Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Starbucks Coffee - Planning Director Permit 69 - 2801 E Coast HwyCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD C� < /L00.tl� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: January 23, 2001 16 James Campbell (949) 644 -3210 None REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Appeal of the Approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 and Accessory Outdoor Dinning Permit No. 76 2801 E. Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar APPELLANT/ APPLICANT: Starbucks Coffee Co. SUMMARY: Expansion of an existing full service small scale eating and drinking establishment into a neighboring tenant space, increasing the interior seating from 12 seats to 21 seats, increasing the exterior seating from 8 to 12 seats and providing separate gender restrooms. This application will replace the existing Planning Director's Use Permit No. 15 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 39 and their amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Hold a public hearing, deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the project. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the option to approve, modify or deny the project. BACKGROUND On December 7, 2000, the Planning Commission approved the subject applications with a condition of approval requiring additional parking be secured for the expanded use during the morning peak period. The Planning Commission felt that the existing operation created congestion and parking problems during morning, and that the expansion with 5 additional spaces located below the building was not sufficient to mitigate existing congestion and potential future parking problems. The Starbucks has been actively negotiating with nearby property owners and businesses in an attempt to secure additional parking. Starbucks requests relief from the requirement for additional parking in the event that they are unable to secure the additional parking. DISCUSSION As of the writing of this report, no new information is available as to the feasibility of securing additional parking. Staff will prepare a supplemental report or an oral report depending upon when information is received from the Starbucks. The expanded establishment will have 9 parking spaces located below the building in a garage which includes several tandem spaces. The 9 spaces meet the minimum parking requirement of 7 spaces using a I space per 3 seat ratio. The City has the option to use a more restrictive parking requirement based upon the amount of net public area and require up to 14 spaces which the site cannot provide without resorting to off -site parking. Which parking requirement the city applies is based upon the operational characteristics of the use. The Planning Commission did not specify how much additional parking was required during the morning peak, nor did they specify what the morning peak period was. Staff directed the applicant to secure 5 additional spaces between 6AM and 9AM in a location that is convenient to the operation. The amount of spaces is derived by using the higher parking standard minus the on -site parking (14 spaces required — 9 on -site spaces = 5 spaces). The hours are based upon the permitted opening time of Starbucks, use peak and the typical opening times of the nearby commercial uses that access the off -site parking lot secured by the applicant/appellant. Starbucks is attempting to use one of 3 nearby properties that are conveniently located. Two of the sites are directly across a public alley and the third is across Coast Highway which might serve commuters traveling northbound effectively. Starbucks requests that the additional parking requirement be eliminated if it is determined to be infeasible to secure. The City Council can grant the request of Starbucks without a parking waiver as the project complies with the less restrictive parking standard contained in the Zoning Code. In this case, the City Council should adopt the findings and conditions of approval made by the Planning Commission with the exception of the condition requiring additional off -site parking during the morning peak period. Denial of the appeal and affirmation of the Planning Commission's decision will require the applicant to provide the additional parking prior to the issuance of a building permit for the expansion. If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's approval, the City Council should adopt the findings and conditions of approval adopted by the Commission. The City Council has an additional option which is to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the expansion of the Starbucks. This can be accomplished by making the findings for denial contained in the December 7, 2000 Planning Commission staff report. Denial of the expansion will leave the existing operation in non - compliance with necessary accessible restroom standards with no solution identified at this time. Starbucks has stated that the existing operation cannot be modified to provide sufficient space to provide accessible public restrooms required by the Building Department. PDUP No. 69 & AODP No. 76 Januaru 23, 2001 Page 2 Lastly, the City Council can continue the item to permit additional time for Starbucks to attempt to secure additional parking. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director 6Y4d ?Qd 0/. -77/�Oaz Exhibits Prepared by: JAMES CAMPBELL Senior Planner City Council staff report dated January 9, 2001 (with attachments). F: WSERS\PLN\ SHARED\ICrrYCNU2001\0123\PDUP69 cc tpt 1- 23 -Ol.dw PDUP No. 69 & AODP No. 76 Januaru 23, 2001 Page 3 • • u O��E.wcogr0 CTTY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: January 9, 2001 I� PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 21 '= 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Appeal Period: None REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 I a3 Accessory Outdoor Dinning Permit No. 76 SUMMARY: Expansion of an existing full service small scale eating and drinking establishment into a neighboring tenant space, increasing the interior seating from 12 seats to 21 seats, increasing the exterior seating from 8 to 12 seats and providing separate gender restrooms. This application will replace the existing Planning Director's Use Permit No. 15 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 39 and their amendments. RECOMMENDED Open the Public Hearing ACTION: Continue this item to January 23, 2001 ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the option to approve, modify or deny the project. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block F, Tract 323 C ►7\11711;1► ZONE: APPLICANT: OWNER: DISCUSSION Retail Service Commercial RSC (Retail Service Commercial) Starbucks Coffee Co. Charles Mosesian & Steven Cash On December 12, 2000, the Planning Commission approved the subject applications to expand and improve the Starbucks coffee establishment located at the southeast corner of East Coast Highway and Goldenrod Avenue in Corona Del Mar. The Commission added a condition of approval requiring that the applicant obtain additional off -site parking during the morning peak due to the congestion and parking problems associated with the existing establishment. Additionally, the Planning Commission conditioned the project to expand the outdoor patio at the expense of interior area by relocating the glass storefront. This change reduced the interior seating from the 21 seats proposed to 15, and increased the seating on the outdoor patio from 12 proposed to 18 seats. The expansion of the Starbucks was proposed as a way to address the lack of customer restrooms • for the coffee house. The applicant states that they cannot physically comply with restroom requirements within the existing establishment as it is very small. Expansion into the adjacent suite will provide them with additional space to provide separate gender, handicapped accessible restrooms, additional storage areas, increased seating and more efficient operational areas. The expanded establishment will have 9 parking spaces located below the building in a garage which includes several tandem spaces. The 9 spaces meet the minimum parking requirement of 7 spaces using a 1 space per 3 seat ratio. The City has the option to use a more restrictive parking requirement based upon the amount of net public area and require up to 14 spaces which the site cannot provide without resorting to off -site parking. The Planning Commission recognized that the parking problem created by the use occurs in the morning and is exacerbated by inconvenient on -site parking and other nearby food uses. Attached to this report is an excerpt of the minutes from the December 12, 2000 hearing and the Planning Commission staff report which contains the background and analysis. Starbucks is in the process of exploring the feasibility of securing convenient off -site parking, and at this time, it is unclear as to whether they can comply. Additionally, they are assessing the implications of the change in the interior space with existing contractual arrangements. The applicant filed this appeal in order to preserve their administrative options, but requests additional time in order to fully analyze the impact of the conditions. The applicant wishes to comply with the Planning Commission's request to provide off -site parking and needs additional time to meet with adjacent property owners. Therefore, staff and the applicant request that this • item be continued to January 23, 2001. Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE JAMES CAMPBELL Planning Director / Sepior Planner f.r Exhibits 1. Excerpt of draft minutes from the December 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Planning Commission Staff report dated December 7, 2000 (with attachments) F: \USERS\PLN\SHAREDV CrrYCJU2001\0109\PDUP69 cc Ipt 1- 09- 01.doc • PDUP No. 69 & AODP No. 76 Januaru 9, 2001 Page 2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • December 7, 2000 encroachment agreement be executed for all non-standard and ecorative improvements to be constructed within the Kings Road right -of- w nd any easements. 5. That arra ments be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee's ' actory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtai building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 6. That disruption caused by nstruction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehlb4qs shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagm Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be co cted in accordance with state and local requirements. 7. That overhead utilities serving the site be underg%w,.nded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24. of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such dergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 8. That all work within public rights -of -way and easements be comp ed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. is9. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 10. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. em SUBJECT: Starbucks 2801 East Coast Highway • Planning Director's Use Permit 69 and • Outdoor Dining 76 • Planning Commission review of staff approval of a request to expand an existing full service small scale eating and drinking establishment into a neighboring tenant space. Increase interior seating from 12 seats to 21 seats. increase exterior seating from 8 seats to 12 seats and provide separate restroom facilities. This application will replace the existing Planning Director's Use Permit No. 15 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 39 and their amendments. Commissioner Kranzley called up this item for Planning Commission review. Commissioner Tucker was recused from this matter due to a conflict of interest. X .iUIT04 Item 7 PDUP 69 OD 76 Approved 3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX • Mr. Campbell noted changes to conditions and findings of approval (distributed) refer to page 7 - 9 in the staff report. The first finding change is to add an additional bullet point to finding b. The basics of this finding is that we are determining that the expansion of the coffee house is not a detriment provided it maintains its operational characteristics as a coffee shop. It recognizes the fact that if this permit were to be transferred to another use, they might be open during lunchtime hours serving full meals as well as dinner and potentially creating some issues during those hours. That would be a detriment to the area if it were to be expanded in that fashion. There is a change to condition 3 to restrict the seating so that it remains basically where it is and not be moved into the retail area. There are two additional conditions, 32 and 33 that would basically limit the facility to its existing operational characteristics, very similar to what Starbucks does. The intent is not to limit what Starbucks does but would prevent any future food uses utilizing this use permit to basically open up a more intensive restaurant. