Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/2006Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 42 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, McDaniel and Henn - Chairperson Cole was excused, all other Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: haron Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Singer Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary he Planning Commissioners took their new seating positions which are: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Henn. In the absence of Chairman Cole, Vice Chairman Eaton presided over the meeting. The Commission and staff welcomed the newest member, Scott Peotter. PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on August 11, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of August 3, 2006. ITEM NO.1 Commissioner Hawkins noted an addition to his comments in public comments and a correction Approved on page 3. Motion was made sioner Hawkins to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: , Hawkins, Toerge, Henn Noes: TEa bsent: bstain: niel and Peotter HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Implementation Plan of the General Plan ITEM NO.2 Review and recommend that the City Council approve the Implementation Program of the Recommended http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 2 of 42 lupdated General Plan. for Approval ng a brief discussion it was decided to hear the agenda as listed. s. Wood noted that this is a shorter version than was previously presented due to the redundancies and corrections, which are noted in the staff report. Chairman Eaton referred to his previously sent email and asked about the removal of Department of Housing and Community Development from the list of inter age eration. He noted that the answer was that it is required and doesn't need to be repea :ver, he feels it leaves a hole by leaving it out. ssioner Hawkins noted his agreement stating this section needs revision. In view of I news articles of the City's activities with adjacent cities, it is important to maintain tl ation. State agencies or commissions are not the only agencies that the City needs ate with, so he suggested identifying all agencies that were in the original draft. Commission agreed. mtinuing, Vice Chairman Eaton noted his question on the language on the sphere of influe at specifically mentions Banning Ranch as the only likely annexation currently within the spl influence. He noted that in view of other possible annexation discussions, that perhaps the ntence on page 13 -32 in the Overview section be stricken. )mmissioner Hawkins noted his concern of Banning Ranch and recommended that the !ntence read, "Unincorporated lands within Newport Beach's sphere of influence should be ,nsidered for annexation." This language would not identify any parcel or area specifically. He opposed to the location reference. ie Commission agreed. )mmissioner Hawkins then noted: • Page 13 -15 reference to Transportation Demand Ordinance in Imp 7.21 and Imp 7.3. It was decided to eliminate the sentence in Imp 7.3 as it is redundant. • Page 13 -16 Imp 8.1 b transfer of mooring titles it should be referred to as mooring permits. Staff agreed. • Page 13 -23 Section 16, remove section rather than allowing other than building permits to remain. . Wood suggested removing the section pertaining to permits as this is the same philosophy the reference to HCD on the Housing Element, its the law, this is what we do and we don't ;d to tell ourselves in the General Plan Implementation Program to do it. Commission agreed. ntinuing, Commissioner Hawkins noted: . Page 13 -39 Imp 19.1, recommends inserting Urban Water Management Plan, not Water Master Plans. Staff agreed. . Page 13 -45 Imp 24.1 strike Banning Ranch and replace with'new areas'. Staff agreed. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /nui08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 3 of 42 . Page 13 -59 recognize and list the committees and commissions for citizens participation in City government. is comment was opened. ip Bettencourt, asked for clarification of the process of development agreement on page 1 He noted the mandated use for housing on surface parking lots would be sweeping in t ort area. He was under the impression that the development agreement language applied additive units as well as Newport Center units rather than all housing opportunities within t ort area. Tescher noted that the reference in Imp 13.1 of infill is equal to additive. It can be clarified Commission determines. Hawkins suggested striking the term "surface parking ". Staff and closed. nissioner Peotter noted that since he had not participated in the original discussions on he would be abstaining from this item. was made by Commissioner Hawkins to recommend that the City Council approve i rotation Program of the updated General Plan with the proposed changes discussed in Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn None Cole Peotter SUBJECT: Our Lady Queen of Angels Church Expansion (PA2005 ITEM NO. 3 092) 2046 and 2100 Mar Vista Drive PA2005 -092 Our Lady Queen of Angels Church proposes to expand their existing church and school facilities by relocating its church to the adjacent property located at 2100 Mar Vista Drive and expanding Continued to its school within the existing boundaries at 2046 Mar Vista Drive. The expansion includes the 09/07/2006 construction of a 1,170 -seat sanctuary, additional classrooms, and a 9,450 square fool gymnasium. The proposed project, requires approval of a Use Permit to allow the expansion oll he existing church and school facility; to allow the church building to exceed the permitted building; to allow the transfer of development intensity between the two properties; and to allow a total of ten portable classrooms on a temporary basis. A traffic study is also required pursuant to he Traffic Phasing Ordinance. issioner McDaniel recused himself from this item to avoid the appearance of conflict.' Chairman Eaton disclosed he has been involved in this area and this property, and ig Chairman this evening will exercise his prerogative. Vice Chairman Eaton asked if icants or any organized opposition, with representatives of that opposition present, feel Ivement would impair his ability to fairly and impartially conduct this hearing, and/or to fa impartially evaluate the application and vote on it. sistant City Attorney Harp asked Vice Chairman Eaton if someone perceived he had a cc bias, if he would recuse himself so it was clear before they got up and spoke on this item. :e Chairman Eaton answered he did not know if he would or not. He first would ask the Assistant City Attorney Harp and then it would depend upon why they thought he m http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PhiAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 and impartially conduct this hearing, and/or to fairly and impartially evaluate the vote on it. its O'Neil introduced himself as the representative for Our Lady Queen of Angels Ch thanked Vice Chairman Eaton for the disclosure, stating they were comfortable that rman Eaton would be able to conduct this hearing in a fair and impartial manner pted him as the Chair of the meeting. stant City Attorney Harp asked Vice Chairman Eaton if he did in fact have a bias or he said no. were no oppositions. O'Neil proceeded with the introduction of Scott Barnard as their lead project consultant a n, will be conducting the presentation with the assistance of Tony Petros from LSA. Buildi new Our Lady Queen of Angels Church on the Saint Mark's property will free up buildal a under the 0.17 FAR to allow the construction of additional classrooms and a gymnasia the school and additional on -site parking. Barnard proceeded with the presentation which included the following: . Vicinity map showing - o 4.38 acres of the Saint Mark Presbyterian Church and the 8 acres of Our L Queen of Angels Church, which includes the field, the school, the parish hall and church. o Five schools in operation - a junior high and high school; Saint Mark pre - school 70 persons; Our Lady Queen of Angels pre - school for 35 children; Our Lady Qu, of Angels K -8 school for 315 children. Aerial photos zooming in on the church, the parish hall, the rectory, the original 1 school building, the newer addition to the school, and the play field. These photos N taken around 2:30 in the afternoon when the children were out of class and shows queuing of cars for picking up children by the parents, which is similar for drop off in morning. There are 4 parking lots on Our Lady Queen of Angels property, making up 213 park stalls. The smallest parking lot is a garage of 4 to 5 stalls. The "teacher lot" is 25 sty and both these lots are accessed off Domingo Drive. The large school lot has 2 drivem and is separated from the parish parking lot, which also has 2 driveways. There are a tc of 4 driveways along Mar Vista Drive. Saint Mark property has 137 parking stalls in one with one driveway. . There are a total of 420 children at both pre - schools and K -8 grammar school; a total 1222 seats at both churches. . The plan is consistent with the City's general plan of 0.17 FAR. . Number of seats will be reduced by 52. . There will be an additional 27 trips in the am peak hour. . There is an increase of parking that not only meets code, but there is 49 in excess of c One parking lot has been eliminated and all the parking has been combined into one Page 4 of 42 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /nm08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 parking lot with only 2 driveways on Mar Vista Drive, each of which are on either side the gymnasium. There is a lot immediately across the driveway at Saint Mark's and the will be a pedestrian connection to both lots. . The new school is made up 3 one -story additions to the existing school, taking the enrollment in the neighborhood from 420 to 600 which includes the 70 at Saint Mark. . The new church has seating of 1170. . Have had a series of community meetings. Learned how the high school and interact, and what works and what doesn't work. . This plan has a number of items that are beneficial. Besides the church seating bein( reduced, the three schools have been reduced to one school which has eliminated three start times and three different dismissal times. The biggest benefit is the ride sharing. Most of the K -8 children are in car pools consisting of 2 or more children. . Went from 159 to 186 trips, an additional 27 am peak trips, and the average daily trips go up by 19. . The proposed parking stalls are increased to 439 from 350, plus in the Parkin Management Plan there are provisions for larger services, such as Easter, Christma: memorial services with a large turn out, that there will be parking on the field for a total c 723 parking stalls. Current seats per parking stall are 4. With the new plan it will be 2. seats and when Phase II of the Parking Management Plan is in place it will go to 1. seats. This means for every 3 people there are 2 cars. nmissioner Hawkins pointed out that there were no parking numbers for the high school a fight there was a cooperative agreement with the school district. Mr. Barnard answered the no existing agreement with the school district. The Church proposes to park the project e or in excess of code. There would be additional parking by taking away some curb cuts non - residential street in front of Our Lady Queen of Angels property. )mmissioner Hawkins questioned that there may be an opportunity for the Church to enter cooperative agreement with the school district. Mr. Barnard answered there would be Brest in entering into an agreement with the school district. missioner Henn questioned if they had calculated the new parking availability on the the curb cuts. Mr. Barnard said this would be addressed further in the presentation. missioner Henn asked about the trip count difference between the pre - school and the if the numbers shown have been adjusted to reflected the difference. Mr. Barnard said did a traffic analysis based on the traffic phasing ordinance and they used trip genera that are the City's standards and policies for all of these uses. missioner Henn then asked if the trip generation could be less than what the analy: red because of the factors pointed out. Mr. Barnard said no because their analysis tak into account already. That's why when the enrollment goes up by 180 there is such nal increase in traffic because of the reduction in single student vehicles. r. Barnard continued his presentation: Exhibits showing various phasing stages of the construction of the site and how parking lots would all be connected as one parking lot to reach the proposed 439 par stalls. Page 5 of 42 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Discussion of the landscape plan, which included a larger setback to the parking lot areas maintaining several of the mature eucalyptus trees, attractive hardscape and pedestrian routes, and the parking lots being connected so there is no need to go back and forth tc the public street to cross. emission Hawkins asked if the pedestrian walkway was going to be of a unique material so Id be identifiable. Mr. Barnard answered yes it would be a colored concrete and along wi grove of trees it should be very identifiable. There would be some brush throughout tt scape that would impede people from taking a shortcut. Barnard also pointed out the long throat of the driveway to the parking lot, and the se down the aisles before dealing with a parking stall. Barnard continued with his presentation with off -site parking: . Illustrations of the Phase I of the Parking Management Plan showing parking spa being used on Mar Vista Drive and a portion of Domingo Drive, noting this was showing the frontage directly adjacent to the Our Lady Queen of Angels property. Tf are 18 spaces on Mar Vista Drive and 21 on Domingo Drive and this was to meet demand, not code, for the two most popular services on Sunday at 8:30am and 10am. . Phase II is for the largest of events, Easter, Christmas, or large memorial servio showing more parking on Mar Vista Drive and some additional going around on Domir Drive; 36 spaces on Mar Vista Drive and 40 on Domingo Drive. This would be a total 723 parking stalls, without using any parking at the high school. nissioner Henn said that what he was asking earlier was specifically how many ig spaces were being created with the elimination of the curb cuts. Mr. Barnard were 10 and none were put between the two driveways on either side of the gym. Chairman Eaton asked if they were going to address how the Parking Management Pla ;s. Mr. Barnard said they hadn't planned on going through all that, but certainly could do s that this concluded his presentation. alinh Ung, Associate Planner of Newport Beach Planning Department, gave an overview staff report for the approval of a Use Permit on the project, as proposed, for the followi . Expansion of the existing church and private school facilities. . Transfer of development intensity between Our Lade Queen of Angels and St. sites. . To allow the proposed church building to exceed the permitted building height limit. . To allow the use of 10 portable classroom buildings during the school construction period. As proposed, the seating capacity for the new sanctuary will be 1,170; which is 52 seats les han the current combined church seating capacity of Our Lady and St. Mark's. The school wi lave an enrollment capacity of 600 students, an increase of 180 students. A new gymnasium