APPROVALS: If desired, approve, modify or deny: 1. • Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) (Public Hearing), procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. the increase in hours of operation be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. This issue is discussed in the Analysis Section of this report. ANALYSIS SUMMARY Hours of Operation The subject restaurant currently operates for lunch and dinner service with the hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily The applicant is requesting to extend the evening hours until 12:00 midnight, in response to a perceived customer demand. Staff has no objection to the proposed hours of operation since staff has received no complaint regarding noise from the existing restaurant facility. Should noise become a problem in the future, the Planning Commission has the right to request additional review of this use permit as provided in the attached Condition No. 6, Exhibit "A." USE PERMIT NO. 1851(AMENDED) JULY 20, 1995 The subject property is presently developed with an existing building which is occupied by the subject delicatessen -restaurant facility. To the north, across East Coast Highway, is vacant property; to the east are commercial uses; to the south, across a 14 foot wide alley, is a duplex; and to the west, across Begonia Avenue, are office uses. VICINITY MAP USE PERMIT NO. 1851 (AMENDED) USE PEWrr NO. 1851 (Amended) July 20,1995 Page 2 The major characteristics of the proposed project are listed in the following table. Proiect Characteristics Table Proposed Operation Existing Operation Gross Bldg Area (sqA) 3,051 3,051 Second Floor Office 1,026 1,026 Kitchen and Storage Areas 1,104 1,104 Net Public Area (Total): 671 671 Retail Area (sq.ft.) 250 250 31051 3,051 TOTAL (sq.ft.) Required Parking (range): 14 to 23 14 (1150 sq.ft.) to 23 (1/30 sq.ft.) Parking Provided: on -site 20 20 off -site ZERO ZERO 20 20 TOTAL _ _ lfl: j l�- �, @W . Live Entertainment NO NO Dancing NO NO Specific Findings and Recommendations Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use, permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended), the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Staff cannot reasonably conceive of findings for denial inasmuch the proposed restaurant use, in this particular case, conforms to the requirements of the Title 20 of the Municipal Code and does not appear to have any detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood. However, should information be presented at the public hearing which would warrant the denial of this application, the Planning Commission may wish to take such action. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Dana 0. Aslami Associate Planner USE PERMIT NO. 1851 (Ammded) July 20, 1995 Page Attachments: Exhibit "A" Appendix Excerpt ofPlanning Commission Mnutes, dated April 21,1983 Letter from the Applicant Existing Plot Plan, and Floor Plans USE PERMIT Na 1851(Amm&d) July20,1995 Page4 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PERMIT NO. 1851 (Amended) Findines: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. 3. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping, exterior illumination and underground utilities for the subject restaurant site will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That the development standards pertaining to perimeter walls, landscaping, exterior illumination and underground utilities shall be waived. 3. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 4, That the hours of operation shall be limited between 10:00 a.m, and 12:00 midnight, daily. 5. That all applicable previous conditions of approval from Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) shall' remain in effect. 6. 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. 7. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 -months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. USE PERMIT NO. 1851 (Amended) July 20,1995 Page 5 LOCATION: Lot 1, Block'B", Tract No. 470, located on the southwesterly corner of East Coast Highway and Begonia Avenue. ZONE: RSC APPLICANT: Rothschild's Restaurant, Corona del Mar OWNER: Helmut Reiss, Laguna Beach • Environmental Compliance (California Enviromnental Quality Act): Determined that it is categorically exempt under Class I (Existing Facilities). • Conformance with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: The Land' Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the subject site for "Retail and Service Commercial" uses. A restaurant is a permitted use within this designation, subject to the securing of a use permit in each case. Background At its meeting of January 5, 1978, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 1851, which was a request to establish a delicatessen -restaurant with the service of beer and wine on the subject property. At its meeting of April 21,1983, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to Use Permit No. 1851, which was a request to allow the expansion of the "net public area" and the food preparation area, as well as the construction of a new storage area and related second floor office space for the subject restaurant facility. The proposal included a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces with valet service for a portion of the required off-street parking. The proposal also included a modification to the Zoning Code -so as to allow a portion of the required off- street parking