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted there is no definition of food service within the Code. Our thought here is that a muffin /scone and a cup of coffee do not constitute a meal. The complaints that staff has received is the congestion at the intersection and in the residential neighborhoods. Other complaints historically have been the bathroom, that is why the application is here. We have put the applicant on notice that they need to provide them. Complaints are that the patrons are using restrooms in other establishments in the area. The primary purpose of this application is to • provide those restrooms, that is why they are expanding into the adjacent suite. I have not heard any specific complaints about the opening time. Commissioner Kranzley stated that in the December 19, 1997 approval, it states that all unauthorized seating shall be removed prior to the issuance of the new certificate, and in the current report there is referral that the applicant would allow patrons to use their restroom. However, there was no condition in the 1997 approval for this. So this confuses me. Ms. Temple answered that is actually covered by the Uniform Building Code, where a restroom needs to be made available. As part of the original specialty food permit, under which the operation was originally established, the building department made the determination that the nature of the use was such that actual public accessible restrooms were not required. The business simply indicated that people would be allowed to access the employee restaurant. Since that time, the actual operation of the Starbucks and the existing operation based on compliance with of access requirements in the building code would require accessible restrooms under today's parameters. The Building Department, does in fact receive complaints from patrons of the facility related to the lack of restrooms. I can not give any specifics why access to the existing restroom was not made a condition of the original Directors Use Permit approved a couple of years ago. In trying to resolve the restroom issue it was staff who requested the applicant look at the ,38� 0 1 City of Newport Beach IS Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 possibility of leasing the vacant tenant space next to it as one means of o resolution of that particular issue. Commissioner Kronzley stated that he is o frequent visitor to that area and during the a.m. peak hours, that area is o mess. There is illegal parking, there is porking throughout the residential area and between the hours of 7 and 7:30 a.m. it is on amazing sight. Port of this was addressed o couple of years ago when we revised Title 20. There was something called Specialty Food that I think was put in the Code mid to late 80's. My understanding was that it started oft with a maximum gross floor area of 1250 square feet. When you think about gross area of 1250 you think about an ice cream store, candy shop where you literally walk in and look of something and walk out. It is supposed to be more of o retail experience than on actual sit -down experience. Tables were brought in when the gross floor area was increased to 2000 square feet and the original concept to what specialty toad was did not exist. We were then having these little coffee shops with areas tar people to sit down and spend time there. We have experienced this with this corner, which is Bruegers' and Seattle's Best and Storbucks. The experience is the tact that it is not working; it is too crowded and is o parking hazard. The parking that is there does not work; there is no signage that tells us that we can pork under the building. A large number of people who go there in the morning do not pork there, they pork wherever they can they get out of the car • quickly and go to Storbucks pick up their coffee and leave. So what you have is o combination of o coffee shop and o drive through without the window. We have those uses compounded by the other uses that are in that corner that create o problem in the a.m. peak hours. So when I sow the expansion of this use permit, I thought why would we expand in an area that is not working and is detrimental to the surrounding residents? The answer was, well it you have more seats inside there will be fewer people lingering outside. I am not sure that will work, but in my thinking you will have more people sitting inside and you will still have the some amount of people going in and out tar their coffee on o drive - through type basis. I think what we have of Storbucks is o use that has outgrown its location and probably needs to find a different location in Corona del Mar where the use is more compatible with the surrounding area. That is why I called up this use permit. At least with Bruegers' and Seattle's Best there is some semblance of parking, with Storbucks there is none. • Commissioner Agojonion noted that he concurs with the trotfic problems in and around the area during that a.m. peak. The place is just going crazy and people are just trying to get by or get through. I pork underneath the building itselt and I find it difficult. It is difficult to find, difficult to squeeze in, difficult to bock out. The space is there, but it is not particularly operational. I don't know what to do of this point. I think we will attract more customers and I don't think you can just open o larger shop without attracting more people. I think my issue is the trotfic with the a.m. circulation. KA INDEX 25 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 Chairperson Selich noted that one solution may be that the parking behind the Hobie Sports is not used at all because it is gated. If something were to be worked out where the parking down below be used for employees of the whole block only because the public will not use it no matter how many signs you put there, they will park on the street or in an open lot before they go downstairs. Maybe have an arrangement with whomever owns the Hobie lot that in the morning during the peak hour that the gate be opened and assigned for use by Starbucks. Commissioner McDaniel noted that if we do not approve this, we still have what we have today, which we don't like. Plus we have no bathrooms and people standing out in the street. Public comment was opened. A. J. Kuhl, Starbucks Coffee 17700 Newhope, Fountain Valley representing the applicant noted that the Corona del Mar store was in the first ten that was opened up in California. The Floor plan is the same as when it opened in 1992. Continuing, he noted the opportunity to improve the store, which will result in a benefit to the community and to the customers. We are planning to provided American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant publicly accessible specific gender restrooms and add some seating by leasing the adjacent space. The seating portion of it is an outfall; to get the bathrooms we need to rent the adjacent space of 1,000 square feet. We take up a couple hundred square feet with the restroom and we have a couple of hundred additional. We think this will provide a better store overall and satisfy the request of the City to provide specific gender restrooms. We think that in light of the competitive issues, we think this is a long -term plan for us to retain customers. Staff has raised the issue of parking. What we are doing is not increase any ability to pump out more coffee, we are not adding more staff we are holding on to what we have. The increase in the parking problem with the morning hour rush in and rush out, so the seating aspect of the request does not seem to have any type of bearing on that issue. By expanding this space, we are taking over what could potentially be another tenant in that space and that tenant would have employees and customers parking there. We anticipate trying to maintain the volume we have and essentially free up parking for our space. There is a major competitor coming in down the street. I don't think this expansion will increase our sales. Our sales have actually declined since they peaked in 1995 -1996. At that time 1996 -97 we were trying to process a permit to increase our seating from 12 to 25 at that time anticipating new competition coming in we did not get the approval for the additional seating. The competition came in and our sales declined; we anticipate a similar situation with new competitors coming in. As we have opened up additional Starbucks stores it does put the focus on the stores we have in the neighborhood they serve. The first store was a novelty for Southern California, the next store that opened up in Via Lido were at first destination type uses, now it's a neighborhood use. If for some Fa INDEX • • • CGS City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • December 7, 2000 reason Starbucks went away, the business would shift to the coffee shops across the street. People are not using the parking underneath. There are a number of things to encourage the use of the existing parking. One is to better identify the available parking; it might be helpful in code enforcement for people to get ticketed who are in the red zones. That would send a message that if they do park in the red zone, they will get a ticket and that is a strong message to send. We could also stencil on the front door that parking is available under the building and ask customers not to park over at Bruegers and Seattle's Best as they may get towed. This would send a message also, to encourage our customers to park in the spaces down below. The 3 tandem parking spaces we have are to be used by our 3 employees as suggested by staff. We are increasing bathrooms by changing the existing facility that we have, as it is an odd shaped building. It is unsafe to have customers come from the back to the employee restroom area due to customer and operational safety issues. We have not found any reasonable alternative to relocate that restroom so we think this is a solution. It will not adversely impact the area but actually create a benefit to the area; it will create additional parking through this expansion. Chairperson Selich asked if the applicant could explore the possibility of getting the Hobie Sports lot open early in the morning during the peak hours? Do you have any objection to doing that? Getting off -site parking isagreements is pretty common. Mr. Kuhl answered that they would do that. Commissioner Kiser asked the applicant to explain how the expansion was not intended to increase the amount of coffee to be sold as stated in his presentation. I am trying to understand why you would need to lease another space just to maintain your present customer base. Mr. Kuhl answered that the plans we have provide a very nice seating area with a fireplace. We think it will be an amenity. We have lost customers in the past. With having another competitor opening up down the street, all of the coffee shops will feel the loss of customers. Commissioner Kiser noted that this is a defensive move on your part to maintain the present business? If that is the case, then these parking issues are non - issues completely. If you do not have any more customers than you have now, and you are just maintaining your present customers, then the concerns with additional parking I assume you consider that a non - issue. Mr. Kuhl answered that we do not anticipate an increase the demand for parking. Commissioner Agalanian asked the applicant if they had considered another larger location to accommodate all your needs at one time that would help • '2e INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX • alleviate the traffic. Mr. Kuhl answered that when this issue first came up, we searched for other locations but were unable to come up with any. We do have a lease at this location, so if we did find another site, it is not as though we could up and leave. We have several years left on our lease, so that is part of the difficulty. Commissioner Selich noted that another problem is the people congregating out on the sidewalk. I wonder if you would have a problem with as part of this expansion of agreeing to make a portion of the expansion area an outdoor area. I looked at the building today and it would be easy to pull the curtain wall back in about six feet and make those three tables outdoor tables and would provide more room for people to congregate on the outside and still have the same amount of seats. Mr. Kuhl answered that part of the design is to cut back what would be the north /west corner. There are dotted lines where the roofline changes to provide outdoor seating; that was our attempt to do that. Commissioner Selich asked if more could be done, as there are a lot of people who congregate. There are two issues, parking and large number of people who tend to congregate outside the door and out onto the sidewalk