wi also be added. When combined with St. Mark site, the new Our Lady Queen of Angels Churc :ampus will be approximately 12 acres in size. This expansion requires a use permit approval. The Land Use Element limits the gross floor area for both properties to 0.17. Upon he new church site will have a FAR of 0.12. The school site will be 0.20, ex Page 6 of 42 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 7 of 42 allowable FAR; a use permit, therefore, is required to allow the transfer of development from the new church site to the school site. church is designed with variable building heights ranging from 12 to 55 feet. The r and cross, however, would be at 90 feet. A use permit is required to allow the pi -h tower and cross to exceed the permitted building height limit of 32 feet. Ily, use of portable classroom buildings to accommodate on -going school operations construction period requires approval of a use permit. stated in the staff report, the findings for these requests can be made. The proposed ign for the church expansion was done so as to minimize vehicular movements to and f r properties; and maximizes on -site parking through the implementation of a part iagement plan. The scheduling of the beginning of classes to not coincide with the Cor Mar High School, in combination with the adequate pick -up /drop -off area and procedures, imize vehicular circulation, traffic and parking concerns. request to increase the height of the sanctuary should not prove detrimental to adjal erties given the proposed building placement, landscape setbacks and separation from by residences. ble classrooms will be removed upon completion of the new classrooms, and will be restored to its former condition to ensure no negative impact to the sch d area or the neighborhood. regard to environmental review, a Mitigated Negative declaration has been prepared for )sed project and identifies 10 issue areas with 19 mitigation measures. No signific oidable impacts are identified based upon a comparison of the proposed project >lished thresholds of significance identified in the CEQA guidelines. document was circulated for public review between June 30 and July 30 of this year. ved 3 comments and the response to comments is attached to the staff report. review period has been extended to an additional 20 days, from August 4 to August 23, the general public additional time to review and comment on the environmental docume will prepare responses to additional comments received during this period and pres( to the Planning Commission at the September 7th hearing. to the extension of the comment period, the Planning Commission cannot adopt t ^onmental document at this time since the document must be adopted, if found adequa i approval of the project. Staff, therefore, recommends that the Planning Commissi luct a public hearing, provide direction to staff on the preparation of findings and conditioi continue the item to September 7th meeting. Staff has prepared a list of draft conditions oval for the Commission to consider. Ung then asked for any questions. Chairman Eaton said he and a couple of other commissioner's had wondered if cants could briefly summarize the three different operational plans which had b iitted; the construction phasing plan, the parking management plan and the drop - off /picl for school children. Petros, LSA Consultant, addressed this question. He pointed out the City contracted own consulting firm to prepare a traffic study. It was the results of that traffic study Jed them with the information to prepare their parking management plan and the droF The traffic study prepared by Austin Faust concluded the project meets and exceeds http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 code, and the future attendance would have a deficit of about 39 parking for two of the masses held on Sunday, the most popular being held at 10am. Chairman Eaton interjected that he, Mr. Petros, should clarify that figure was based or it survey of how many people, per car, were coming to Queen of Angels, as opposed to rig code requirement. Petros continued if on occasions when every metered pew was filled and achieved ons in the sanctuary we could see the parking demand of about 638 vehicles, based or age vehicle occupancy. Based on those conclusions of the City's consultant study, t a recommendation to put together a parking management plan. That plan includes ary phases: Phase I to address the 10am mass would provide additional parking, primarily on -site, 478 spaces which is comprised of parking along both sides of Mar Vista Drive and alc Domingo Drive in front of the church. These are more within proximity of the chuff compared with today, where currently people walk across to use the CDM parking lot choose to use the CDM parking. Instructions would be given to church members and sl to assist and provide marshal parking to these sites, so there would be some commitm4 by the church to see this was conducted. Phase II to address the occasions of Easter, Christmas, and large memorial servic( when parking could reach the demand of 638 spaces in the study. Parking can provided in excess of 700 by utilizing the ball field and public on- street parking adjacent the church. These plans are now under review by City staff. school drop -off and pick -up plan : By virtue of the increased enrollment there would be an increase in the traffic arriving the morning. Based on surveys conducted by the City's consultants, this school has higher then normal vehicle rider -ship compared to other private schools. This plan is simple and is based on the success of what they are currently doing by havin the larger parking lot adjacent to the school, add one more row for vehicle queuing, an marshalling the vehicles in to have curbside pick -up and dispatch out and around the site. iissioner Hawkins asked during the larger services like Easter, Christmas, and h rial services, even with the parking management plan, if they would still need to use parking. Petros answered it isn't that they would need to use it, but if it is available then very likely Id be used. Hawkins asked if this would be parking in excess of the code requirements. Petros answered yes. iissioner Hawkins asked will there be barriers or gates to close the parking lot during the Church is not using the parking lot? Barnard answered yes. session. He then showe d hoof hours for security. There are two gates that would remain open when the school where the gates would be and the gates would be closed Hawkins asked if the parish hall and church parking would have gates or if it http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.httn Page 8 of 42 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 9 of 42 boened at all times. I I r. Barnard answered no gates or barriers. nmissioner Hawkins asked during the larger services, how many employees or church ild be working to handle the parking or is there something in the parking management addresses this. Barnard said it isn't in the plan, but it is a reasonable request and ought to be in the plan. ng the school day they do have about 30 people associated with the school to handle the :ing. During the summer there are only about 6 -8 people. ;mmissioner Toerge asked if the parking demand profiled tonight takes into consic ditional parking for the choir, employees, alter boys or other attendees that may not be the church. Petros answered that the City's consultant did surveys of the church inclusive of the hioners, staff, choir, Sunday school teachers, any arrival to the facility was part of the count. sioner Toerge asked if they intended to use parking guides or ushers during the events that will help facilitate efficient parking, especially in the ball field. Petros said that was the intent of the parking management plan. Barnard also added that there will be sign boards directing people where to go and once in they can't get out and can be sent to the ball field to park. Toerge asked if that was something he had missed in the presentation. Barnard said yes the parking management plan discusses this and there would be :sentatives directing traffic. Assioner Henn had a questioned about the intersection at Mar Vista Drive and Domi and how they would handle the influx of cars entering the throat and people crossing to made during the 10am mass? Petros said one of the elements found is the traffic study was a recommendation to I aer separation time between the services which would help clear folks out of the area. j suggested the church is amenable to other opportunities to make sure those vehicle estrian conflicts are diminished. ;sioner Henn said he was speaking about the people arriving for the 10am mass, m-� across Domingo Drive and trying to cross the intersection while you have cars com the intersection trying to park in the lots to get to mass. Petros answered that was a very good question and they need to look at that. Hawkins asked if a signalized intersection would be beneficial. Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager of Newport Beach Publ Department, answered it probably would from the standpoint of the pedestrian, but create other operational issues particularly with the high school traffic existing ev Chairman Eaton opened the discussion to the public. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Krone, resident/owner and board member of Villa Granada Community Association, w voice their concerns over the conclusion that this proposal would not impact . The number of peak hour trips to be generated is quite frightening to the residents. An expansion will severally increase the traffic congestion. A letter, dated August 2005 from Homer Bludau, City Manager of Newport Beach, sb the City is committed to continued efforts to improve safety and enhance traffic flows in area. . The 225 families that are crammed into Domingo Drive and Mar Vista Drive are trapped in their homes during the peak hours or unable to go home. Chairman Eaton asked if the congestion problem they face at peak hours are normal employment peak hours or the high school peak hours. Krone said it's the school hours, 7am to 9am and 2pm to 4pm, and all day Sunday. ,sinner Hawkins thanked Ms. Krone for her comments and said that it looks like will be continued and there will be another opportunity to comment in writing or orally. Bowers, resident of Newport Beach, owner of apartments at 851 Domingo Drive, ;ident of the Eastbluff Apartment Owners Association, and wanted to state his concerns project. . The increased trips will only make more congestion and grid lock. . The problem of getting to the parking lots. . Possibly an overpass or underpass for pedestrians. Toerge asked Mr. Bower if he had a suggestion. Bower answered not really sure he has one, only what he already suggested. imissioner Toerge pointed out the acquisition timing of the apartments and that the already there. Bower answered he was aware of the church at the time he acquired the apartments n't suggesting the church go away, but just suggesting to make the situation better itherine Yust Johansen, owner of an apartment complex on Amigos Way, stated in 2001 , bsequent to that, she had notified the City of her concerns of what impact an expam )posal would have on the existing traffic and parking congestion. She received a letter fi itricia Temple, Planning Department Director, which assured Ms. Yust Johansen would tified if a proposal was submitted. She only found out about the proposal submission thro e of her tenants. Her call to the City on July 11, 2006 went unanswered until after mment period on the Negative Declaration had elapsed. She questioned how many otl- tre not notified. City Attorney Harp addressed this question. He said the comment period had since Ms. Yust Johansen had not been notified and was unaware of any one Page 10 of 42 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 11 of 42 requesting notification not be being notified. There would be no final action taken this evening, nd believed she had now received notice and would have the opportunity to make comment. Yust Johansen continued she is submitting a letter to the City today which states . The City had failed to adequately study the existing local problems relating to the congestion and traffic circulation impact this project would have on the community. . The City had failed to analyze the existing situation or grasped the potential impact, wh means the City would not be able to require adequate mitigation of the developer sho the traffic worsen. The City would there be responsible to pay for mitigation and this is I City's only opportunity to include mitigation measure as a responsibility of the developer. . It is believed this project will negatively affect the quality of life and impede vehicles response to the area. . Requests the City due a full analysis of local traffic and circulation patterns, including tr counts on weekends and parking analysis that does not allow the developer to include public school parking lots or make assumption on ride share programs. . Request the City to recirculate the Negative Declaration for review and comment. izabeth Densmore, resident at corner of Amigos Way and Domingo Drive, wanted to voice incerns on the pedestrian and traffic congestion. • Adding more traffic would be a nightmare for those trying to get in or out during p am /pm hours. • The increased student parking on streets would create an increase danger at intersection. . Perhaps a pedestrian walkway or police /traffic management during rush hour or no left enforcement. . More continued study needed. issioner Hawkins asked that the traffic problem is primarily due to the school traffic. Densmore answered yes. ner Hawkins stated we could not tax the church for the school traffic. Perhaps over - crossing could be consider, but wasn't sure that would fully address the traf I Doremus, resident at 835 Amigos Way, addressed his concerns: . The traffic and traffic congestion and how it has worsened over the last 16 years. . In 1990 the Bluffs HOA waived it's initial objection to the proposed expansion wt addressed 50 cars per day, on the promise from the City that a traffic study would conducted. . After the approval, Councilman John Cox declared the study a waste of money hftp: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /Ph-tAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 12 of 42 1 the council was already aware of the serious problem and a study was not done. . In 2001, when the project became serious, he contacted Greenlight and was told would not get involved because of their church member supporters. . Quality of life an issue. . Saint Mark had one service whereas Our Lady Queen of Angels will have 6 services the weekend. . The recent brochure from the church suggest that they will work with the community address the brief traffic demands. . Traffic demands are not brief, but 5 days a week and Sunday. . Suggests the church be on a smaller scale and use the additional area for much parking. sinner Hawkins pointed out the Commission or Council was not responsible for Iht responses. With respect to the traffic demands, did he have any idea of how n trips are associated with the schools letting in or out and the church's traffic. r. Doremus answered that people say they are trying to do things, but only thing that ha: ippened is the closure of Bison Avenue which was a negative impact of the church and school. 