to encroach 4 feet, and a portion of a proposed landscape planter to encroach 10 feet, into the required 10 foot rear yard setback along the alley. An excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes, dated April 21, 1983, is attached for Commission review. Required Off -Street Parking Eighteen parking spaces are required for the existing restaurant facility, in conjunction with the previously approved Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended). At the time of the most recent use permit approval, the Municipal Code required one parking space for each 40 sq.ft. of "net public area" within the restaurant facility unless modified or waived by the Planning Commission. Based on the existing 671 sq. ft. of "net public area", 17 parking spaces are required for the subject restaurant (671f sq.ft. USEPOWTNO. 1851 (Amended) July 20,1995 Page 6 divided by 40 sq.ft. =16.77 or 17 spaces), as well as one parking space for the existing retail area (250 sq.ft. divided by 250 = 1 space), for a total of 18 required off-street parking spaces.. The parking, requirement could also vary from 14 spaces (one parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of "net public area") to 23 spaces (one parking space for each 30 sq.ft. of "net public area"), plus an additional space for the retail area. Staff would typically be of the opinion that this type of restaurant would generate the need for one parking space for each 40 sq.ft. of "net public area". Twenty parking spaces are currently utilized in conjunction with the previously approved valet operation on the subject site. There is no proposed change in the existing parking layout, and staff is of the opinion that the existing parking number is adequately serving the subject facility. Restaurant Development Standards Chapter 20.72 of the Municipal Code contains development standards for restaurants to ensure that any proposed development will be compatible with adjoining properties and streets. Said development standards include specific requirements for building setbacks, parking and traffic circulation, walls surrounding the restaurant site, landscaping, exterior illumination, signage, underground utilities, and storage. Section 20.72.130 of the Municipal Code states that any of the above mentioned development standards for restaurants may be modified or waived if such modification or waiver will achieve substantially the same results and will in no way be more detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements than will the strict compliance with the standards. Staff is of the opinion that the on -site development standards as they apply to walls, landscaping, exterior illumination and underground utilities should be waived if the Planning Commission approves this application, due to the existing physical characteristics of the site. USE PERMIT N0.1851(Ammded) July 20,1995 Pagel k. April 21, 1983 %, * MINUTES c of Newport Beach Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of a delicatessen -restaurant facility with on -sale beer and wine in the C-1 District so as to allow the expansion of the existing "net public area" and food preparation area, and the construction of a new storage area and related office space. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces with valet service for a portion of the required off-street parking. The proposal also includes a modification to the Municipal Code so as to allow a portion of the required off-street parking spaces to encroach 4 feet, and a portion of a proposed landscape planter to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block B, Tract No. 4700 a portion of Lot 10, Block 730, Corona del Mar Tract and a portion of an abandoned alley, located at 2407 East Coast Highway on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Begonia Avenue in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: Helmut Reiss, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Jack Weston, the architect for the project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Weston stated that the applicant has proposed measures which will mitigate the concerns expressed by the surrounding neighbors. He stated that the applicant had invited the neighbors to the restaurant to discuss the proposed project, but none of the neighbors were able to attend the meeting. Mr. Weston stated that the applicant is requesting the closing hour of 10:00 p.m. which is in conformance with other restaurants in the area. He explained the new parking lot design and stated that the new parking lot will be secured with a combination of brick walls and wrought iron gates and shall be locked during non -business hours. -31- item #6 USE PERMIT No. 1851 (Amended) APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY 11 April 21, 1983 %1 MINUTES A F C CO A ni y G Y j 0 - > =a. -. Z = N of Newport Beach Mr. Weston stated that the parking spaces adjacent to the public alley will be designated for employee parking. He further stated that trash dumping from the restaurant will occur during mid -day or afternoon hours and that commercial trash pick-up will not occur before 9:00 a.m. in the morning. He stated that even with the proposed expansion, the restaurant will remain one of the smallest restaurants in the area which will be providing the most parking area, considering the limited seating capacity of the restaurant. Planning Director Hewicker suggested that the five employee parking spaces be located within the gated area. Mr. Weston stated that this would be a feasible idea. Chairman King stated that locating the employee parking,within the gated area guarantees the parking spaces, whereas there are no controls in locating the employee parking adjacent to the alley. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Weston stated that the restaurant currently staffs six employees. He stated that the proposed expansion will not increase the number of employees. Mrs. Lyla Crespin, resident of 707 Begonia Avenue, and representing residents of 705, 706 and 707� Begonia Avenue, appeared before the Commission. Mrs. Crespin stated that the residents of the area were never notified of the meeting which was arranged by the applicant. She distributed photographs which depicted the existing restaurant parking lot and the street parking. She stated that the employees of the restaurant currently park their vehicles on the street, not in the restaurant parking lot. Mrs. Crespin stated that the proposed expansion will negatively impact the surrounding area. She expressed their concerns relating to the increase of traffic in the alley, the use of the valet parking service, the extension of the closing time, and an increase in noise and vehicle exhaust pollution. Mr. Emil Crespin, resident of 707 Begonia Avenue, stated that the applicant should be required to operate the restaurant under the conditions of the existing use permit. He further stated that the area currently experiences parking problems. -32- MINUTES April 21, 1983 CALL of Newport Beach Commissioner Goff asked the applicant how notification of the neighborhood meeting was given. Mr. Itelmut Reiss, the applicant, submitted to the Commission the invitation for a complimentary luncheon at the restaurant, which was distributed to residents of the area. He stated that Mr. Richard Barron, resident of 709 Begonia Avenue, distributed 20 copies of the invitation to the residents of the area. He stated that none of the residents attended the meeting and that he received no telephone calls relating to the proposed expansion. Mr. Reiss stated that when he applied for the original use permit in 1977, the City discussed the removal of the existing storage building located in the parking lot. He also stated that the Health Department has requested that the storage building be removed. He stated that if the storage building is to be removed, the restaurant will need additional storage space which is being requested by this application. Mr. Reiss further stated that locating the employee parking spaces within the gated area would be acceptable. Planning Director Hewicker asked when the County Health Department requested that the existing storage building be removed. Mr. Reiss stated that the County Health Department has stated that the restaurant and storage areas should be located under one roof on the premises, not in detached buildings. He stated that when the Health Department inspectors have visited the site, they have expressed this concern. Commissioner Allen noted that Mr. Barron, the gentlemen who was to have distributed the invitations to the neighbors, was not in attendance of the meeting. She stated that the applicant should have followed up with the residents to find out why none of them attended the luncheon. Mr. Reiss stated that the invitations were distributed because one of the neighbors during the week had made a comment about the free luncheon offer. -33- I l April 21, 1983 MINUTES 1 w m - n a = 0 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Commissioner Goff suggested that in the event this application were to be approved, that an additional condition be imposed which would require that the Modifications Committee shall review the application in one (1) year to ensure conformance with the conditions of approval. Mr. Reiss stated that this would be agreeable and that he would be working with the residents of the area to resolve any problems which may occur. Commissioner Balalis stated that he was a member of the Planning Commission when the original use permit was approved. He stated that at that time, the Modifications Committee was to review the item in two years. He stated that the problems have apparently occurred since the Modification Committee review of the item. He suggested that this item should be consistently reviewed, in order to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Goff concurred. Chairman King noted that since this is an application for a use permit, if any violations 'should occur, the City could initiate revocation proceedings. He stated that it will be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all of the conditions of approval are met. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, concurred. Commissioner Balalis stated that he realizes that the applicant has not complied with the conditions of the original use permit. However, he stated that the proposed parking lot design will help to alleviate some of the parking problems in the area. Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended), subject to the Findings and Conditions of Exhibit "A", with the following revisions: Condition No. 5 to state that all restaurant employees shall park their vehicles on -site, with no exceptions; and an additional condition which will require that the use permit be reviewed by the Planning Commission in one (1) year. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Planning Director Hewicker reforred to Condition No. 12 and stated that all restaurant property six feet in from the existing alley would be secured by a wall or wrought iron gate. -34- April 21, 1983 MINU1 ES S r D All Ayes x m a City of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Chairman KSng, Planning Director HeMicker stated that the applicant will be required to provide one handicapped parking space. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the applicant would not have to pay a fee for the City review which would occur in one year. Commissioner Allen stated that she will be supporting the motion for approval, because the applicant will have to appear before the Planning Commission in one year, which will help to ensure strict compliance with the conditions of approval. Motion for approval as revised by Commissioner Halalis, was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed restaurant will not have any significant environmental impact, providing that parking demands are met. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. A. Adequate offstreet parking spaces are being provided for the proposed restaurant use. S. That the proposed compact car spaces are in excess of the required number of off-street parking spaces for the restaurant. 6. The proposed use of tandem spaces, and a valet parking service will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, 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 injurious to property and -35- INDEX y 41 I ' COMMISSIONERSI MINUTES April 21, 1983 1 CALL ix � c r o m c a o d D of Newport Beach 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. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 1851 (Amended) 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, and floor plans, except as noted below. 2. That valet parking service be provided at all times during the restaurant's hours of operation. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Begonia Avenue and East Coast Highway and from adjoining properties. 4. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 5. That all restaurant employees shall park their vehicles on -site, with no exceptions. Parking Spaces No. 18-22 (adjacent to the alley) shall be specifically reserved for employee parking. 6. That a minimum of one parking space for each 40 sq.ft. of "net public area" within the restaurant facility and one parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of retail floor area shall be provided on -site. 7. That Parking Spaces No. 23 and 24 shown on the submitted plans shall be deleted from the parking plan. MI-M W�I� COMMISSIONERS MINUTES April 2], 7983 `• r n x � r c . City Of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I I INDEX 8. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parka, Beaches and Recreation Department, and the approval of the Planning Department. 9. That any proposed landscaping adjacent to the public right-of-way be approved by the Public Works Department. 10. That the proposed landscaping located within the 10 foot rear yard setback shall not exceed a height of 24 inches. 11. That the restaurant facility shall remain closed after 10:00 p.m. and before 10:00 a.m. 12. That the parking lot, to within 6 feet of the existing alley, shall be • secured with a combination of walla and wrought iron gates during non -business hours. 13. That a parcel map be submitted for processing and recordation to combine the parcels into one building site. 14. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 15. That a 10 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of East Coast Highway and Begonia Avenue be dedicated to the public prior to the issuance of building permits and that an encroachment permit be obtained from the Public Works Department for the existing sign located within the corner cutoff area. 16. That approval of the original Use Permit No.1851 shall become null and void in conjunction with the approval of this application. 17. The dumping of trash from the restaurant facility into the proposed dumpster and commercial trash pick-up on the site shall only occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 18. That this approval shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in one (1) year to ensure conformance with the conditions of approval. k * • -37- ROTH SCHILD'S Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission, This is a letter about time - the time we have dedicated to serving the community of Corona Del Mar and its surrounding cities and the additional time, in the form of expanded restaurant hours, that we believe is necessary to continue our advances as a Corona Del Mar landmark. For eighteen years, Rothschild's has been a vital component of the Corona Del Mar landscape. Since our opening, we have grown from a casual gourmet spot to a refined and elegant dining establishment. This metamorphosis is clearly reflected in the exterior and interior enhancements that we have and continue to make to our restaurant. Thanks to our efforts, Rothschild's currently enjoys critical acclaim as one of the community's best sources for fine dining. Our efforts have not been made for our exclusive benefit. Not only have we provided the City with.a significant source of revenue, we have helped bring additional revenue to the City by serving as a draw for the community's other restaurants and businesses. Our upscale customer base, which includes community and civic leaders, heads