area because there is not sufficient outdoor area as part of your use. I don't believe that just by providing the seats indoors that you will have all those • people come inside. A lot of those people are bicyclists and other outdoor types of people who are not going to be attracted to going inside the store. That is why I am saying would you object to pulling that curtain wall back about six feet or so and make those three tables outdoor seats. Mr. Kuhl answered that he didn't think they would have a problem. We will look at this as a possible solution. Dan Purcell, 501 Poinsettia commended Commissioner Kranzley for bringing this issue up. Chairman Selich is right on with his recommendations of the parking and outdoor dining. I live about a block and a half off Coast Highway. In the village area we live close to one another; there are people on top of each other. That particular location and the kind of improvements that are going to be made in Corona del Mar, we had some discussions on what is the center of town. The geographic center is Marguerite and Coast Highway; the social hub is the coffee shops. We don't want to lose that. It is convenient for the people who are south bound and northbound. I discourage signs that would go up saying people are going to be towed or ticketed, we don't have that and don't want it in Corona del Mar. I did a parking study of the entire business district in Corona del Mar and counted every space along there as well as all the spaces behind in the alleys in those areas. It does seem that large parking area that is gated off could be used for parking if it was opened during certain hours and again those employee ,a< 0 [,N City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes is December 7, 2000 spots used underneath. The other coffee shop at the other end of town does not have similar parking problems because they have a shared parking arrangement with the Haney Baked Ham shop. I can see exploring the use of the Habie lot. it would be nice to have that outdoor dining area as well. COI Cootsworth, 515 Goldenrod referencing his letter dated October 171h, which asked for him to look Into some Issues an this application. He stated that Starbucks is good about cleaning up their area, however, they disregard the times when this is done. I have talked to code enforcement about this issue and I do not know why it is not noted in the staff report. He noted that Starbucks closes at 12, they then take their trash out and slam the doors of the trash receptacle. Parking is a problem and with this expansion it will be exacerbated. People park everywhere, red zones, driveways, curbs, etc. The Habie lot was gated because of Starbucks. Nine stalls for parking is not adequate. The extra 900 It space that is being leased by Starbucks, when you use 200 square feet for two restrooms, that leaves 800 square feet; what happens to that space? If there are not people coming there, then people will be staying longer, either way you have a parking problem. I don't think that Starbucks is a good neighbor when it comes to the hours and cleaning. It has proven to me as a neighbor that they do not follow their restrictions an the use permit. I would like to see more strength in the language of the report and I think that they have outgrown their location. • Mr. Kuhl answered that as for as the extra space is concerned, we are actually relocating all of the dining areas seats into that expansion area. That will open up the retail and coffee serving areas. I would certainly talk to Habie to arrange parking. I was talking to my design consultant and he tells me we can drop that wall back to provide that seating. Additionally, if it is the Commission's desire, we can provide more seating in the rounded landscape area also. At Commission inquiry, he noted that he did not know if all the people who are illegally parking are his customers or not. Commissioner Kronzley noted he would move for approval of the expansion if they could bring back an off -site parking agreement with the Habie ]at for at least some time during the peak hour morning period. That is the only way I would approve it. Looking at the numbers if we grant you 21 indoor seats, 12 outdoor seats that totals 33 seats; for one seat for every 3 you have nine parking spaces of which 3 are for employees. You are way short an parking. The bottom line, parking is a large issue, granted you are not the sale cause, but you are a main contributor and by expanding that contribution it is counter intuitive that you will add more seats and a fireplace without expecting to increase your business. That does not make any business sense to me. Motion was made by Commissioner Kronzley to approve this item with the additions of comments regarding the reconfiguration of the outdoor dining and the off -site parking agreement with Habie Sport. • -ge INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 Commissioner McDaniel stated he is not comfortable with this applicant to bear the burden of that comers rogue parking. Is there any evidence that states that? Commissioner Kranzley answered that the point I am making is that at least Bruegers and Seattle's Best have some semblance of convenient parking. We have all agreed that the underground parking at Starbucks is not adequate or convenient. Commissioner Kiser asked that all employees would use the underground parking. He suggested that specific information regarding the lot behind Hobies to be used for parking. He then commented that he supports the approval. Chairperson Selich noted that we do not need to specify the number of parking spaces in the Hobie lot, it is either all open during the peak hours and before the other stores open. Commissioner McDaniel stated that if the applicant is not able to acquire the agreement, what happens then. Chairperson Kranzley answered that he can come back if they can not get an agreement. Commissioner Gifford referencing the added conditions asked what nexus exists between Condition 32 regarding non - beverage food ties back to? I am not sure where it fits in. Mr. Campbell answered that it goes back to the third bullet that was added under Finding b. That basically defines this as a coffeehouse with operational characteristics that do not create a restaurant. Commissioner Kiser noted that non - beverage food terminology is a recognition that beverages like coffee are technically a food. This would refer to basically solid food rather than coffee. Commissioner Agajanian noted that a distinction is being made between food that is prepared (washed, handled. cooked) whereas the coffee is brewed and handled like processed food. The distinction is that a non - beverage food is sold that is already wrapped up, but not processed. Commissioner Gifford stated that it would make more sense to say in addition to beverages they shall not serve any food other than non - beverage food. Non - beverage food is then defined as pre - packaged and ready to eat. What prevents them from serving other than pre - packaged food and ready to eat food? I know that they can not have traditional meal service, but UR INDEX • • 10 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 what is here to prevent them from serving that? It was suggested and agreed to: • add Food shall be limited to prepackaged and /or ready to eat food ..in front of Condition 32; • and remove the word or from the second line of Finding b bullet point 3 (The use does not prepare of food on -site. Commissioner Kranzley agreed to make the amendments to his motion. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Tucker FINDINGS: 1. The Planning Department determined in this case, that the proposal would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the outdoor dining permit as proposed would not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the following reasons: • The increase in seating beyond 21 seats would increase current parking demand that would further hamper the effectiveness of the existing parking and traffic circulation system on -site and in the vicinity. Such impacts would cause increased vehicular traffic that would obstruct the entry driveways and extend into the public right - of -way on Goldenrod Avenue thereby creating unsafe and hazardous conditions. • The approval of an increase in the interior seating of the establishment is not compatible with the surrounding residential land uses since it would worsen traffic and circulation on Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway. 2. The property is designated for "Retail and Service Commercial' use by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. The proposed use is consistent with that designation. 3. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). 4. The proposed full- service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment is retail in nature, mainly serving persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is not necessarily a destination point. It is anticipated • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX • that the proposed use, based on its limited menu, will have parking demand characteristics similar to a general retail use. 5. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping and lighting (exterior illumination) meet the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for restaurants (full- service, small scale eating and drinking establishment) and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Director approves this application, for the following reasons: • The existing physical characteristics of the site are not proposed to be altered. • Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subject property. • The same purpose or intent of the required walls surrounding the property to control noise can be achieved by the limitation on the hours of operation. • The change to the restaurant facility does not constitute a significant change to warrant an increase in landscape area. However, the recommended conditions of approval which require enhancement of the existing landscape areas will better meet the intent and purpose of this development standard. • The existing parking lot lighting will not be altered; there have not been any past complaints related to lighting and the same result of intent or purpose is achieved by the existing light sources • and the conditions of approval. 6. The approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 for a full- service small scale eating and drinking establishment will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the city for the following reasons: • The proposed use is a continuation and expansion of the existing limited food service use that serves the neighboring residential and commercial uses and visiting tourists in the area. • The nearby commercial and residential uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed change in the operation since the hours of operation have been limited and the parking requirement based on available on site independently accessible parking spaces. • The use is a coffeehouse and food and beverage sales are limited to ready to eat food and beverages as defined by Title 20. The use does not prepare 6F food on -site and the use does not provide meal service of any kind. These operational characteristics limit potential impacts of the proposed use to the AM period. Conversion of the establishment to a caf6 or restaurant where any food preparation occurs on -site or traditional meal service is provided either from a counter or table service would create A 0 12_ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes is December 7, 2000 additional impacts during lunch and dinner periods. Expanding the impacts of the use beyond the AM period with the addition of food preparation or meal service would be detrimental to persons living and working in the area. 7. The approval of that portion of the request of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 to allow the increase in the interior seating of the establishment will not, as modified under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • The subject property is currently non - conforming with regard to parking which results in the property being under - parked for the uses that occupy the existing building. However, the non- conforming status will be eliminated by the increased tenant space size and additional parking spaces allocated to the subject facility. The limitation on the number of interior seats in the establishment is based on the number of parking spaces (9 spaces) available to the subject tenant space. • The off - street parking spaces in the common lot are for the benefit of the proposed establishment and the other uses on the subject property. The three tandem parking spaces allocated for the benefit of the subject facility are not utilized as required by the • existing approval (Planning Director Use Permit No. 15) and are generally not available for patron or employee parking because the rear space is usually occupied blocking access. • The addition of interior seats will increase vehicular traffic and circulation an Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway and can be minimized only by limiting the total number of seats of the facility. CONDMONS: . Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. The previous approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 15 shall become null and void upon the implementation of any portion of this use permit approval and cannot be reinstated. 3. Maximum seating and /or stand -up counter space for no more than 21 customers shall be maintained inside the subject eating and drinking establishment (and the outdoor dining subject to approval of o separate outdoor dining permit). Any increase in the number of seating and /or stand -up counter space for customers shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit. Seating shall not be added or relocated within the identified retail area. 4. The outdoor dining shall be installed and maintained in accordance INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX with the separate review and approval of an accessory outdoor dining permit. 5. The applicant shall submit plans to the Building Department for the building permit that reflect the change in the establishment, including the number of authorized seats permitted for the facility, both interior and exterior. The applicant shall contact the City Code Enforcement Officer to schedule an inspection of the facility to verity compliance prior to final of the building permit or issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. J. [Q a The "net public area" shall be limited to a maximum of 1,000 square feet (exclusive of display and condiment table areas). The hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday; and 6:00 a.m. to midnight, Friday through Sunday. Any increase in. the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit and may be subject to approval of the Planning Commission. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited unless the use permit is amended and approved by the Planning Commission. The approval is only for the establishment of a restaurant type facility as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, with the principal purpose of the sale or service of food and beverages. 10. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division. The inspection will verity and confirm the control of light and glare and compliance with the limitation on the number of interior seats. H. The area outside of the food establishment, including the common walkways, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 12. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 13. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the proposed facility, but not located on or within any public property or right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department or the General Services Department. • • • 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes is December 7, 2000 14. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 15. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean up of all on -site and off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use and shall submit a detailed plan for the policing of the surrounding vicinity for compliance with this condition. 16. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored - in the trash enclosure (three walls and a gate), or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top that shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 17. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors. This may include the provision of fully self- contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, it deemed necessary by the Planning Department. • 18. A minimum of 9 parking spaces shall be provided for the exclusive use of the subject tacility and shall be designated by appropriate signage or pavement marking to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Director. Three of the tandem parking spaces located within the parking garage shall be dedicated for the parking of employee vehicles of the subject tacility only. Prior to implementation of the increase in the number of seats, a parking plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director that depicts the method of compliance with the conditions of approval related to the subject parking lot. The remaining on -site parking spaces shall be maintained for the general use of all tenants of the subject property on a tirst- come, first -served basis and shall not be designated for the exclusive use of any one particular tenant, unless approved in conjunction with any future discretionary approvals. 19. The parking lot shall be maintained in its present configuration providing 19 on -site parking spaces and meet handicap accessibility requirements. 20. Employees shall park on -site at all times during regular business hours. 21. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 22. No outside public address speakers or paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this establishment. • .00 INDEX 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX • 23. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing company. 24. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use. 25. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the food establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 26. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform Mechanical Code prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject business and approved by the Building Department. Issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 27. The facility shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of the • Newport Beach Municipal Code for commercial kitchen grease disposal. 28. Deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., daily, unless otherwise approved by an amendment to this use permit. 29. A covered wash -out area for refuse containers and kitchen equipment shall be provided and the area drain directly into the sewer system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Director and Public Works Director in conjunction with the approval of an alternative drainage plan. 30. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit; or revoke this permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this approval causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 31. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the end of the appeal period. 32. Food sholl be limited to prepockoged and /or reody to eot food Non 10 • 1& City of Newport Beach IS Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000. beverage fGGd- Fail be!.imited '.e r aeke ed and read to eei 9��00� � eP Q i .,.. feed as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Prepackaged food is any processed food prepackaged to prevent any direct human contact with the food product upon distribution from the manufacturer. Ready -To-Eat food that is in a form that is edible without additional washing, cooking, or preparation by the food facility or the consumer and that is reasonably expected to be consumed in that form. 33. Traditional meal service either at a counter or table shall be prohibited. Beverages served in conjunction prepackaged or ready - to -eat food does not constitute a meal. Cooking or meal preparation facilities shall be prohibited. 34. The added portion of the tenant space shall be altered to move the storefront back approximately 5 feet to reduce the indoor seating and add area for outdoor seating. The alterations shall be approved by the Planning Director. 35. Supplemental off- street parking shall be provided during the morning peak hours (7 a.m. to 10 a.m.) through an off -site parking agreement with a nearby commercial property owner. The agreement shall be • approved by the Office of the City Attorney. The location of the off - site parking shall by approved by the Planning Director. Jiffy Lube Signs 2801 East Coast Highway Use Permit No. 3647 sign program INDEX Item 8 UP 3678 sign program Review of sign gram for the Mariner's Mile Jiffy Lube under construction as Approved required by Use Pe ' No. 3647. Commissioner Tucker aske tall for and received a brief review of the ground rules for monument signs. am not sure that I understand completely how the monument sign program wo Mr. Campbell referring to the staff report n d the prototype exhibit of a monument sign. This particular exhibit is include 'n the sign program and strategic vision, which is the policy document upon wNcti this entire program was developed. The provisions call for a relationship be n the height of the overall monument sign to its width.. That is, the width woul 25% of the height; if the sign was 24 feet high, it could be 6 feet wide. That is height of the total sign structure. The term sign panel is the uppermost portion re the graphic or lettering, etc whatever is being depicted as the sign. T proportions I am discussing are the overall sign structure of the sign cabinet, • X V� �EW?oq, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: December 7, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 7 _.= 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92655 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Appeal Period: 14 days • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 Accessory Outdoor Dinning Permit No. 76 SUMMARY: Expansion of an existing full service small scale eating and drinking establishment into a neighboring tenant space, . increasing the interior seating from 12 seats to 21 seats, increasing the exterior seating from 8 to 12 seats and providing separate gender restrooms. This application will replace the existing Planning Director's Use Permit No. 15 .and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 39 and their amendments. ACTIONS: Sustain the Planning Director's approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 and Accessory Outdoor Dinning Permit No. 76; or, overrule the Planning Director's approval and deny the • requests. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block F, Tract 323 GENERAL PLAN: Retail Service Commercial ZONE: RSC (Retail Service Commercial) APPLICANT: Starbucks Coffee Co. OWNER: Charles Mosesian & Steven Cash Introduction On October 27, 2000, the Planning Director approved the subject applications to expand and improve the Starbucks coffee establishment located at the south east corner of East Coast Highway and Goldenrod in Corona Del Mar. Commissioner Kranzley requested that this project be brought before the Planning Commission for review. is [Vol Background • The existing Starbucks originated with the approval of Modification No. 3938 on November 13, 1991. The business was expanded and converted from a "specialty food" establishment to a full service, small scale eating and drinking establishment with the approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 15 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 39 issued on December 19, 1997. These permits set a limit on the setting at 12 interior seats and 8 exterior patio seats. Discussion The expanded facility solves several operational problems that the business experiences as well as alleviates a public nuisance. First, the existing floor plan does not provide sufficient area for customer waiting and circulation and retail space. Second, the expansion provides for additional back office area for additional storage which the applicant indicates is sorely needed. Third, public restroom facilities will be provided which will abate an ongoing nuisance with Starbucks patrons seeking other facilities, and lastly, additional seating has been suggested by regular patrons creating more of a cafe environment rather than a take -out environment. When the suite was originally designed in 1991, the Starbucks concept was relatively new and it was not clear whether or not public restrooms were absolutely necessary. Additionally, the layout of the space was limiting and designed to fit to the minimal space available. The business has been successful at this location and it seems clear that the use has outgrown the 1991 design. The use was established with an understanding that the business would let its patrons use the employee restroom. Presently, patrons are not permitted to use the employee restroom due to its • limited accessibility and need for storage in the back office area. The changed operational characteristics and success of the business has forced Starbucks' patrons to seek restrooms in other area businesses, creating a nuisance. Due to complaints, staff informed Starbucks that additional public restroom facilities were necessary and required. The abutting commercial space became available, and Starbucks seeks to solve the restroom dilemma through the expansion and remodel of the entire facility. The applicant seeks