'ith the school population growing, and thousand of homes in Newport Coast with no new higf :hool, this area's roads can not support increased traffic or the issue of egress and ingress o nmissioner Hawkins asked if the answer was no, and did he have any traffic study allocation of traffic to the school as opposed to the church. Doremus answered no. nmissioner Hawkins asked if he was aware they are not responsible for the management traffic or parking in connection to the school. Doremus answered yes, but thought the purpose of the City Council was the protection imunity, the quality of life, and safety of the ingress /egress. nissioner Hawkins was concerned with this line of thinking. The problem with the school have no control over it and it needs to be segregated from the rest of the project. T iunitv's concerns on the school need to be addressed to the district I Johansen submitted his concerns: . The City has an obligation to disclose existing, potential, and significant impacts as well analyze the project related impacts. . The current Negative Declaration doesn't acknowledge there is an existing problem in area, it only analyzes the changes to the project. Doesn't matter if it's the school or church causing the existing problem, the use perm proposed gives the Commission control over the problem. http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 13 of 42 . Under CEQA, they have only proposed one mitigation measure in acknowledging a potential construction impact and no operational impact. The traffic study makes specific recommendations for traffic separation, temp( separation, as well as a traffic and parking management plan, yet neither one are requi as mitigation. Whether they are required, by ordinance or not, they should be included mitigation measures. Chairman Eaton pointed out besides the 19 mitigation measures in the proposed Mitig ative Declaration, those are incorporated into a list of 84 or more conditions, several that operations and separations between the two schools. Johansen said they are not reflected in the environmental document that was released is review and comment, and should be part of the disclosure documents for this project. wed there should be an EIR. Wills, resident and owner on Amigos Way, wanted to state the traffic situation is horrific. in looks lovely but it just doesn't fit and they cannot accept any more traffic. is O'Neil thanked the Commissioners, Staff and Public for their comments and concerns will make every attempt to address these concerns during the two week continuance an( nt further evidence and testimony at the next hearing on September 7, 2006. Chairman Eaton asked if they had comments on the draft conditions as proposed by Staff they be presented at this time. Barnard addressed the following changes and edits to the draft conditions: . On operational condition No. 5, first line add the word large before assembly. . Fourth line in condition No. 5, should read Memorial services shall be permitted. . Next line add the before parking. . Last line, change parking on public streets to read parking adjacent to residential uses. . On condition No. 8, fourth line change may be allowed to read shall be permitted. Chairman Eaton asked is they could elaborate on condition No. 4 on how the time frar to be and if there would be a problem with making them a little further and why it does to the letting time in the afternoon.. Condition No. 4 reads: "The daily start time for the OLQA School shall be established annually in response to :orona del Mar High School's publication of their start time. OLQA School shall establish tt ;tart time not less than 20 minutes prior, or less that 15 minutes after, the Corona del Mar H School published start time" Petros addressed this question and said they will be presenting information that .r this in the subsequent hearing. . Information based on the surveys prepared by the City's consultant. When looking at the arrival patterns of the OLQA Church school and at Corona del http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 14 of 42 High School as of today, they are one right on top of each other. Combining these peaks creates a very severe spike, which has been pointed out by general public today. . There is a point in time when separation diminishes the peak traffic and time. Example - in a 15 minute separation, really only extends the peak traffic volume by 1 minutes equaling a 5 minutes savings . When the time is spread further apart the profile gets flat and inverts and creates traffic. . This plan provides some efficiency to bring down the peak and the frequency. nmissioner Henn asked Mr. Petros by summarizing these comments if he was saying there ; an inflection point where you can't lower the peak any further by spreading out the arrival as, and what you wind up with is no improvement in the peak but a longer duration of traffic. Petros said yes. Chairman Eaton asked for the applicants reaction on the following questions: . If the application is approved as operated, the Commission reviews in 6 months to a year at two places; 1) after the sanctuary is completed. 2) after the school is fully occupied. Should they ever be denied the use of the staff parking lot at the Corona del Mar School on Sunday, then the Commission should have a review. ennis O'Neil answered they would like to respond to the first question at the next hearing after viewing with the principals of the application. In regards to the second question, Mr. O'Neil ;id the presentation points out all their parking needs could be handled on -site and if that lot here blocked off it would not affect their application. Also, the increased parking plan would minish the attractiveness of parking at the Corona del Mar High School parking lot. >sistant City Attorney Aaron Harp asked what they considered a large assembly to be. r. O'Neil asked to give an answer on this at the next hearing. ummission Henn and Vice Chairman Eaton both would like thinking on the vehicle and adestrian conflict at the intersection of Domingo Drive and Mar Vista Drive . comment closed. e Chairman Eaton asked the Commission if they think the basic findings for an approval made, and if there is a majority to query the Commission for other possible suggestions. nmissioner Hawkins felt it would be difficult to discuss anything on the findings with the pi iment period still being open, since some of the comments may have an affect on ings. It may be best to make suggestions or directions on conditions. ;ioner Toerge agreed with Commissioner Hawkins comment, but wanted to address on a possible review period. His concerns where: http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 . Page 15 of 42 . If the application is approved, how would they limit modifications to this condition. . What would the Planning Commission do when the conditions come up for review in months to a year with this being a 3 year construction project. . There is a narrow window of opportunity to change some conditions. Vice Chairman Eaton noted: . We can't certify the Negative Declaration at this point, as the comment period has closed. . This is a different application than St. Andrews, where they were attempting to raise Floor Area Ratio from .6 something to .8 something on the same sized site, in an where single family streets led right up to the site from many directions. . He has concerns about the traffic/pedestrian potential conflict at the intersection of Vista Drive and Domingo Drive, and also whether or not there will be addit congestion, at least on Sunday mornings, where the two driveways are across from other. . The plan is one that can warrant approval and suggested that staff start working findings. i response to Commissioner Toerge on the review period, Vice Chairman Eaton felt perhaps ear after the sanctuary was completed, and again a year after the school is fully filled, which th anctuary is to be completed in 2009 and the school is to be completed filled by 2012. A revie, couldn't enable us to tell them to tear it down, but we may have a better feel on how things ar corking and could make modification on some operational conditions. The parking managemer lan is flexible and can be amended, but the neighbors deserve to be able to make comments o it is working. He had the following corrections on the conditions for staff: . No mention of chimes being continued . Condition 31 needs to say a general plan amendment is required. . Condition 63 should clarify the times. r Henn would like to come up with solutions that will feel like there is even with a slight increased in the intensity as measured by a trip count. mer-Hawkins supported the operational reviews presented, but thinks if the need to be adjusted, do it through the code not through the application. Chairman Eaton asked if the Staff had enough direction. Ung answered yes. Chairman Eaton continued the hearing to September 7, 2006. Chairman Eaton asked if Staff will have findings and revised conditions for the hearing. Ung said Staff will prepare a resolution for approval with findings and conditions of approval the changes recommended tonight. http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006/mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue the Our Lady Queen of Angels on (PA2005 -092) to the meeting of September 7, 2006. Peotter, Hawkins, Eaton, Toerge and Henn None Cole 2920 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewpub pursuant to U ,nit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City in 1993 and it was subsequer :nded in 1999. The City has received several complaints related to the operation of the u the Planning Commission will evaluate the complaints, the operational character of the u the conditions under which the use operates. At the conclusion of the hearing, t nmission may require alteration of the operation or it may delete or modify conditions roval. The Commission also may conclude that no changes are necessary and revocation Use Permit is not being considered at this time. istant City Attorney noted that Commissioner Hawkins recused himself from this item due appearance of a conflict. Commissioner Hawkins agreed and recused himself. Campbell, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting: . The Newport Beach Brewing Company was established in 1994 by approval of a Permit No. 3485. . In September 1999, the City Council approved an amendment to the use permit approved full alcoholic beverage service with the sale of distilled spirits. . The City, earlier this year, received a complaint letter regarding the operation of t establishment from a group of residents in the neighborhood. Those complaints relate the operation itself and patron behavior around the establishment. . A report was presented in May of this year at which the Planning Commission asked for additional hearing to review the application and look at whether changes need to be me in the operation or conditions of approval. . The current report outlines questions and restaurant/brewpub was authorized. The as a bar primarily after 10:00 p.m. and neighborhood. asks for clarification of what was authorized. residents contend the facility is being operas that operation is leading to nuisances in I . Is it a bar at those hours, and is it authorized pursuant to the use permit? Staff is for clarification on condition 10 (page 3 of staff report). . In staffs opinion, a restaurant and a bar were authorized. Can a bar operate without restaurant being there at the same time is a question. . Historically, the City has looked at these operations and balanced the hours that it ha: operated primarily as a bar against the hours it is operated predominately as a restaurant. If the primary activity is a restaurant, the use is deemed a restaurant. We believe that ie what is happening there today. There is food service during those hours and up tc recently they have had a limited bar menu in the late evenings. It might not constitute Page 16 of 42 1111:b7�if�b: Continued to 09/21/2006 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 regular food service, but food is available most of the time. . What staff is looking for, is what was authorized, and then we can look at whether they operating with the use compliant with the conditions of approval. . There is a side issue with condition 9 that indicates the operation of the brewery and I service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary to the primary food service operation the restaurant. In that condition we are saying it is a restaurant and food service is res the primary use. So there is a question as to whether or not alcoholic beverage sery has now become the primary use. . In addition, there is no time limit to this condition. After 10:00 p.m. in the evening, even General Manager at the May meeting, indicated that the primary sales during those evening and early morning hours is alcohol. Again, that is more like a bar and goes to original question, what did we authorize? . Another issue that has been raised is there is a current limitation on the dining room an during the day time. There has been a condition the City applied in 1999 which limited during the week. There is also a Coastal Commission permit that would indicate it is daily limitation, at least from their perspective. The City is charged with enforcing tf action based upon a commitment that the City made in 1993 to enforce this provision. TI City has been enforcing it on the weekdays and not on the weekend. There is an issue c how this condition has been worded and enforced, and whether or not the conditic applies daily. The brewpub has had the full dining open on the weekends. The language of the Cos Commission condition alludes that they shouldn't be. The City's condition can interpreted both ways because it indicates "Monday through Friday" but also talks al the physical barrier being there "daily ". This condition seems to contradict itself should be clarified and modified at this time. The residents have indicated that there is a basic lack of control of patrons in the park lot. In the late evening a queue forms outside this popular establishment that is pre much at capacity in the late evening and early morning hours. These folks can at times boisterous and that leads to a variety of nuisances. The question is, is there control in parking lot? The brewing company has security guards there and they represent to staff that they doing their best to control the patrons in the parking lot. Given the proximity of the qu line to the residents, there may be ways to alleviate some of the problem by relocating line to the front of the building close to Newport Boulevard. Other folks may be impai by doing that and there may be a need to change the patio area to bring people in. I might work in the evening hours to alleviate some of the issues in the parking lot given fact that there are residents living adjacent to the parking lot. Another issue is whether or not they have complied with training program that is requii by the use pen-nit. The City required that the manager, proprietor and all employe undergo responsible alcohol training. That condition has not been complied with and sir the City has informed the applicant, they have indicated that this training has be completed. However, there is no evidence to date. The purpose of the condition is make sure that the people serving alcohol are trained and serving in a responsi manner. A lot of the complaints that the residents are making to us are in most ca: directly attributable to the consumption of alcohol. We are hoping more responsible sa of alcohol and the proper training of staff may alleviate some of the ongoing issues. . The Cannery Village