of Fortune 500 businesses and notable entertainment figures, often spends additional discretionary income within the community during their visits. And, we support a variety of local charities and are members of the Corona Del Mar and Newport Beach chambers of commerce, as well as the Newport Beach visitor's bureau. As you know, the only way to nurture a successful business is to continually evaluate the changing needs of our customer base. Exterior enhancements and menu adjustments are only a portion of our considerations. Both current demand and future considerations point to a need to increase our hours of operation. Not only will this enable us to better serve our existing customer base, it will allow us to offer hours of service that are consistent with other Corona Del Mar and Newport Beach dining establishments. Such an expansion will allow us to generate more revenue for the City, a critical consideration made even more so after the County's bankruptcy. We value our place in the community as much as our customers value our services. We are proud to point out that we maintain an excellent relationship with our neighbors as well as the Newport Beach police and fire departments - with an unblemished record for complaints or calls. It is our hope that this request meets with your approval. 11 x S\in�cerel � s, - Jim and eidEIIING iPatricola,- Owners, Rothschild's Restaurant 2407 c5aat @nail 7iigluMuy @dr,ataa rDel ✓&r, @alipetua 92625 15 �C-1 C, N I A,Vc-:- t1 L-LS MI a s �� aMt�t tqt n.Anb O O MI0 MM K-11ild to 20�n.�R DrW 140 -Mlit pin*r Ey-. �1 • qgb�' • eel I I , 0 kX+h J IL r 0 1 ;i ! h A(�'srul 441 M R ;;•, ;. a ROTH S Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission, '+••',"�• �.:4.tr�!�aaS,t<:nnin�regulatfons igre ne• :: , c:natnirtion purpas%. iJo receivsd from JAM♦;S 0. Hf'W' ,j it ctor SY This is a letter about time - the time we have dedicated to serving the community of Corona Del Mar and its surrounding cities and the additional time, in the form of expanded restaurant hours, that we believe is necessary to continue our advances as a Corona Del Mar landmark. For eighteen years, Rothschild's has been a vital component of the Corona Del Mar landscape. Since our opening, we have grown from a casual gourmet spot to a refined -and elegant dining establishment. This metamorphosis is clearly reflected in the exterior and interior enhancements that we have and continue to make to our restaurant. Thanks to our efforts, Rothschild's currently enjoys critical acclaim as one of the community's best sources for fine dining. Our efforts have not been made for our exclusive benefit. Not only have we provided the City with a significant source of revenue, we have helped bring additional revenue to the City by serving as a draw for the community's other restaurants and businesses. Our upscale customer base, which includes community and civic leaders, heads of Fortune 500 businesses and notable entertainment figures, often spends additional discretionary income within the community during their visits. And, we support a variety of local charities and are members of the Corona Del Mar and Newport Beach chambers of commerce, as well as the Newport Beach visitor's bureau. As you know, the only way to nurture a successful business is to continually evaluate the changing needs of our customer base. Exterior enhancements and menu adjustments are only a portion of our considerations. Both current demand and future considerations point to a need to increase our hours -of operation. Not only will this enable us to better serve our existing customer base, it will allow us to offer hours of service that are consistent with other Corona Del Mar and Newport Beach dining establishments. Such an expansion will allow us to generate more revenue for the City, a critical consideration made even more so after the County's bankruptcy. We value our place in the community as much as our customers value our services. We are proud to point out that we maintain an excellent relationship with our neighbors as well as the Newport Beach police and fire departments - with an unblemished record for complaints or calls. It is our hope that this request meets with your approval. Sincerely, Jim and i atrico" la, Owners, Rothschild's Restaurant OiEETIHIG; AG- KENDA ITEM APPLICATIOV 2407 &a&t @aast 7GlVAWaV 60"na rOel ✓I"., @a14&"da 92625 1- Begonia Blvd. Rothschild's Restaurant Hwy. Pacific Ocean Begonia Ave. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .pPROVP L IN CGNCF?i No. this prof ct cnc,a:a•: to ril �d1 d polii ies 4d e"=c; r'6 :. > d: must VI-M are no.. 'le rv-I ouiidmo eernu"',^i = ' the Cali -rnia i •.. iLi w:uuis PLANNI G OEP?kf1I E�' JAMBES . NEWICkci;, DireFW; By East Coast Hwy. Parking en purposes. No is received from Date--. ° =- Service Alley E:Ir��Q ; PR, 4r V, W, `. .: rw�;i+'k, lir"j�>� t�;i .x�f hF�ltr•`fl(FCFiS's�4i ;15e1S.fi5�4{.Yt�,{�i�,�.�f�.� ICI I..... _ .'-- :, �y'ttyjri�li",�•.�`j«cte!�f1' +r;L.�rt^�`s 3';'.�:>z�: If i 1 • i i \ I -37- V 31"q r �o etl m m � u � 0 Lkry ii RG 4 I L'l o a.;;�_I__�_. 44 < .._ I I i :oleo _ 6 / r f We ON q .,I lou we sunrn asa'r I -lop G;;i uO Itilsio ui wt,!1W P", s;mllelnBoj ouluucid olgeolldde Ira 01 sm gluon lna(wd s!gr oPll•gG LUO Al lVRO dd- AL � H�V381klOdhlaN J0 A t� ns Of TAMS mm — — — anv uM f� K I'f L t ft MIN 0 LKfS'i'f,� 24�MR OrW EX�S_� I N 6, Ir 6 ilk- H , w 41r, 01 111 I >i. G cr�sll 0 1 N! h A (fv,ra) 441. M A. .,,:•, r a