additional seating in an attempt to justify the increased financial burden the increased space creates. • The primary issue of concern for staff was parking and congestion the expanded use may create. The project is located at an intersection where there are three similar food establishments that directly compete with and actually complement each other according to the operators. The level of activity at this intersection weekday momings and weekends is significant. The expansion of the establishment into the adjoining suite increases the available parking for Starbucks from 5 spaces to 9 spaces with the 4 additional spaces previously devoted to the abutting retail suite. The business is classified as a full- service, small- scale, eating and drinking establishment and the expansion remains classified this way as it meets the use classification definition provided in Chapter 20.05. The required parking for this classification is 1 space for every 3 seats or 1 space for every 75 square feet of net public area. In this case, the net public area will increase from 420 square feet to 1,000 square feet, which is the limit of the use classification. The upper seating limit for this classification is 25 seats and the proposed increase in interior seats is from 12 to 21. Parking for this application was required based upon the 1 space per 3 seat, and staff reduced the request PDUP No. 69 & AODP No. 76 December 7, 2000 Page 2 11 from 25 interior seats to 21 seats due to a belief that the increased seats would create too much parking demand and congestion to the detriment of the area. The minimum parking for this applications using the 1 space for every 3 seats is 7 parking spaces. • Staff required that the 9 spaces be required for the expanded Starbucks which is the current number of spaces devoted to the combined commercial spaces. In other words, staff did not want to reduce the required parking available to the use that presently exists. The alternative parking requirement for this use (I spacen5 sq. ft. NPA) results in 14 parking spaces being required. Staff did not apply this standard as observed parking demand at various times did not seem to warrant it, and that the net public area has areas devoted to retail displays which reduce the effective net public area. Staff did observe that the existing underground parking areas, which has a tandem parking configuration, were not being utilized properly as customers would park in the second space of the tandem set while the first space was empty. This practice has added to the congestion at the site. Staff added a condition that requires that three spaces be devoted to employee parking and that a parking management plan be developed and approved prior to the expansion. The intent of this provision is to require that the employees park in the first space of three tandem parking sets making the second space of the set available for customers. This type of restriction will lead to more efficient use of the existing parking. Staff felt that if the available 9 spaces were use efficiently, these spaces should be sufficient to accommodate the expanded facility. If the Commission believes that the 9 required spaces is not sufficient for the expanded use, additional parking demand analysis prepared by a qualified traffic consultant or engineer should be directed. If this analysis determines that the additional parking spaces are necessary to support the use, a parking waiver or project denial is warranted. An alternative to the "all or nothing" approaches might be to further limit the proposed net public area and available seating. The • applicant has expressed a severe need for additional storage space, and the floor plan can be easily modified creating additional storage areas and less public space with fewer seats. The fewer the seats, the lower the traffic and parking demand. One additional factor to consider is that the outdoor patio seating requires no parking pursuant to Section 20.82.050 provided that the patio is less than 25% of the interior net public area and that the net public area is no larger than 1,000 square feet. The parking exemption for these small patios is based upon the premise that patio seating does not generate vehicle or parking demand. This presumption of a lack of demand is generally valid for small establishments, but it may not be the case with larger operations or unique operations. Staff believes that in this case, there is little difference between indoor or outdoor seating, weather aside, for a coffee house. Therefore, whether or not to require parking for the outdoor seating under certain circumstances is a valid question. Section 20.82.040 (C) permits the City to impose additional requirements in order to ensure compatibility of uses and it supports staff's decision to require the 2 additional parking spaces. The attached Planning Director's Use Permit and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit provides the additional analysis that was used in making the findings for project approval. The findings and conditions of approval are contained in the attached exhibits. PDUP No. 69 & AODP No. 76 December 7, 2000 Pa� • �O Recommendation • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and affirm the decision of the Planning Director by making the findings contained within the attached exhibits. If the Planning Commission believes that the 9 parking spaces available for the use are not sufficient and that there are not opportunities or factors that would lead the Commission to consider a parking waiver, the project should be denied by making the findings contained in Exhibit No. 3. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Ir Exhibits Prepared by: JAMES CAMPBELL Senior Planner 1. Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 (with attachments) 2. Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 78 (with attachments) 3. Findings for denial E • \Vv11S_i\SYS\Uum\PLN. Shared\] PLANCOM \2000\12A7pc\Stafiucks\PDUP69 pc tpt.dm PDUP No. 69 & AODP No. 76 December 7, 2000 P;We< �-' SEW °oa, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Application: Planning Dir. Luse Permit No. 69 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Application October 4, 2000 o Complete: 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Date of Notice: October 6, 2000 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 . (949) 6443200; FAX (949) 6443250 Date Approved: Staff Person: October 27, 20 Javier S. Garcia, 644 -32M Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date Application: Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 Applicant: Starbucks Coffee Co. Address of Property Involved: 2801 East Coast Highway Legal Description: Lot 1, Block F, Tract 323 Request as Modified and Approved: The applicant requests to expand an existing full service small scale eating and drinking establishment into a neighboring tenant space, increase interior seating from 12 seats to 21 3--+ seats and provide separate sex sanitation facilities. This application will replace the existing Planning Director's Use Permit No. 15 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 39 and their amendments. The hours of operation will remain as authorized which are limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday; and from 6:00 a.m. to midnight, Friday through Sunday. No other changes are proposed at this time. The property is located in the RSC (Retail and Service Commercial) District, Original Request: The applicant requests to expand an existing full service small scale eating and drinking establishment into a neighboring tenant space, increase interior seating from 12 seats to 25 seats and provide separate sex sanitation facilities. This application will replace the existing Planning Director's Use Permit No. 15 and .Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 39 and their amendments. The hours of operation will remain as authorized which are limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday; and from 6:00 a.m. to midnight, Friday through Sunday. No other changes are proposed at this time. The property is located in the RSC (Retail and Service Commercial) District. Director's Action: Approved on October 27, 2000 The Planning Director in approving this application analyzed issues with regard to the Code required parking and required sanitation facilities. The detailed analysis can be found in the attached appendix. In consideration of those aspects, the Planning Director determined in this case that the proposal to increase the interior seating could be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood unless seating is limited. The use permit as approved (limiting the interior seating to 21 seats) would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and made the following findings: • • ,e5r P'-) 00 October 27, 2000 Page - 2 • FINDINGS: 1. The Planning Department determined in this case, that the proposal would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the outdoor dining permit as proposed would not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the following reasons: • The increase in seating beyond 21 seats would increase current parking demand that would further hamper the effectiveness of the existing parking and traffic circulation system on -site and in the vicinity. Such impacts would cause increased vehicular traffic that would obstruct the entry driveways and extend into the public right -of- way on Goldenrod Avenue thereby creating unsafe and hazardous conditions. • The approval of an increase in the interior seating of the establishment is not compatible with the surrounding residential land uses since it would worsen traffic and circulation on Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway. 2. The property is designated for "Retail and Service Commercial" use by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. The proposed use is consistent with that designation. 3. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Envirorrmental Quality Act under Class 1 • (Existing Facilities). 4. The proposed full- service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment is retail in nature, mainly serving persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is not necessarily a destination point. It is anticipated that the proposed use, based on its limited menu, will have parking demand characteristics similar to a general retail use. 5. The restaurant development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping and lighting (exterior illumination) meet the purpose and intent of the development standards of the Municipal Code for restaurants (full- service, small scale eating and drinking establishment) and will not be achieved to any greater extent by strict compliance with those requirements if the Planning Director approves this application, for the following reasons: • The existing physical characteristics of the site are not proposed to be altered. • Walls would adversely impact existing traffic circulation on the subject property. • The same purpose or intent of the required walls surrounding the property to control noise can be achieved by the limitation on the hours of operation. • The change to the restaurant facility does not constitute a significant change to warrant an increase in landscape area. However, the recommended conditions of approval which require enhancement of the existing landscape areas will better meet the intent and purpose of this development standard. E '1 J October 27, 2000 Page- 3 • The existing parking lot lighting will not be altered; there have not been any past • complaints related to lighting and the same result of intent or purpose is achieved by the existing light sources and the conditions of approval. 6. The approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 for a full- service small scale eating and drinking establishment will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the city for the following reasons: • The proposed use is a continuation of the existing food service use that serves the neighboring residential and commercial uses and visiting tourists in the area. • The nearby commercial and residential uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed change in the operation since the hours of operation have been limited and the parking requirement based on available on site independently accessible parking spaces. 