Concerned is a group of residents who have indicated that they Page 17 of 42 http: / /www. city . newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 like to see changes to the conditions that have been forwarded to you and that something that can be considered this evening. . Staff is recommending that we change or modify conditions 9 and 10 to clarify spec what the Commission believes was authorized in 1999 to eliminate ambiguity in conditions. Based upon the determination of the use, we can go forward and modify conditions to affect positive change and reduce some of the nuisances. . There are a variety of complaints specific to the operation, trash enclosure, dumping bottles, and property maintenance occurring at hours that would otherwise disti residences. We are looking at the screening of the trash enclosure and to alleviate soi of those nuisances through conditions. The Police Department is here to give testimony on law enforcement issues that t occurred there, as well as the Code Enforcement officer who has conducted investigation, a report of which has been provided for your consideration. Chairman Eaton asked if there are certificates that the applicant can provide to the City J verify that the alcohol training had been accomplished. Campbell answered he is not aware of how that training was provided and is not aware of liability of certificates. He had been assured that they have been through that training. xcement of that condition, he would like to see some evidence that they have gone thro training. imissioner Henn noted his confusion on the range of remedy that is available on this matter. presumes it can include a change in hours of operation, other restrictions on how the iblishment operates, does it also include revocation of the distilled spirits license? H asks the stion for a better understanding of the range of remedy that is before this body. Campbell answered that the Commission can change the conditions of approval, which me ,ige the nature of the operation, but revocation has not been noticed here. Can they revok one license type, it wouldn't revoke the entire use permit but it could be a condition change. ron Harp, Assistant City Attorney, noted the procedure for revocation is laid out in Chapter 96 and there are very specific procedures that need to be followed before this body car isider a revocation. It was the intent to bring this matter back for at least one more hearing the purpose tonight is to primarily have the discussion of the items, discussion of what, if any editions you would like to be modified or additional conditions, and whether or not a revocatior wring would be appropriate, and we will bring it all back the next time. Henn noted that the range is wide open with the proper noticing. Harp answered yes, there are specific findings that are needed for revocation. Chairman Eaton noted the revocation would apply to the City's permit, not the rage Control Permit, correct? Harp answered, yes. Chairman Eaton asked if there had been any investigations by the ABC, and if so, do what the results were? Campbell answered, yes there was an ABC investigation that began in February. ation was visited and the police were consulted, the findings were not conclusive to take cular action and the investigation was closed. Page 18 of 42 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 19 of 42 Mr. Harp noted the ABC is a different procedure that is set up under that ordinance and is ifferent from the revocation. Wood noted that part of what Commissioner Henn was trying to get at was that the d Is was something that was added to this use permit at some point, so there is a cc allows that, and would it be possible for the Planning Commission to delete the coi ving that portion of the operation without going through the full revocation procedure? r. Harp asked for more history. r. Campbell answered that in 1993 a use permit was authorized to operate a brew pub under a rpe 23 license. In 1999 there was an amendment to the use permit that authorized a Type 75 ense, which is a full alcoholic beverage service in a brew pub. If you were to do that you would a terminating the amendment that was granted in 1999. There isn't a specific condition that ithorizes that license type. r. Harp asked if there was one use permit r. Campbell answered yes, one use permit that was just amended r. Harp noted that, in general, if you take that type of measure, I recommend that you give full mice. You still have to make the findings for basically a similar standard for revocation as far as e impact on the general welfare of the community. We will notice it for you and bring it back at iother hearing if that is something you would like to consider. ) Chairman Eaton clarified that the modification to expand from beer and wine operation to distilled spirit operation was first applied for and denied by the Planning Commission ar i granted by the City Council, and it was at that point that the applicant sought the Type i ise from the ABC Board once he had approval for that kind of license. Campbell confirmed that was correct. Toerge asked which condition allows for the full bar and full alcohol service or Campbell answered there is no condition that specifically addresses that. The conditions amended use permit are on pages 18 -22 of the staff report. There is no specific condil led to the license type but the project description upon which the amendment was appro, clearly for that license type. imissioner McDaniel noted that hand written page 129 of the report talks about that in ussion of August 5, 1999 from the City Council. The issue was taken up by the City Coun the vote was on page 131, which shows where the Council was going and how they voted. Toerge noted there must be something more than the minutes that Campbell answered that on page 100 is the staff report of the Planning Commission, and t Council's report is on page 97, and the minutes for the meetings are after that. I wanted you that so you could see what the Council was looking at in 1999 and, indeed, the proji - ription is for a Type 75 license. Wood noted handwritten page 19 of Exhibit B Findings and Conditions for Approval for U nit approved by the City Council 09/13/1999 and, assumes this is an exhibit to the resolutii approved it. One of the findings is the convenience of the public will be served by the sale lied beverages in a restaurant/brewpub setting. http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17= 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 20 of 42 Mr. Harp noted he will take a closer look at these conditions but the Commission will tell us exactly what they are interested in doing then we will take it back and set it up to come back in he proper form procedurally. :)mmissioner Peotter noted condition 7 on handwritten page 20 says the hours are limited m. to 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and only on Friday and Saturday extended to 1 a. ie staff report includes Thursday, I don't know which is which. tt Cosylion, Code and Water Quality Enforcement Officer for the City of Newport Beach, overview of his report, noting: . Received complaint letter from residents of Cannery Village noting general concerns complaints related to operations at the Newport Beach Brewing Company. . We were asked to take a look and ascertain whether the complaints were happening not, and to do a fact finding on what was actually taking place there. . We went there on three separate occasions. First one was February 2nd, which was Thursday night at approximately 9:45 p.m. There was not a lot of activity at the bar outside the parking lot. The parking lot looked relatively clean, there was trash but not nuisance. There was no queue line and you could not hear voices from the patio th night. . The second trip was on February 4th which was a Saturday. It was essentially the thing, no queue line, the parking lot was pretty well maintained. . The final visit made was on February 10th, which was a Friday night. On that night the was a queue line, some individuals in the parking lot screaming at each other, there was lot of loud conversations going on and the parking lot was clean but a lot of noise ar volume going on from the patrons at the Brewery. He contacted the on -duty manage Jerry Kolbly, on the premises and discussed concerns about the noise from the queue lir patrons. We discussed options such as moving the queue line to the other side of tt building or to the front. Also discussed some of the other concerns in the complaint left such as the trash. Mr. Kolbly agreed to have his staff monitor the parking lot for trash. . We had a good discussion that night relative to what was in the complaint letter. I up with him the next week and had more discussions. . In terms of the property and activities occurring in the early morning hours, I brought tt up to Jerry about the bottles being picked up and obviously making a lot of noise dud the process. Jerry was asked to see if those activities to be made after 8 a.m. as a help the community so they would not have to have those early morning wake ups. . In response to trash and debris issue, we do regular drive bys through that area. In tei of the amount of trash, there was general trash but it wasn't massive amounts of to laying all over the parking lot so we did not issue any notices. We did ask Jerry to have employees do general sweeps in there too, to make sure it is kept clean. . There was also the issue of closing off a portion of the area before 5 p.m. daily. We v out there on one occasion and they did have it cordoned off so that a portion of business was shut off. . That concludes a report on the investigation. Chairman Eaton asked the timing on February 10th. He was answered it was about 10 http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 21 of 42 and the queue line had about 10 to 11 people stretching from the front of the building to almosI where the alleyway was. ommissioner McDaniel noted that you have to respond when you get complaints and >mplaint was in January so you dealt with it in January and February. The complexity of nd of situation changes when it is cold outside and people go to work in January and Febr > opposed to summertime. I have two questions. Were you able to look at this place June, August maybe even May, and were you able to look at it after 11 p.m. at night? Cosylion answered we do not usually go out after certain hours for safety issues as we police officers. So we let the police handle the late night activity. But no, we have not g there during the summertime. We haven't directly received complaints relative to loud nc have only two since February that we have documented. Any of those complaints we e been forwarded on to the Planning Department. Chairman Eaton noted that it sounds like when you went out 45 minutes later like at 10 p. there was more activity at that point and there was the queue line. Cosylion answered that on each day they went out around 9:45 or 10 p.m. and on it there was activity around 10 p.m. Harp noted his opinion that you would schedule an appearance to revoke the amendment use permit. It will be the proper procedure for handling it because there isn't a condition tf tes to full on -sale of alcoholic beverages and in order to basically deal with that issue, y d to revoke the amendment. Chairman Eaton stated you are talking about not revoking the entire permit but revoking ided portion. Harp answered that's correct. Vallercamp, Detective Sergeant with the City of Newport Beach, noted: As far as changing from a Type 75 license to a Type 23 license, which would be a full to the small batch brewery, that would be something that the ABC would probably into. They are the arbiters of those things. We have a sophisticated method of documenting all our calls for service in any given are and I had my detectives run a report from January 1 st of '06 to August 10th of '06, so it i roughly an 8 month period. I used locations such as in our computer aided dispatch, whe an officer calls out an activity they could say the Newport Brewery, the Municipal Lot, 30t and Villa, using all those parameters, I checked the area for our level of service and he% many calls we have had in that vicinity. During that time frame of January 1st throug August 10th, there were 41 entries. 41 activities listed at the Newport Brewery, th Municipal Lot, 30th and Villa, etc. , 23 of those calls were calls from the public. They wi require further research to determine the disposition. The remaining 18 of those were be checks, parking lot checks, some of them could have been an officer using one of thos locations as a landmark to call out a car stop or a pedestrian stop. In the City of Newport Beach currently we have 341 active ABC licenses. The establishments are authorized to sell alcohol in our City. In the area in which we rep these, we break them down into reporting districts. The reporting district we are concern with here is reporting district 15. In this reporting district 15, which is Balboa and 20th Balboa and 34th Street, up Newport Boulevard to the Coast Highway, in that triangu area there are 73 ABC license establishments. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 In 1999 when the Newport Brewery Company applied for their Type 75 license at that there were 60 ABC license establishments in reporting district 15. There is a concentration of outlets in this general vicinity. In 1999 the citywide total arrests there were 3,704, of those in the entire City. 1,656 those arrests were related to alcohol, either drunk driving, drunk in public, those types issues. In 1999 again in reporting district 15, there were 624 total arrests, 65% of the were alcohol related, either drunk driving or drunk in public. Bringing it to the year 20 the citywide total arrests were down a bit to 3,115. The alcohol related arrests citywi was 1,056 so we are talking roughly 33 %. In reporting district 15 in 2005 there were 6 total arrests and the percentage of alcohol related arrests in this specific reporting disti was 65.4°/x. So you can see we are pretty busy here in reporting district15. Lastly, the State Alcohol Beverage Control had a case specifically with the Newpor Brewery somewhere around April 11th of 2006 and they closed their case on August 4th. At that point, the advised us, "the majority of complaints were from the outside area." nissioner Toerge asked if the 341 outlets in the City and the 71 outlets in area 15 outlets. Is there a breakdown? Vallercamp answered yes. He can provide the breakdown at a later date. issioner Henn clarified that the ABC investigation stemmed from events outside the area? Vallercamp answered that he had called the investigator who said that was m and received no further information on what it pertained to. nmissioner McDaniel noted that there has been input from some sources that the Polio iartment doesn't respond very well, and when they do, they say you bought a place next to you dummy what did you do that for? Would you like to respond to that. tective Vallercamp answered that is not a typical response of an officer. I am not going to s< tither it occurred or not as I wasn't there. I would be surprised and somewhat disappointed officer told me that. missioner McDaniel asked do you believe that when there is a call that the response is fi dy? Can you give us a feel for response time? There is an indication of negligence, it is old thing, it's just a bunch of drunks and we are not going out there because we're too k here doing something important. That's the allocution and I thought you would like tc to respond to that before re ve Vallercamp answered we have more officers down here as there are rr trians, more parties down here, more ABC licenses and there are more calls in dar area than any area in the City. We deploy very heavily down here in this vicinity of Balboa area. I would say our response time is probably faster than most in the county. imissioner McDaniel noted it would be fair to say that you're busy down here anyway ai would already be here responding to something else, so you wouldn't have to come frc n coast. You've got adequate amount of police force attending to activities that are here. want to get the opportunity to respond. Vallercamp answered yes. Chairman Eaton asked about a copy of an article that appeared in the Register on July appears to quote, from the Police Department, incidents related to bars in the City and port Beach Brewing Company listed as the third highest generator incidents betw Page 22 of 42 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 23 of 42 December 1 st, 2005 and June 6th of this year. I am wondering if you can comment on that and its accuracy and whether these incidents can be attributed to these bars and if so how. .ive Vallercamp answered that it falls in line with the statistics that I have given you, the 4 This ended in June 6th and my statistics ended August 10th. I think this is an accurat entation citywide. Chairman Eaton stated the article says most of the calls involve fights or public ii rring outside the bars. Is that something that can be attributed to these incidents? s Vallercamp answered certainly alcohol plays a part there, fights, altercations boisterous behavior. This is such a highly concentrated area with so many bars nts down there that serve alcohol. Chairman Eaton said what I was trying to get at was when you started speaking, I thoi had said that sometimes when you use these identification criteria it's even possible icle stops that happen to be at that intersection. So, I was trying to figure out if any of th cents would have been those kinds of things, or whether they really were proble ociated with alcohol with this particular bar. Aive Vallercamp answered he had spoken with Sergeant Harford and he got his statie the same computer aided dispatch system that I did. Some of these could very well be nark of stopping a car at Cabo Cantina, therefore it shows up as some sort of activity at Chairman Eaton asked do you have any sense at all as to how many of these were related to the patrons of this bar? etective Vallercamp answered without hand pulling each event and each police report, whethr was an arrest report or crime report of some nature, without physically reading each of them oven Miles of Miles Law Group, representing the Newport Beach Brewing Company, stated actually going to try to limit my statements to addressing some of the conditions that wer >ed in the staff report and some of the interpretive efforts with respect to the main condition 9 and 10. 1 would like to permit time for the General Manager to address some of th untary conditions that have been proposed by the Brewing Company and the communil :reach efforts that have been made to address what we think are the actual concerns the acts the operation of the brewery and the Cannery Village. ndition 6 -1 don't really know if there is much of an issue to that with respect to that final won ily. Normally when you interpret a condition that in specific governs the general and it is vei ar from the very first sentence that the 1,500 foot prohibition is Monday through Friday. So, lieve the final word daily is really a reference to the days in which you have the preclusion plies. Actually the second sentence is redundant and can be stricken if that would be iition 9 - addresses the issue ancillary. The way the brewery reads condition 9 you ha components. The operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall lary to the primary service operation of the restaurant. Again, during full hours of operati are going to have different breakdowns of food and alcohol and even beer. So rea' cially the way that the alcohol licenses are drafted, they deal with quarterly revenue. I de it is the most appropriate way just to focus in on an hour because there is going to nalies throughout the hours of operation. There are going to be hours that are 100% to ce, or the lions share is food serve and there may by 30 minute intervals it will be iol. Really, condition 9, 1 think, addresses that and talks in terms of ancillary with respect http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us fPlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 24 of 42 hree components. I think that in the overall picture of the 13 years that this condition has applied, I think the condition as drafted has worked and I don't think it needs to be modified. In erms of clarification we are willing to suggest clarifying language if that is the will of the dition 10 - I think boils down to the phrase, hours not corresponding to regular meal sei s, and I think Jerry will expand on the fact that full meal service is going to be prov igh all operational hours of the brewery. I think that puts condition 10 to rest. Unless of the mind set that the regular meal service hours can't be established by the Nev oh Brewery Company. I would also like to point out that condition 10 does refen holic beverages as opposed to beer. I think conditions 9 and 10 do reference the fact distilled beverages being served, so there is a reference point in the conditions to sur position. tinuing, he noted with respect to a use permit with conditions, once they are relied upon, tt 3me a fundamental property interest. I want to address Commissioner Henn's inquiry abi edies and go into a little bit of what the standard is here for reviewing a conditional L nit. Just so everyone knows, the independent judgment standard is what applies if a co e to review the action of a city. It is a far less deferential standard of review than I think y it normally be used to in terms of discretionary approvals and is based upon actuc sional law out of 4th Appellate Division 3, which was the classic Goat Hill tavern case to Mesa, so it appears that drinking establishment make pretty good land use law. So, dealing with a fundamental interest here, it is very important. We see a very big distincti veen clarification and modifying or revoking in part or in whole, conditions in this permit. I would like to address the procedural question that the Commissioner addressed. I see it a lift )it differently. It is true that Chapter 20.96 does address revocation. I would like to read SL )art A, titled Duties of a Planning Director, which states, "Upon the determination by the Plannir )irector that there are reasonable grounds for revocation of a use permit or other discretiona rpproval authorized by this Planning Code, that revocation hearing shall be set by the Plannir )irector, the Modification Committee, the Planning Commission, or the City Council, whichev ook final previous action on the permit." The point here, and it is a procedural one, is that )elieve that in both 1993 and 1999 the final action, with the coordination of the Coast )evelopment Permit, but initially with the use permit and in 1999 1 believe the City Council to( he final action on that. So, the way I read revocation, if you determine that revocation is wh ve are talking about I would have to say the public notice that was posted doesn't incluc evocation. It didn't merely limit this hearing to reviewing the use permit, it states tt commission may also conclude that no changes are necessary. In revocation, the use permit iot being considered at this time. That infers that it is initially being considered, so I hope th fou do realize that revocation is not necessary. I think to the extent that we are addressing tt evocation issue the initial threshold question is whether there has been a determination by tt :1Ianning Director and secondly, I believe that the City Council shall set that hearing. There is luestion as to whether what we are doing right now is appropriate. Moving beyond that, I wou ike to point out that, .again in the original approval and again in 1999, in the staff report the actu :ssence of the use permit is that you have conditions that protect against these types iuisances and the finding that has to be made is that the use with the conditions is consiste vith the General Plan, the specific planning in the area and that there are no interferences wi he public health, safety and welfare. I think with that, those two express findings by the Ci )ouncil and the 13 years that have transpired, I think that is really what this body is up against arms of making a case that somehow it is warranted to truly consider revocation or really ar substantive modification to these permit conditions. would like to point out that there has been a lot of late correspondence and we didn't have t lost formal presentation, but we had to deal with a lot of late correspondence. One of t ddressed items was a receipt of August 5th. August 5th was a date in question where the ,as testimony from a Mr. Reef, I believe, that somehow there was no food service in the k ours. That is an issue for the Commission and I want to provide this receipt that shows that http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 25 of 42 1:00 p.m. on August 5 that in fact full service was provided, half Chinese chicken salad e :ttuccini alfredo. That actually went on until 12:56 a.m. I don't know if this was actua ibmitted. (he submitted it for the record). There is a lot at stake here and I would like .serve time for rebuttal, or at least to respond to your questions, and I would like to hand t ver to Mr. Kolbly to talk about the ins and outs of what has been offered by the Brewi ompany to address noise issues and issue of parking lot, the queue, trash and whatnot. Chairman Eaton asked Mr. Harp to discuss issues of level of review for fundamental which body has jurisdiction to consider revocation and/or modification. . Harp stated continuing to look at the Code sections if there is going to be a modification of dition to the conditions, then you are clearly the body that would handle that matter. If it is rotation, the alcohol beverage ordinance, which is 28.9060, is primarily the use permit that :y were obtaining allows for it to be set by the Planning Commission, or the Planning Director, revoke the permit and in 29.6 the procedures to follow related to 28.9 says that it is set before body that took final action, the Planning Commission action was appealed to the City Council d there is an express provision in 29.0640 that where I read it exempts out appeals so I Iieve the Planning Commission would be the proper body to hear revocation. As far as the indard of review goes, I don't think that is an issue. You need to make a decision based or record that is here before you, that would be the decision that would eventually be litigated. Chairman Eaton affirmed that this is the proper level to hear modification or revocation. ,ne also that whatever this Commission does can be appealed to the Council. Harp answered yes. Miles noted that the majority of the conditions in the permit were in existence in 1993, 1 sve there was an appeal at that point in time. immissioner Toerge noted condition 9 is clear. The operation of the brewery and the sery alcoholic beverage shall be ancillary to the primary food service operation. You used the w omaly to describe certain hourly quotations, yet at our last hearing there was a statement general manager that 90% of the receipts after 11:00 p.m. are from alcohol. You consi, at ancillary? Miles answered yes. What I am talking about is if you take a deviation over all the hours nmissioner Toerge answered I understand, but let's not do that. Your manager said 90% receipts are alcohol, do you consider that ancillary? Miles answered that the operation of the brewery and the service of alcohol beverages s Ilary to the primary food service operation of the restaurant. Operation is not broken do, certain segmented hours of operation. Again, the point would be taking it to the logi, ;fusion, what happens to that 15 minutes, 5 minutes, it is ancillary within the language iition 9. :)mmissioner Toerge noted the service of alcohol is supposed to be tied to normal eating hours at are certainly not after 11:00 p.m. r. Miles noted that for the brewery the regular meal service hours are all hours of operation. r. Kolbly, General Manager of the Newport Brewing Company, noted: . Referring to condition 6, during that time of the day the service is 100% food in the area. Now, if you take the restaurant away from me on Saturday and Sunday afternoons where I http: / /www. city . newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 26 of 42 1 am strictly serving food in that area it will be problematic. . My partners and I agree about the clarity of the conditions. . There will be a roof cover for the trash and we are discussing relocating the line after p.m. off the entrance off Newport Boulevard. . We have started discussions with security regarding the preparation of a detailed plan. . We have tried to work with the neighbors on how to work out the situation. Everythin we brought to the table was not accepted and the impression was that the neig wanted the establishment to be closed. . The business has been there over 11 years and there are barely any fights. You can go Disneyland and see fights there. . This is a great establishment for the patrons and tourists all the way from Germany. N these residents that just moved in over a year ago are saying we are no good. This is the way we run things. :ommissioner McDaniel noted there are some issues outside the establishment that you have o control over; there are some issues that your establishment is causing in the neighborhood. ly view to start with is to give you time to fix it and try and do better and then come back anc ee how you did. I am not interested in revocation at this point, but there are issues in terms o -ash, things patrons do in the community, and there are certain things you can do to fix it. If we an get you moving towards that, which I think you are interested in doing, maybe all of this car o away. The other side is the residents have to recognize that they bought something next tc there you are and they are going to have to recognize there is going to be some activity at tha )cation and they are going to have to live with that too. You both need to live together. I prefer ou make attempts to fix the trash, bottle collection, locking off your parking lot and if there are eople running around in the neighborhood, it will not be your issue. The other issue I have is ie Type 75 liquor license was given because you folks, at some point, requested that as you ustomers need hard liquor with their food. So that was supposed to be ancillary as you wantec bring other patrons in to get the food. That clearly is not what is happening here, its a bar afte 1:00 P.M. Kolbly asked if the Alley Restaurant was a restaurant? He noted he considers it a restaura t that after 10:00 p.m. no food is being served there and a bar is going on. Anytime staurant is open after 11:00 p.m., you are not a Denny's or strictly serving food. The hot :re given to us since day one, we have had lines to get in. There wasn't a problem then, k w all of a sudden there is. The operation has not changed. I offer full service meal all the w closing. missioner McDaniel noted the Type 75 license service of booze was to be ancillary to and that is not the case. Chairman Eaton asked: . How long does the queue line get. . How would you move the line to the 30th Street side if you need to keep the doors open the parking lot? . There is a condition on the ABC license that the line shall not extend along 30th Street. http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 27 of 42 you did have the line originating at the 30th St. entrance would it get so long as to encroach along the alley? . Is the kitchen open until closing? Kolbly answered: . 