7. The approval of that portion of the request of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 to allow the increase in the interior seating of the establishment will not; as modified tinder the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • The subject property is currently non - conforming with regard to parking which results in the property being under - parked for the uses that occupy the existing building. However, the non - conforming status will be eliminated by the increased tenant space size and additional parking spaces allocated to the subject facility. • The limitation on the number of interior seats in the establishment is based on the number of parking spaces (9 spaces) available to the subject tenant space. • The off - street parking spaces in the common lot are for the benefit of the proposed establishment and the other uses on the subject property. The three tandem parking spaces allocated for the benefit of the subject facility are not utilized as required by the existing approval (Planning Director Use Permit No. 15) and are generally not available for patron or employee parking because the rear space is usually occupied blocking access. • The addition of interior seats will increase vehicular traffic and circulation on Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway and can be minimized only by limiting the total number of seats of the facility. CONDITIONS: Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. The previous approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 15 shall become null and void upon the implementation of any portion of this use permit approval and cannot be reinstated. • October 27, 2000 Page - 4 • 3. Maximum seating and/or stand -up counter space for no more than 21 customers shall be maintained inside the subject eating and drinking establishment (and the outdoor dining subject to approval of a separate outdoor dining permit). Any increase in the number of seating and/or stand -up counter space for customers shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit. 4. The outdoor dining shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the separate review and approval of an accessory outdoor dining permit. 5. The applicant shall submit plans to the Building Department for the building permit that reflect the change in the establishment, including the number of authorized seats permitted for the facility, both interior and exterior. The applicant shall contact the City Code Enforcement Officer to schedule an inspection of the facility to verify compliance prior to final of the building permit or issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 6. The "net public area" shall be limited to a maximum of 1,000 square feet (exclusive of display and condiment table areas). 7. The hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday; and 6:00 a.m. to midnight, Friday through Sunday. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit and may be subject to approval of the Planning Commission. • 8. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited unless the use permit is amended and approved by the Planning Commission. 9. The approval is only for the establishment of a restaurant type facility as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, with the principal purpose of the sale or service of food and beverages. 10. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division. The inspection will verify and confirm the control of light and glare and compliance with the limitation on the number of interior seats. 11. The area outside of the food establishment, including the common walkways, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 12. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 13. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the • proposed facility, but not located on or within any public property or right -of -way, unless 14 October 27, 2000 Page - 5 otherwise approved by the Public Works Department or the General Services • Department. 14. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 15. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean -tip of all on -site and off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use and shall submit a detailed plan for the policing of the surrounding vicinity for compliance with this condition. 16. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure (three walls and a gate), or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top that shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 17. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors. This may include the provision of fully self - contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 18. A minimum of 9 parking spaces shall be provided for the exclusive use of the subject facility and shall be designated by appropriate signage or pavement marking to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Director. Three of the tandem • parking spaces located within the parking garage shall be dedicated for the parking of employee vehicles of the subject facility only. Prior to implementation of the increase in the number of seats, a parking plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director that depicts the method of compliance with the conditions of approval related to the subject parking lot. The remaining on -site parking spaces shall be maintained for the general use of all tenants of the subject property on a first -come, first -served basis and shall not be designated for the exclusive use of any one particular tenant, unless approved in conjunction with any future discretionary approvals. 19. The parking lot shall be maintained in its present configuration providing 19 on -site parking spaces and meet handicap accessibility requirements. 20. Employees shall park on -site at all times during regular business hours. 21. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 22. No outside public address speakers or paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this establishment. 23. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing company. • M/ • • • October 27, 2000 Page - 6 24. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with the permitted use. 25. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the food establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the :Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 26. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform Mechanical Code prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject business and approved by the Building Department. Issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 27. The facility shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for commercial kitchen grease disposal. 28. Deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., daily, unless otherwise approved by an amendment to this use permit. 29. A covered wash -out area for refuse containers and kitchen equipment shall be provided and the area drain directly into the sewer system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Director and Public Works Director in conjunction with the approval of an alternative drainage plan. 30. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit; or revoke this permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this approval causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 31. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the end of the appeal period. The decision of the Planning Director may be appealed by the applicant or any interested party to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the date of the decision. Any appeal filed shall be accompanied by a filing fee of 5714.00. PATRICIA L. TEMPLE, Planning Director October 27, 2000 Page- 7 By J vier S. Garcia, AICP Senior Planner Attachments: Vicinity Map Appendix Letters of Opposition Detail Seating Plan F: \USERS\PLN\SHARED \l PD- UP\PDUP69.DOC cc: Starbucks Coffee 1311 Post Avenue Torrance, CA 90501 property owner Charles Mosesian 6381 North Van Ness Fresno, CA 93711 Code Enforcement Officer • • • • • VICINITY MAP MAP # 32 SEE M P 'n MAP # 17 Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No.76 E X;[G October 27, 2000 Page - 9 APPENDIX Comparison of Proposed and Previous Operation ' Area devoted to waiting and dining within the facility. C� u • Proposed Existing Expanded Full Service Small Scale Operation Eating Establishment Number of Employees: 2 -3 employees 2 -3 employees Alcoholic Beveraee Service NO NO Hours: Staff recommendation: 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., daily. Monday through Thursday; and 6:00 a.m. to midnight, Friday through Sunday Subject Tenant Space: 2,101 sq.ft. 1,200 sq.ft. Net Public Area (% of space): N/A 0 sq.ft. Dining and Retail Areas: 1,000 sq.ft. 420 sq.ft. TOTAL: 1,000 sq.ft. (48 %) 420 sq.ft. (35 %) Other area: Restrootn storage, kitchen and Service: 1,101 sq.ft. (52 %) 780 sq.ft. (65 %) TOTAL AREA: 1 2.101 sq.ft. 1.200 sq.ft. ' Area devoted to waiting and dining within the facility. C� u • L� • E October 27, 2000 Page - 10 Parking Comparison Parking Requirement Based on a requirement of one parking space for each 3 seats, the facility provides parking to accommodate 25 interior seats, however, the applicant has indicated that 21 seats as shown on the plans is all they are requesting at this time. Staff observed, on three separate occasions, the tandem parking spaces are not utilized by employees and are not accessible for use by patrons because vehicle park in the rear parking spaces. This leaves only 6 spaces independently accessible and available for use by patrons. Staff believes that a limitation on the number of interior seats is be reasonable in this particular case based on the parking configuration and non -ruse of the tandem spaces. Therefore, staff recommends that the facility be limited to 21 seats as shown on the plan. The applicant has been informed and concurs with that restriction. Interior Seating and Sanitation Facilities Rounded up from 14.7 spaces Proposed Existing Restaurant Operation O eration Property Parking: Parking Available On -site: 19 spaces 19 spaces Parking Required @1/250 sq.ft.: 9 spaces 5 spaces Actual: Building parked @ Building parked iy one space /250 e.f.a one space /250 g.fa Full- service, small scale Davtime iNiohttime Parking Requirement: (for 21 seats) (for 21 seats) @ I space /3 seats: 9 spaces 9 spaces (no deficit) (no deficit) @ I space/75 sq.ft. "npa ": 14 spaces 14 spaces Parking Allocated to Other Uses On- Site`: 10 spaces 10 spaces 14 spaces (ri one per 250 s .ft.) TOTAL: 19 spaces 19 spaces 19 spaces (no deficit) (no deficit) (no deficit) Limit interior seating to 21 seats Staff Recommendation: Maintain 19 on -site parking spaces, designate 9 spaces for the subject use that is to include 3 tandem parking spaces for employees, Parking Requirement Based on a requirement of one parking space for each 3 seats, the facility provides parking to accommodate 25 interior seats, however, the applicant has indicated that 21 seats as shown on the plans is all they are requesting at this time. Staff observed, on three separate occasions, the tandem parking spaces are not utilized by employees and are not accessible for use by patrons because vehicle park in the rear parking spaces. This leaves only 6 spaces independently accessible and available for use by patrons. Staff believes that a limitation on the number of interior seats is be reasonable in this particular case based on the parking configuration and non -ruse of the tandem spaces. Therefore, staff recommends that the facility be limited to 21 seats as shown on the plan. The applicant has been informed and concurs with that restriction. Interior Seating and Sanitation Facilities Rounded up from 14.7 spaces October 27, 2000 Page- 11 The applicant has requested an increase of interior seating from 12 seats to 21 seats and the outdoor • seating will increase from 8 seats to 12 seats. The increase in seats requires the provision of additional sanitation facilities, as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the Health Code (Orange County). This will be accommodated by the addition of separate sex restrooms in the expanded area of the tenant space. Trash Accumulation Staff received letters of complaint with the previous application in regard to trash generated by the subject facility that accumulates in and around the subject property. Staff observed trash accumulation in the vicinity that can be attributed to the subject facility. In response to that complaint, staff has recommended a condition of approval requiring employees of the establishment police the vicinity in and around the subject facility to control littering and trash accumulation. Staff has also required that a written schedule for litter control by employees and a log of policing activities be maintained and available upon.request. Restaurant Development Standards Chapter 20.82.040 of the Municipal Code contains development standards for restaurants, as outlined below, to ensure that any proposed development will be compatible with adjoining properties and streets. Said development standards include specific requirements for building setbacks, parking and traffic circulation, walls surrounding the restaurant site, landscaping, exterior illumination, signage, underground utilities, and storage. Section 20.82.040 D of the Municipal Code states that any of the above mentioned development standards for restaurants may be modified or waived if strict compliance is not necessary to achieve the purpose or intent of the standard. Development Standards REQUIREMENT Site: Site shall be sufficient size and configuration to Complies. satisfy all requirements for off -street parking, setbacks, curb cuts, walls. landscaping and refuse storage as provided by Section 20.82.040 of the Municipal Code. Setbacks: Zero setbacks sides. front and rear per RSC Complies. District Development Standards: to protect the public health, safety and welfare or to insure compatibility with uses on contiguous properties (per Section 20.82.040 A -2, NBMC). Off- Street Off -street parking in accordance with the Complies. Parking: provisions of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.66. Circulation: Parking areas and driveways to facilitate traffic Complies. and circulation of vehicles on and around the facility and to provide adequare sight clearances. • • \J • October 27, 2000 Page - 12 REQUIREMENT Walls (adjacent A solid masonry wall 6 feet high shall be erected to the interior on all interior property lines of the subject property lines): property. Walls 3 feet in height shall be erected between the on -site parking areas and the public rights -of -way. Landscaping. 