25 -30 people maximum. . It would be the south side open during the day and then closed at night so the actual entry would by the fire line door and the line would run south towards the pier. I • The line is not starting on 30th Street, we will have to place a hole on the patio with an entrance so it would run onto Newport Boulevard south. • Until we stop serving alcohol, those guys are cooking in the kitchen. ilic comment was opened. Id Carson, owner of Rudy's Pub and Grill and property owner, noted: . He supports the development that has gone on in the Cannery Village. . There are responsibilities of the developers in the area and it should be enforced by City with the loft like environment mixed use to make people aware of what they moving into. Maybe there could be some sort of waiver, or signing off, that they are au of the business operations within the surrounding neighborhood that close at 2:00 a.m. open at 7:00 a.m. . The restaurant owners try to control people as they leave the establishment and we do oL best job, but it is not always our patrons leaving our establishments causing the problems. . It is tough to lay the blame on any one establishment. . I know that Balboa Imports is looking to become a loft environment behind us, which means our parking lot will open up directly to those new proposed lofts and there is nothing that we can do when we let our patrons out to keep them quiet. They are going to set off their car alarm noise and that is always going to happen. There has to be some sort of leniency in dealing with the public, dealing with the business owners and the fact that we were there first. I know I put a lot of money in my building and to have this fight two or three years down the road will be a difficult pill to swallow. n Dale, patron of The Newport Brewery, stated his support of this establishment, noting: • Family environment. • No way to quantify what responses that the Police Department has in that area that are related to the bar itself. • They do a great job with the security at the door. • Food is served all night long. • It is a friendly atmosphere and people enjoy going there for drinks and it is one of the few http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 28 of 42 places in Newport that has a patio. . This is the kind of business you want to keep in Newport Beach and is not the kind of thing that you should shut down because some people moved in next door to a bar. They knew it was there before they bought their place. in Kokus, local resident, noted: • There is a lot of traffic from other restaurants that goes through Newport Beach. • As a former restaurant manager, the stipulations brought up about education and addressing those issues are addressable and I believe that they will be addressed by the applicant. . I am pro business and running restaurants in any city after 11:00 p.m., food goes down, that's just the way it is. . People choose to have a cocktail instead of food and we shouldn't restrict that. If you restrict one restaurant by limiting what they can do, you are setting a precedent and saying to other restaurants that when their problems come up that you are going to handle it the same way. I think that is a dangerous precedent. Markowitz, owner of a newer loft in the area, noted: • Loyalty of the business patrons is wonderful. As a business owner she can appreciate it. • However, the business is not operating in a civilized manner. • None of us want to shut this down. • We are trying to bring some civilization to this establishment after a certain hour. • It is about business and I am happy that they are successful. • However, there is violent verbal behavior late at night that disturbs my sleep. • There have been altercations between several of the neighbors and the owners as a result of sleep deprivation. • If you are tired, you get angry. The parking lot is out of control. • It is a great business, but I would like to see some compatibility between neighbors. • Stop the juvenile fighting, and if the law has to be a catalyst for that, then so be it. • Being drunk in a parking lot is illegal. When we have called the police, by the time they get there, the patrons are gone. • She noted episodes of urination during the day. • She asked that the consumption of alcohol be controlled. • The queue line is loud and noisy. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 issioner McDaniel asked what time these problems are happening. . Markowitz answered it is after 11:00 p.m. and she had actually been woken up at 1:30 people in the parking lot last night. nmissioner McDaniel noted it couldn't be these people as the establishment was closed at 11 night so it couldn't have been their patrons. I am trying to get what the problem is and I arr convinced from what you are saying that last night at 1:30 that they were their customer: ause they were closed. Markowitz noted clearly it was not associated with them but that she was frustrated beca is awakened so many times strictly from their parking lot and queue line noise. I support ness, but can't we live together? Chairman Eaton asked how close she lived to the establishment. Are you aware of ng line between their parking lot and the municipal parking lot? Where do most of th bances take place? Markowitz answered she is adjacent to the parking lot. Absolutely, and the )en on their parking lot. Green, local resident noted: . There are many businesses in the area. . The disturbances come from all the people coming home from all the bars in neighborhood. . You can't put the blame on Jerry's business and the argument that this is stemming fro the misuse of their permit is ridiculous. You have a bunch of drunk people coming home. . He has watched from his patio the craziness of people going home and they come from around except Jerry's place as it is closed down. McDaniel asked if they accumulate in the parking lot. Green answered they accumulate everywhere as they are parking in the lots and on ets; h has seen many fights on the sidewalks. Steed, local resident, business owner and a Cannery loft owner, noted: . The establishment is a nice one until after 9:00 p.m. . I did not realize when I bought my place that the Brewery operates as a nightclub, crank the music up and it is booze only. . The parking area is the launching pad for the whole peninsula. Where is there n parking than at the Brewery. . I have tried to work with these people to come to some solution but it has been futile. . At night it is completely out of control. My house is used as a urinal, there has been on my property and I have seen fights coming out of the bar. Sometimes it is so that people have climbed over my fence to get away from the brawl. Page 29 of 42 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 30 of 42 • I don't call the police anymore because it is futile. . The Brewery is operating outside their use permit. The first thing it says is they are going to create a nuisance in the parking lot, and they do. • They have been uncooperative. • The violence is unbelievable. Lenard, local resident, noted his support of the restaurant. He has brought his family tl y times as the food is excellent and moderately priced. The service and atmosphere friendly. He asked that it continue to operate. Stevens, employee of the restaurant and local resident, noted: • The waiters push food at the restaurant after 11:00 p.m. not only because we are told to it is good for sales, but for every ticket we are going to want a higher bill because tl means a higher tip. . Every person who sits down there is asked if they want something to eat, we let tl- know the full menu as opposed to being 'booze only.' We try to push as much food as can. • I was the waiter on August 5th, where some patron was told at 10:45 p.m. the kitch wasn't open and we ended up with the half chicken salad at midnight. I don't recall sayi that then, I might say it later for whatever reason, but as I am there to make money I pu sales as much as I can. • I have never seen 100 people in the parking lot and there certainly is no blood anywhere. ssioner Toerge noted the testimony of the General Manager was that the kitchen open. You just said you would say it was closed at 11:45 p.m. Stevens answered that was on him if he said it at all. When I am there, I push the food :h as possible. Callahan, local resident, speaking on behalf of her husband and his staff, stated they restaurant and when they get off work they go there late in the evening for food. If they a the opportunity to get there, I bring the food to them. The food is great and it is a 1 :e to go with the family. iissioner Toerge noted this is not how great the food is, it is about the impact on )orhood and the late hours. I appreciate the fact that the food might be good, and s are nice, but that is not the issue. I encourage you to talk about the issue that is that is created, the impact on the neighborhood and the ancillary nature of the food. m Jusco, local resident and regular patron of the restaurant noted his support of tt ;tablishment noting he has brought his family there many times. He stated that this is the ki; establishment that the City should be supporting and not slapping their hands. The Co( ficer and the detective both gave no specific problems at the Brewery. ABC couldn't find ai oblems, so what is the issue other than this Commission gave approval to build a home in tail area that just happens to be right behind the Brewery. Anybody living within a block awport Boulevard is going to have noise. How you can point the finger at the Brewery and s; is their fault, doesn't fly. This problem is all up and down Newport Boulevard and unless y( )me down on every bar in the City, you will still have a problem. If you do it only to the Brewe http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 are discriminatory unless you do it to everybody else. This is a great establishment Id hate to see anything bad happen to it, they do a great job. audience became very vocal at this point. Harp noted this is a public meeting and all rules of decorum prevail. If anyone violates those officers will be happy to escort you from the premises. Please let the people speak. The ming Commissioners are not here to respond to questions, they are the ones who get to asM questions. nissioner McDaniel noted he has tried hard to listen to everyone, he will be voting and I be best to hear the issues, not the emotions. We have to make decisions and so we a :ions to help us understand the situation to be able to make a good decision. Think abe you do to help yourselves when you make your presentation. We don't want to argue wi )dy or cause any trouble. Help us to get through the issues. )e Reese, noted that condition 10 states the approval of this use permit is for staurant/brewpub and shall not be construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or of se serving alcoholic beverages during hours not corresponding to regular meal hours (f( nducts sold or served incidentally to the sale or service of alcohol beverages shall not ;erred as constituting regular meal service)... I did go there on August 5th and when I w ere it was with the intention to see how it is being operated. The security guard met us at )or and was checking ID's. We asked why he was doing that and he said that after 9:00 p e restaurant becomes a bar and that no one under21 is allowed in or they would lose 8 luor license. The restaurant had patrons standing and loud music was playing. We sat e ble and asked the waiter for food who told us the kitchen was closed and the only thing to or as drinks. There were no chips, pretzels or popcorn being served. There were three secu cards inside the restaurant and another one was outside. It was obvious that this was acting bar, not a restaurant. went on to say that if you look at all the paperwork, the Planning Commission and >uncil were specific about the operation. Referring to hand written page 127 of the staff re read the testimony of the then general manager, Shawn Needelman. He then spoke a e differences comparing testimony. He suggested closing the restaurant at 11:00 p.m. a: the normal closing time of a restaurant and that will solve the problems. eorge Schroeder, noted he was present at the meeting in 1993 when the original permit w. ceived. The reason they got the permit was they were going to be a beer pub. He w. esent in 1999 when they applied for their liquor license. Referring to handwritten page 18, ite the restaurant/brewpub use is compatible with the surrounding commercial and near) sidential uses, there has always been residential uses in that area. It seems to be ; ipression that since the new loft condos were built behind it on one street now there sidential. There has always been residential use in the Cannery Village area. Part of b iginal staff report was that they would operate in a way that would be agreeable with ti .arby residential uses. I don't think it reasonable this man lose his business. All that matters e they complying with the permits they have gotten, and in my opinion they are not. TI )lution is they should close at 11:00 p.m: on Saturday and Friday nights, which should allevia lot of the problems for the residents in the area. I have lived 18 years here and it is not fair ame everything that is wrong on this one establishment, but we can look at the permit thi rve and the conditions they agreed to. There are fistfights on the streets after the bars a used and often times I am awakened at 1 a.m. and it is hard to get back to sleep and it dol fact your work day. This establishment should comply with the conditions of the permit. h mtinued talking about other establishments and noted that his survey resulted in closing tim4 11:30 p.m. He noted that this is a bar. Wetherhault, local resident, noted: Page 31 of 42 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 32 of 42 • The 200 blocks of 28th, 29th and 30th Streets get pounded every weekend with drunk activity. • A drunk has tried to break into his property. The police responded. • Fights have occurred where the police responded as well as the paramedics. • Various acts of sex, property damage, vulgar language go on all times of the night. • The point is these types of incidents continue to increase, as does the number of people under the influence of alcohol The number of police calls to this area is extreme. . The residents are tired of this and if the patrons can not leave these establishments in responsible manner and the bars can not control the activity of their late night patror then the City needs to start laying into these establishments. • This establishment went in as a restaurant and we would like to see it continue as restaurant but you need to do something to curb this activity. ier McDaniel noted you mentioned a lot of things that have happened. broken bottles but it is not normal that containers would be taken out from mt necessarily. You haven't talked about any specifics. Wetherhault answered it is one of the impacts, it is another bar having an impact in the rounding community. You can see the number of responses from the Police Department that alcohol related. mmissioner McDaniel noted this is in general for the area, not specific to this establishment. was answered, correct. Commission inquiry, Mr. Wetherhault added that there is loitering in the parking lots directly acent to the residents and you can see them coming from that area. Bransiwaski, past resident of Cannery Village, noted everyone is talking about ancillai The relevant definition of ancillary use comes from quarterly evaluation. How much boot us how much food is sold quarterly. You can't break it down to days, hours, weekdays. Yc in terms of discussion, but the relevant definition is quarterly. So why are people talkir it what happens between the hours of 10 and 12 p.m. or what the characteristics might be? y Shepherdson, resident since 1967 stated when his place was built there was a small rmet market that is now the Brewery, so these things came after I was a resident. The wery, Malarky's and Rudy's are not sidewalk cafes. I pass the Brewery on Sunday mornings it appears to have a nice ambience. What happens late at night is when our nightmare ts. These are full on drinking establishments. The drunks late at night keep him awake and i his perspective the village atmosphere is being destroyed in his immediate vicinity by the wery, Malarky's and Rudy's. The police can not respond when things happen. Rudy's on iday afternoons has live entertainment with a live PA system that sounds like it is in his age and this is around 4 -5 in the afternoon. It is very difficult to take and has gotten the police >Ived. He asked that if the City is pushing the mixed use and have businesses and living rters together but to allow the hard liquor license, for these things to continue, it really isn't ig to fit. We need help to maintain the Newport Beach village atmosphere. -in Weeda, business and property owner in Cannery Village, noted: • It is important to seek compliance with the use permit, that is what this is about http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PtnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 33 of 42 . Just because this operator has operated outside the permit for several years, does no lf validate or legitimize the actions. . When this use permit was applied for they were promoting themselves as a restaurant one of the reasons this was done is this was an amiable way to get a permit. . If they had gone in and said they were going to operate as a boisterous nightclub 11 p.m., 12 and 1 a.m. on the weekends, they would have virtually no chance of getting permit. Particularly since this district has a high concentration of bars and history l shown that nightclubs have not fared so well down there. • He mentioned other nightclubs in the area and stated the problems of a late night vein with alcohol. • This establishment was promoted as a restaurant because they could get a permit as restaurant. Now they are operating as a restaurant most of the time in the restaura hours and as a full blown bar after 11 p.m. • The clear solution is to bring them into compliance and have them be the restaurant the) promoted themselves to be, which many of the other restaurants in the area have set e fine example by doing so. • Condition 6 - the net public area of the restaurant is limited to 1,500 square fee daily. There is a bit of ambiguity the way this is written but we have contacted the Coasta Commission and it has been presented that it is a daily restriction and is part of the condition of the Coastal Permit. That is something that needs to be regulated an( enforced by the City. . Condition 7 - The hours of operation Monday through Thursday are 6 to 11 p.m. and think those should be the hours of operation on Friday and Saturday as well to bring it compliance with a restaurant type operation. . Condition 9 - The alcohol should be ancillary and not primary and should be in conjunc with food. The operator promoted that they needed this in order to make the food w then use it for the food. After 9:00 p.m. the most compelling testimony, 90% of business is alcohol so that really is in violation. . Condition 10 - It is pretty clear that the Planning Commission and the City Council did no want to promote a nightclub or bar there. Again this goes back to this being a restaurant. The reason for the use permit is to ensure things like this are being taken care of such a: parking and land use. There is a serious parking problem in the neighborhood when there are sport promotions during play off season or super bowl. That is what the Coasta Commission was concerned about. Commission inquiry he noted that condition 6 needs to be enforced and doesn't need to rifled. It is clear to me it is a daily condition that has been imposed by the Coa: mmission and needs to be enforced like all the conditions. My issue is not with the operat I what it does or who the people are, my issue is with the use permit and being in complier every other business like my business that operates under a use permit. We are nplianoe and we expect everyone else to be too. That is what a use permit is for. The 6 ht creates a lot of the problems and I think it can be organized by making them adhere to tF permit. I think this is really an important thing and applies to late night as well. It is rep )ut the parking and that is why that condition is imposed and needs to be adhered to. ates conflicts with other business owners during the normal business hours and crea iflicts with other public people parking as well. http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /nmO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 34 of 42 Roberta Aley, resident, noted that she frequents the brewery. She stated she has always been ble to get food after 12 p.m. She has not seen any of these problems after 12:00 p.m. when she has been there that have been portrayed by previous speakers. Hogan, a manager in charge of the kitchen at the establishment, noted: . He was on duty the night of August 5th when two patrons came in and said they were allowed to get food. . That night there were 3 events in So Cal and we were the slowest on that Saturday. with that, there is no way I would have shut the kitchen down. . We are supposed to be open and we are. . He is one of the last ones to leave and on the weekends leaves at 1:30 or 2 and ti parking lot is silent. Whatever happens after that is out of our control. We can lock tI parking lot but we don't want to be liable and if patrons need to leave their car and get taxi, then we promote that. There is a municipal lot in the back that can be used as well. . There were 41 calls recorded for this procedure, how many of them were during business hours? . 65% of the arrests were due to alcohol, how many of them were on the 4th of July and they involve us in any way? . Nobody orders food from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. After 2:00 a.m:, Jack in the Box is there is a line wrapped around the building. Denny's is standing room only. . A crime to me sounds like a someone not reporting they are seeing a fight going on. :e Chairman Eaton asked are there times the kitchen is closed before the closing time of tire premises. . Hogan answered no, the kitchen is open until the Brewery is closed. You can order a st 12:15 a.m. At Commission inquiry, he noted that we cannot force people to order food. O �y are out they are hungry, but they don't usually eat between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. Iliam Moore, resident on the boardwalk for 30 years, noted: . He has an alley in the back of his home and he chose to live on the boardwalk . Drunks come down that alley every night. . They are there because there are a lot of bars in the area, not just because of the Brewery . He has been a patron of the Brewery and has eaten there after 11:00 p.m. . He has never seen any problems in the parking lot. Low, local resident, noted: . Referenced the work done by staff and the time put in by the Commission. http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us /PinAgendas /2006 /nm08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 35 of 42 . He presented a packet of communications, which had been distributed to the Commissioners in their packets. . He presented copies of a CD of the May hearing. . There have been a lot of points of view of what people have seen or not seen. The iss that are in the communication that went to the City, I have heard no substantial testim that proves any of the communications are inaccurate. I submit that the complaints by residents are what they are and are part of the record. . We are talking about compatibility. We understand we live in a mixed use neighborhood and understand what that is. When we look to find equity of rights in that mixed use neighborhood, that is what we are talking about. Not whether they are good or bad, what's fair, what's right, what's appropriate, what isn't appropriate. That is why we ask you and we entrust upon you to make wise decisions on how to deal with our neighborhood. Chairman Eaton asked: . Are you associated with the Cannery Village Concerned group? . How big is that group and how wide an area do they live in? . Are they primarily residents? . Do you see any relationship between condition 6 and the late night nuisance problem or is that a case of the parking problem in the village as a whole? Or. Low answered yes, he is a member. It is not so much as a formal membership but th Croup probably has 50 -60 persons that are involved and about 80% of those are inside tt .annery Village. There are a few who live on the periphery of Cannery Village but they may t m the other side of Newport Boulevard. Certainly it is dominated by folks who live or o'A xoperty in the Cannery Village. Specifically condition 6, as dictated by the Coastal Commissio vas to free up parking during the day because they determined that the demand for parkir )ccurred during the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. They felt that after 6 p.m. people leave who m, lave been working there or go home from the beach and there is more parking there. Conditic i does not address evening issues, I think that the Coastal Commission was trying to make available to the Brewery in the evenings or other businesses or persons who use it in tt ;venings. There was a conflict during the day when other persons were attempting to utilize th imited parking. nmissioner McDaniel noted that the information that comes from this group, doesn't always signed. I have a problem when people send correspondence with no signature, it doesn't e a lot of credibility without the signatures. People who don't stand up and to be counted, I 't care. Low noted that everyone in that group are willing to be disclosed. e Madlock, Vice President of Newport Beach Brewing Company since its inception, noted: . The Type 75 license was not in existence when we first opened the brewery and asked for the conditional use permit. What was allowable was just the Type 22 which was a small beer manufacturer's license. The Type 75 came along later due to the fact that there was some old laws prohibiting brewing beer on the same premises where you could buy hard alcohol. It was not available or we would have asked for it at the beginning. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 36 of 42 . The parking issue and closing off part of the restaurant, it was my understanding that during the weekdays we left 13 spots for the office spaces above the brewery. We were under the impression that because the offices were closed on the weekends, that was the reason why the Coastal Commission was not pushing us on having any area closed off during the weekends. missioner McDaniel, referring to the August 5th City Council minutes, it was noted that tl icilmembers clarified that this Type 75 license application was to be able to provide for yc g customers. The ancillary thing keeps coming up here. When I read these minutes, ars to me you asked for this because your customers are sophisticated and don't want just a beer they may want to have a cocktail and you were trying to increase your sale Am I wrong in that? Madlock answered we wanted all higher sales. Of course we want to sell more food. Wi i that many customers that we had prior to getting the hard alcohol license were no luenting our establishment. We were told that many people wanted martinis, margaritas, etc. t all people want to order wine and beer and that was the basis of why we went in for the Typf license. nissioner McDaniel noted that it was stated that 'they wanted to complement iced food, wine and special menu, and capture a more diverse clientele by acquiring ce. I read this so that you wanted to increase your food sales and sell them a margarita )u wanted this license to assist with the food sale. Ancillary keeps coming up and we c you to be a bar, we want you to be a restaurant that serves drinks. Madlock noted we have never served a cover charge and we wanted to stay competitive. cholas Wilson, resident, noted that the testimony of most of the speakers it seems the bigge oblem is the parking lot. The majority of the complain concerns noise and the parking lot. It ;ariy unfair to single out one restaurant for the problems in that parking lot considering that a largest public parking lot in a proximity to seven restaurants within a two block radius. The a shortage of restaurants that do serve late in the evenings. There are those of us who do r irk 9 - 5 and we appreciate being able to get a beer and something to eat at a non -tegul itina hour. Huffine, resident of Costa, noted her support of the restaurant noting this is her ext y and as a regular patron have seen the efforts put forth by the owners to be comment was closed. nmissioner Henn referred to the Coastal Commission findings of 1993. The languag 3rding how much of the restaurant is to be open during what days seems to be clear an sistent with the motivations with what I know to be the Coastal Commission. There is n ding whatsoever about daily, it says, shall be open before 5:00 p.m. (referring to the 150 restriction). Doesn't say daily, doesn't say Monday through Friday. I don't know how th could interpret this to say Monday through Friday when the permit was issued. As far as concerned that is clear to me. Toerge noted his agreement with Commissioner Henn. Chairman Eaton noted his agreement also. He added that the deed restriction does as erring to handwritten 86). It says daily. With regard to the comment on the 13 spaces on ;r floor, hand written page 63 the staff report from the Coastal Commission notes that tt 43 spaces provided during the day with the restriction and that provides for the 13 on and floor. I don't think that related to not having the weekday restriction at all. If http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 37 of 42 � ndition needs to be clarified my recommendation is to remove the reference Monday throughl (Friday reference. McDaniel noted that he agrees. Commission was in agreement. McDaniel noted: . He has had to ask a lot of questions as the Commission handles zoning not blood, and fights. . The ancillary issue is clear and that the request for this Type 75 license for alcohol made so that the restaurant to better serve its restaurant customers. . The Planning Commission and the City Council made it clear that this was supposed tc a restaurant and I believe it was given to better help this place service its customers food. . There has been testimony from people who work there saying between 11 and 1 a. 90% of what goes on there is not food, it is alcohol; I can't make them eat, I'm okay w that, but the purpose of this condition and approval was so those people who did want eat could have alcohol, not so that you could just serve alcohol. . Another employee said nobody eats between 11 and 2 a.m., Denny's isn't busy, they after that. So this condition is not being served by this and it is a bar between those he as people don't eat there by their own admission and they are saying food is not ser because you can't make people eat. . They are not serving food, they are serving alcohol so I think there is a violation of portion of the use permit. . Clearly the daily issue we just talked about. . Nuisances - we have tried to pin down where those are coming from. Clearly they are all coming from this place and so what do we do from a zoning issue to try help sc that? That becomes more difficult for me. . We can ask the operator to assist by covering the trash and they are talking about that because they want to be a good neighbor. I'd like to look at giving the owners opportunity to fix these issues before we take any significant changes to this. . I am not sure if it matters to me if they serve alcohol or not as long as they are doing it in manner where it doesn't cause public safety issues because that is what I have to to about. . My view is to get some consensus how the operator voluntarily take care of some of the: issues. Maybe call this back in 6 months for a review and if they are not operatir responsibility than anything that they do after 11 p.m. is not a restaurant and we shou deal with it then. issioner Henn, noted: . Condition 10 - it seems this language was uniquely constructed. Is this standard lang http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlaAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 for the provision of a hard liquor license to an establishment that is primarily be restaurant? % Campbell answered this language was uniquely crafted at that time. We do a simil ,ndition today, in essence to define what the use is and what the use can not be. One of t was we are struggling with this condition is staff has looked at these conditions and balano a use based upon the entirety of the use, which is restaurant a majority of the time and a ly a minority of the time and principally it is a restaurant. Based upon that and that past practi why we struggle with does this condition prohibit the bar after 11:00 p.m., and the answer haven't looked at it in that light until now. Harp added that in talking with City Attorney Clauson, the intent was for this to operate as aurant but serve alcohol and not as a bar. Looking at the language in condition 10 its sa, I products sold or served to the sale incidentally to the sale or service of alcohol beverage I not be deemed as constituting regular meal service. It seems to me that provision is prel r and I don't see any ambiguity some others see. Toerge noted: This situation is broken. You don't get the kind of resident appeal that we are tonight if something is not broken. . The Planning Commission is going to have to get use to these kinds of discussion as n and more properties are zoned mixed use, although as we do that we will probably better about applying conditions. There is a real conflict in these conditions because I do read condition 10 that the servin of alcohol is to be done in correspondence with regular meal service hours. I've testimor about doctors and others who like to eat late and I understand that, but that is not reguk meal service hours and that is what we are talking about. What are those? I don't knov but they are not at midnight or at 11 p.m. or 1 a.m., that is not in my opinion. That is vei clear to me. We can debate the issue of ancillary as this Commission has in the pa; reviewed a number of applications for alcoholic beverage service ancillary with food and don't know of any of them that are open past 9:30 or 10:00 that we have approved wher an establishment might want to serve beer or wine or even a cocktail with their food. What I don't understand is how our predecessors could have allowed the property to open with this condition that alcoholic beverage could be served with regular meal sery hours. Harp noted when he had spoken with Ms. Clauson regarding this issue, her explanat ;d on her recollection was that the intent of the operation was to be like Charlie's Chili e of the other places that do serve food late at night and the intent was to have a meal have alcohol with it. When they got the amended permit the minutes stated that stele shifted from people in their twenties to people in their sixties. It is consistent with peo ing in for a meal and having a drink with their meal. imissioner Toerge stated that merging conditions 9 and 10 the ancillary service of alto food it makes it more clear. I definitely think an amended to this use permit is due and it to the residents. This issue came before us in May and the issue is still here; there see done to address the issues and from my standpoint I think the ours of operation should ced and I am not sure 11:00 p.m. is the right one but I know no later is the right one if tl to continue to serve alcohol with food. I will be recommending revocation unless the ow :s to agree to some other conditions. McDaniel asked about a 6 month time line. http: / /www. city. newport- beach .ca.us /PlnAgendas /2006 /Mn08- 17- 06.htm Page 38 of 42 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 39 of 42 (Commissioner Toerge answered no. r. Harp stated they had met with the Newport Brewery counsel as well as their manage rectly after the last Planning Commission meeting. Basically the emphasis at that meetini >me up with a way to get control of your business in the interim, implement those proce id come back to the Planning Commission with a plan. They haven't seem to really have uch in the last 90+ days, so that is something to take into consideration. tissioner Peotter asked about exhibit 5 that is the additional conditions offered by Nei Brewing Company. Have they implemented any of these, or is this something that do? Campbell noted the security guards are there but there has been no security plan presented. bottle recycling program has not been implemented, the trash dumpster area I have beer they are exploring the concept; the alcohol training I have been told that is being done, bu e is no proof to date; new entrance, upon tonight's testimony it hasn't been implemented ant tow upon close is something they are considering; and the back page is a suggestion tc ige condition 9 and 10. No particular other improvements have been made. mmissioner Henn noted he is not interested in waiting another 6 months to see if there untary improvements. If people want us to make the decision, I am glad to do that. I suggi continue this for one month to allow time for the aggrieved parties and the owners of t >iness to sit down and hammer out a solution that they can live with. I prefer not to make t - ision, I prefer the parties to come to some decisions. They might have tried that and fail 1 if that is the case, I am glad to make the decision as part of the Commission. imissioner Peotter noted that sitting across the table is not going to do much as tl ;ars to have been a lot of months of bad blood. I would be requiring them to implement have said in exhibit 5 within the next 30 days. We can give them 60 days with ementation and then sit down with the aggrieved parties if it is working or not. Other r their hours and be done with it. missioner Henn noted exhibit 5 doesn't go far enough. ;loner Peotter noted we can add to it such as an no age restriction, etc. on some additional implementation procedures. 'ice Chairman Eaton noted we should not try and do something tonight or at the next meedr ecause the Our Lady Queen of Angels will be at the next meeting. He agrees to a continuant >r a month. Both sides and city staff should meet to see what agreement there can be in tern f meaningful improvements but for the staff to come back to the Commission and present t ith what we can do in modifying conditions then have a review in 6 months to see how thoe fodified conditions are working. The other reason not continue the whole thing for 6 months iat either side may be anxious to get this up to City Council and we should not stall them for th eriod of time. During this month we need to structure some revisions to the conditions that v fight have a shot at working for the neighborhood. Cutting back the hours is the drastic solutic fat we would hope to avoid. I would like to have staff look at the certification programs have :)mponent that provide guidance to employees when to stop serving to individuals when the ave become too drunk for their own good. If it does, how can we get verification that tt mployees have gone through this training and can we get some assurance from manageri mployees that they have instructed their staff to implement that. The ultimate problem seems e outside the premises. The problem inside the premises they are containing and tt eighbors are not as affected. Some of the behavior outside the premises is probably n :)ming from the patrons of this premise unless they are going on to other bars because at 2:( .m., I am sure patrons of this establishment are probably gone. It is a neighborhood problem hich this establishment may be contributing a portion and I would like to see if there is a way Bt something back to us in a month that will offer some revised conditions including speciffcal http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 lition 6 and something specifically stating the kitchen shall remain open the entire time and to get the employee alcohol training implemented. . Craig Frizzell, Detective Division Commander of the Newport Beach Police Departmen )ted that there are several types of training programs. I know the training but I don't know ere is any type of certification, but we can find out. We can work this out with the owner withi month's time. ,mmissioner Henn noted that the neighborhood groups need to be involved during this time. noted that the people who own and operate this restaurant are not mal- intent. I think they an ing to operate a good business. I also don't think that the neighbors that are aggrieved an owing up their claims routinely here to make it seem much worse than it is, 1 don't believe tha finer. In fact, I really don't care as our function is not to find out who is telling the truth and whc exaggerating; our function is to try and find out what the use permit is and whether thE Aaurant is being operated in accordance with that and therefore whether the drunk people ii parking lot are patrons of this restaurant isn't the important issue. The important issue is at is the use permit and is it being operated correctly in accordance with it. I want to mak( re that everyone understands that this is an objective decision before us. The testimom light is not germane to the decision. Harp noted that on the motion it needs to be clarified as to the manner you want this to k to you as there are different procedures for modification and revocation. Chairman Eaton noted he is talking about a modification, not a revocation yet. issioner Toerge noted he does not want to take revocation off the table, to have s act. He prefers to continue the hearing and keep the option open Harp noted that revocation is not on the table but if you want to add it, staff will need ply with the procedures set forth for revocation. By opening up the door for revocation, do mean you have to take that action. We can combine it with modification, additional ter revocation. nmissioner Toerge noted he is not prepared to make a motion to revoke the license today he might be next time. It is an option we have and it should be maintained and it should be e. This is a serious issue and we need to maintain that option as I think it will motivate the ies to reach the resolution. I am not sure we will get there if revocation is not an option. nissioner Peotter clarified that you are suggesting that this item be continued and broi with revised conditions that are hammered out by staff who will have had input by bors and the owners. missioner Toerge noted his agreement; however, the meeting should be noticed in such that if the information we get at that meeting compels one or more of us to revoke it that v the opportunity to make that motion. What you are saying is the right tact, but ipposes that there is going to be some compromise and I am not convinced there is. is no compromise then I wan to revoke. lowing a brief discussion it was decided that revocation should also be on the notice for A meeting. :ion was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to September 21st and ask tl item be noticed in such a way that we have the opportunity to engage in further discussion ;e modifications to the use permit and/or revoke the amended use permit that granted IN right for this expanded alcohol sales on the premises. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm Page 40 of 42 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 41 of 42 JMr. Harp affirmed the Commission wanted staff to prepare potential modified and /or additional e Chairman Eaton agreed and added that there was consensus that the weekday removed from condition 6. maker of the motion agreed to add that to the motion. nmissioner Henn noted that the neighborhood people should not take this as carte blanche tc intransigent and unwilling to discuss and unwilling to compromise on their positions either. at the Commission is looking for is a compromise and I think that is included on all parties. v None Cole a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that the agenda for August 8th was the Council initiated an amendment to the Planned Community for Beloourt to pr( additional subdivisions, which will be coming to the Planning Commission. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Developmi Committee - Commissioner Henn noted the topic of discussion was the cost related Greenlight II. EDC will be recommending to the Council a revised summary of 1 associated costs. c. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Committee Commissioner Toerge noted at the meeting of August 14th the approach in terms of tI• volume of the information included in the Implementation Plan were discussed. " decided we needed a summary of how the items serve each of the policies in the Loc Coastal Plan itself. We discussed the topic of the Corona del Mar bluff developmei guidelines, which is significantly different than other bluffs in the City. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsegL meeting - Vice Chairman Eaton asked when the topic of the rules and procedures of Planning Commission will be up for review and whether the Zoning Committee will reactivated. Ms. Wood noted that staff is working on the rules and procedures and that Zoning Committee may be reactivated when the General Plan is approved. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for and staff report - none. f. Project status - none. g. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner McDaniel asked to be excused from next meeting on September 7th. Mr. Harp noted Ms. Clauson will be in attendance. http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 42 of 42 ADJOURNMENT: 11:56 p.m. JADJ OURNMENT ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us[P1nAgendas/2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 06/23/2008