10% of entire site. 3 foot wide landscape area shall be provided to screen the parking area from the public right -of -way (alley). A 3 foot wide landscape area adjacent to the interior property lines shall be provided. Lighting: Parking lot and site illumination height and intensity; to minimize the reflection of lights to the streets and neighboring properties. Utilities All utilities required to be undergrounded. Waiver of the requirement of the 6 ft. high wall since such provision would impact vehicular access through the alley at the rear. Walls between the on -site parking and public rights - of -way would impact vehicular circulation on Goldenrod Avenue and may adversely impact sight distance of vehicles exiting the property. Complies. Conditions of approval requiring enhanced treatment of existing landscape areas as directed by the Planning Commission in its interpretation of the applicability of Site Plan Review No. 44 requirements, satisfies this requirement. Complies, the existing parking lot lighting is not proposed to be altered and there have not been any past complaints related to lighting. However. staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the lighting be directed to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. Strict compliance would not achieve any ,greater result than would redirection of existing light sources to achieve the purpose or intent of this requirement. Complies. Sapp4, Storage I Supply storage to be contained within a building. I Complies. Refuse Storage Refuse storage outside of a building shall be Complies. hidden from view by a solid masonry wall 6 feet in height with self - locking gates. Staff believes that the on -site development standards which apply to walls (surrounding the property) should be continued as previously granted by Planning Director's Use Permit No. 15, since the granting of the waiver will achieve the same results as would strict compliance with the requirements of Chapter 20.32. q � k .® qu4 ;!»7!>l ;ea § ; ;! |; U) | /{ | /; 20. ,= q `` m. \ 6@ 9@ eeeeee @e @@@ @@@@@ @@ q � k U) | | /; 20. ,= q `` m. \ 6@ 9@ q � k 10-19-201210 9.38AM FROM CCA ARCHITECTS INC. 949 833 ildO P,1 is 17 October 2000 Mr. Jay Garcia Planning Department City of Newport Beach Dear Jay I am writing in response to the postcard notice we just received for the Starbucks expansion at 2801 East Coast Highway. I am opposed to any Starbucks expansion unless Starbucks is required to lake some steps to mitigate their impact on the neighborhood. Starbucks has not been a good neighbor! I am not singling out Starbucks; Seattle's Best and Bruegers have not been good neighbors either. The main issues that I would like to see addressed by Starbucks are trash, parking, operational noise and traffic. There has been and increase in the trash left on the front lawns and sidewalks of all of the houses on Goldenrod, and I am sure other streets. I would like to see Starbucks be required to send an employee up and down each side of Goldenrod to pick up Cash each morning and afternoon. I would like to see the other vendors do this as well. In a dream world the could share the duty but... The parking issue is that nobody uses the parking beneath Starbucks. Instead they park anywhere, and I mean red zones, handicap parking stalls and anywhere else that can fit. A cat • parked in the red zones and Goldenrod essentially chokes of the intersection of Goldenrod and PCH by forcing "northbound" cars toward the center and pinching off the cars turning right off PCH. A car trying to merge after parking in the red zone "just to get a coffee" has even hit me. would like to see resident permit parking on Goldenrod, or metered parking with permits exempting residents, Starbucks has been very diligent about keeping their premises and sidewalk clean. Unfortunately they do not care what time of day they clean. The situation has improved slightly in recent times, but they have- a tendency to power wash as early as light allows A. I have seen power washing going on as early as 5:00 am. When I complained to Starbucks I was told by a rude manager that they had to do it that early, before the customers arrived. What about those of us trying to relax in our homes? Starbucks also decided to open earlier for a period of time and didn't seen to bother checking with the requirements of their CUP. The point is that Starbucks is always pushing to try to get away with something and I think that they should be sent a message and stopped in their tracks, Traffic is a bigger issue for which I have no solutions. Goldenrod has become a commercial street for which it was not designed and I feel that any more intensive use of the spaces that contribute to the traffic should be limited. Thanks for hearing my complaints and suggestions P Calvin J. Coatsworth 515 Goldenrod Corona del Mar. CA 92625 • 10+ FROM : LE PAPILLON dba FRANCIS -ORR FAX NO, : 949 - 673_4762 October 11, 2000 Planning Department City of Newport Beach `r 33fffi33ewpon'Boulevard` Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Re: Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 76 Gentlemen: Oct. 16 2000 01:33Ptt P2 As the owner of the property and the business adjacent to the Permit property — 2833 East Coast rIighway, Corona del Mar — I must strongly oppose any further intrusion on the parking situation in Corona del filar. As you know with 3 eating establishments at the comer of Goldenrod and PCH, the parking is a major problem, not to mention the traffic jams on the weekends. As it is, Starbucks patrons do not have enough parking available to them and they park anywhere and everywhere, including my parking lot which is reserved for my customers To double Starbucks available inside space is asking for many more parking problems at that corner. The underground parking originally designed for that entire building of 4 business is certainly not adequate for the volume of business that has come to be conducted in that 4 -olex- There are Q single parking spaces and 5 double spaces that ._the.employees always. use Box dly enough for the number of people parking for Starbucks and the other 2 businesses. On any given morning there are at least 40 people getting coffee and on any given weekend morning there are at least 60. Think about doublin. that!! Please give this issue your most serious consideration as it greatly effects the businesses and homes around that area of Corona del Mar. Sincerely, ?ropeny Owner • • • 3� 10 -19 -2000 9:38AM FROM CCA ARCHITECTS INC. 949 833 lid@ P_1 • 17 October 2000 Mr. Jay Garcia Planning Department City of Newport Beach Dear Jay I am writing in response to the postcard notice we just received for the Starbucks expansion at 2801 East Coast Highway. I am opposed to any Starbucks expansion unless Starbucks is required to take some steps to mitigate their impact on the neighborhood. Starbucks has not been a good neighbor! I am not Singling out Starbucks; Seattle's Best and Bruegers have not been good neighbors either. The main issues that I would like to see addressed by Starbucks are trash. parking, operational noise and traffic. There has been and increase in the trash left on the front lawns and sidewalks of all of the houses on Goldenrod, and I am sure other streets. I would like to see Starbucks be required to send an employee up and down each side of Goldenrod to pick up trash each morning and afternoon. I would like to gee the other vendors do this as well. In a dream world the could share the duty but... The parking issue is that nobody uses the parking beneath Starbucks. Instead they park anywhere, and I mean red zones, handicap parking stalls and anywhere else that can fit. A car • parked in the red zones and Goldenrod essentially chokes of the intersection of Goldenrod and PCH by forcing "northbound" cars toward the center and pinching off the cars turning right off PCH. A car trying to merge after parking in the red zone "just to get a coffee" has even hit me. I would like to see resident permit parking on Goldenrod, or metered parking with permits exempting residents. Starbucks has been very diligent about keeping their premises and sidewalk clean. Unfortunately they do not dare what time of day'they clean. The situation has improved Slightly in recent times. but they have.a tendency to power wash as early as light allows it. I have seen power washing going on as early as 5:00 ant. When I complained to Starbucks I was told by a rude manager that they had to do it that early, before the customers arrived. What about those of us trying to relax in our homes? Starbucks also decided to open earlier for a period of time and didn't seen to bother checking with the requirements of their CUP. The point is that Starbucks is always pushing to try to get away with something and I'think that they should be sent a message and stopped in their tracks. Traffic is a bigger issue for which I have no solutions. Goldenrod has become a commercial street for which it was not designed and I feel that any more intensive use of the spaces that contribute to the traffic should be limited. Thanks for hearing my complaints and suggestions P Calvin J. Coatsworth 515 Goldenrod Corona del Mar. CA 92625 • 0 FROM : Le PRPILLON dba FRANCIS -ORR Planning Department City of Newport Beach v.. 33fl0 33ewpon Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1768 FAX No, : 949 - 673-4762 Oct. 16 ;,a 01:- SPP1 P2 October 11, 2000 Re: Planning Director's Use Permit Igo. 69 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 76 Gentlemen: As the owner of the property and the business adjacent to the Permit property — 2823 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar -1 must strongly oppose any further intrusion on the parking situation in Corona del Mar. As you know with 3 eating establishments at the corner of Goldem'od and PCH, the parking is a major problem, not to mention the traffic jams on the weekends. As it is, Starbucks patrons do:not have enough parking available to them and they park- anywhere and everywhere, including my parkins lot which is reserved for my customers. To double Starbucks available inside space is asking for many more parking problems at that corner_ The underground parking originally designed for that entire building of 4 business is certainly not adequate for the volume of business that has come to be conducted in that 4 -plex_ There are V single parking spaces and $'double spaces that _ the employees always use_ Hardly enough for the number of people parking for Starbucks and the other 2 businesses. On any given morning there are at least 40 people getting coffee and on any given weekend morning there are at least 60. Think about doubling that" Please give this issue your most serious consideration as it greatly effects the businesses and homes around that area of Corona del blar. Sincerely, Threshie, Property Owner • u • C� � fro �� ( in • v E�'PC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3260 Application: Ace. Outdoor Dining Permit No. 76 Application October 4, 2000 Complete: Date of Notice: October 6, 2000 Date Approved: October 27, 2000 Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, 644 -3206 Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date Application No: Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 76 Applicant: Starbucks Coffee Company Owner: Charles Mosesian, Fresno, CA Address of Property Involved: 2801 East Coast Highway Legal Description: Lot 1, Block f, Tract 323 Addition of outdoor dining in conjunction with the proposed expansion of an existing full- service small scale restaurant specializing in coffee and pastry items. The exterior seating will increase from 8 seats to 12 seats. The property is located in the RSC (Retail and Service Commercial) • District. Director's Action: APPROVED. October 27.2000 The Planning Director determined in this case that the proposal would not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and, as approved, is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following findings: FINDINGS The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program designate the property for "Retail and Service Commercial" land use; and the proposed outdoor dining is accessory to an existing food service use, a permitted use within that designation. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). 3. The approval of this application will not. under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace. morals, comfort, and general welfare of the city for the following reasons: • Since the use is accessory to and an extension of the existing food service use, subject to all the findings conditions of approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 and any subsequent amendments, and not an independent use 3�) October 27, 2000 Page - 2 • The proposed outdoor dining area is compatible with the surrounding land uses • and its limited hours should prevent noise from adversely impacting the nearby residential uses since the proposal does not include any noise generating activities (i.e., entertainment). • The proposed accessory outdoor dining will not be located so as to result in a reduction of existing parking spaces. • The restrictions on the use of solid roof structures as applied to this approval are consistent with the intent and purpose of the accessory outdoor dining CONDITIONS: Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. The accessory outdoor dining shall be used in conjunction with the related adjacent food establishment and shall be limited to a maximum of 12 seats and 250 sq.ft. maximum (gross area), as proposed (25 percent of the indoor net public area of 1,000 sq.ft.), unless a use permit is obtained from the Planning Commission. 3. Prior to issuance of the building permit; the revised floor plan showing the configuration of the outdoor dining area and retention of the landscape planter shall be submitted for review by the Planning Director (the use of physical barriers to delineate the area shall be specifically defined and labeled). • 4. The tables located between the building and the East Coast Highway right -of -way shall be permanently anchored to the ground or otherwise affixed to the building. No freestanding tables shall be permitted outside of the facility or the area enclosed by the planter or in the public right -of -way. The 'specific brand, type and model of table tops and seating shall be .approved by the Planning Department prior to installation and any proposed changes to the type or model shall be approved prior to installation. The seating adjacent to the food use facility shall be limited to the area as delineated on the approved site plan only. 5. Prior to implementation of the outdoor dining use, the applicant shall provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan to show changes and enhancement to the existing landscape planter areas at the front and rear of the subject property (as depicted on the approved site plan), to determine compliance with the landscape plan approved in conjunction with Site Plan Review No. 44. 6. The hours of operation of the outdoor dining area is limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to midnight, Friday through Sunday. Any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this application and an amendment to Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69. 7. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated • by the subject facility. The use of outside loudspeakers, paging system or sound system 00 2Z October 27, 2000 Page - 3 • shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining area. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.26 provides, in part, that the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods: 8. The applicant shall retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise/acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the outdoor dining activity to insure compliance with these conditions, if required by the Planning Director. 9. The use of area heaters shall be approved by the Building Department and the Fire Department prior to installation or use. The use of propane heaters and the storage of propane containers on the premises is prohibited, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department.. • 10. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean-up of all on -site and off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use. Additionally, the area outside of the food establishment, including the public sidewalks, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner and may be subject to providing periodic steam cleaning of the public sidewalks as required by the Public Works Department. 11. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located outside of the related food service facility to serve the accessory outdoor dining area. 12. No outside paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this outdoor dining establishment. 13. Alcoholic beverage service shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining areas, unless an amendment to the existing use permit and this outdoor dining permit is first approved in accordance with the provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 14. All applicable conditions of approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 shall apply and remain in force (copy attached). 15. Should problems arise with regard to noise associated with the outdoor dining areas, the Planning Department reserves the right to require the removal of all or a portion of the • outdoor dining area seating in the areas which contribute to the noise problems or complaints. Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. interior exterior interior exterior Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property: N /.A 65 dBA N/A 60 dBA :Measured at the property line of residentially zoned properrv: N,A 60 dBA N/A 50 dBA Residential property- 45 dBA » dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA 8. The applicant shall retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise/acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the outdoor dining activity to insure compliance with these conditions, if required by the Planning Director. 9. The use of area heaters shall be approved by the Building Department and the Fire Department prior to installation or use. The use of propane heaters and the storage of propane containers on the premises is prohibited, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department.. • 10. The operator of the food service use shall be responsible for the clean-up of all on -site and off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use. Additionally, the area outside of the food establishment, including the public sidewalks, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner and may be subject to providing periodic steam cleaning of the public sidewalks as required by the Public Works Department. 11. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located outside of the related food service facility to serve the accessory outdoor dining area. 12. No outside paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this outdoor dining establishment. 13. Alcoholic beverage service shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining areas, unless an amendment to the existing use permit and this outdoor dining permit is first approved in accordance with the provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 14. All applicable conditions of approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 shall apply and remain in force (copy attached). 15. Should problems arise with regard to noise associated with the outdoor dining areas, the Planning Department reserves the right to require the removal of all or a portion of the • outdoor dining area seating in the areas which contribute to the noise problems or complaints. October 27, 2000 Page- 4 16. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing company. 17. The Planning Department may add to or modify conditions of approval to this outdoor dining permit, or revoke this approval upon a finding of failure to comply with the conditions set forth in Chapter 20.82 of the Municipal Code or other applicable conditions and regulations governing the food establishment. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission may also revoke this permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this approval causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 18. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the end of the appeal period. The decision of the Planning Department is final, however, the approval is subject to call up by the Planning Commission or the City Council for referral to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the date of the decision. PATRICIA L. TEMPLE, Planning Director By Q6. Javier S. Garcia, AICP Senior Planner Attachments: Vicinity Map Detail Seating Plan Letters of Opposition are included with Planning Director Use Permit No. 69 FAUSERSTLMSHA RED\] OUT- DNG\ACT10NS \0D76.DOC cc: Starbucks Coffee 1311 Post Avenue Torrance, CA 90501 property owner Charles Mosesian 6381 North Van Ness Fresno, CA 93711 Code Enforcement Officer • u October 27, 2000 Page - 5 APPENDIX u Parking Requirement In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.82 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, parking for accessory outdoor dining requires no additional parking if it is less than 25% of the interior net public area, the subject facility complies with this limitation.. Additionally, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 Municipal Code, parking for a full- service small scale eating and drinking establishment is one space for each 3 seats or one space for each 75 square feet of net public area. The facility will cause the non - conforming' status of the parking to conform with the Code requirement. Interior Seating and Sanitation Facilities The applicant has requested an increase of interior seating from 12 seats to 21 seats and the outdoor seating will increase from 8 seats to 12 seats. The increase in seats requires the provision of additional sanitation facilities, as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the Health Code (Orange County). This will be accommodated by the addition of separate sex restrooms in the expanded area of the tenant space. • 145 ,kk y0' R.1 VICINITY MAP SEE Ntl P Oil MAP # 17 Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No-76 • • 0 u�► 2�' • a6 48 PATH OF F TRAVEL • Proposed Seating Play: Interior Seating Limited to 21 seats max. Outdoor Dining Area limited to 12 seats max. R MAT O REL 2O NEB WAL WAL CUB: PAR' SAC. OREM( TO . STOF O NEW SO NEW O (3) RE O NEW SYSTE SO NEW DRA)NE O NEW F 0 RELX STA)NLE It RELOCA & SAFE t2 14) NEW 3 NEW 10 W/ 6" L 4 NEW ANL 5 (4) NEW 6 NEW FUL 17 NEW PAR 8 NEW FURI 9 NEW FREE PLACE �J FRANCIS -ORR fine stationery October 11, 2000 Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1768 Re: Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 76 Gentlemen: RECEWV D By PLANNING DEPART',1_NT CITY Oa Ab9 OCT .i 17 i l J Fill �Isl51- Olai+i,;i�1z13t =i5i6 As the owner of the property and the business adjacent to the Permit property — 2823 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar — I must strongly oppose any further intrusion on the parking situation in Corona del Mar. As you know with 3 eating establishments at the corner of Goldenrod and PCH, the parking is a major problem, not to mention the traffic jams on the weekends. As it is, Starbucks patrons do not have enough parking available to them and they park anywhere and everywhere, including my parking lot which is reserved for my customers. To double Starbucks available inside space is asking for many more parking problems at that comer. The underground parking originally designed for that entire building of 4 business is certainly not adequate f6r the volume of business that has come to be conducted in that 4 -plex. There area single parking spaces and 5� double spaces that the employees always use. Hardly enough for the number of people parking for Starbucks and the other 2 businesses. On any given morning there are at least 40 people getting coffee and on any given weekend morning there are at least 60. Think about doubling that!! Please give this issue your most serious consideration as it greatly effects the businesses and homes around that area of Corona del Mar. Sincerely, Ju th Threshie, Property Owner 2623 east coast highway. corona del mar. calitarim M25 put 675 1010 11 r� LJ • �60 • 0 �J 3 O 21 a9 1 R E T A 11 1 J � � B A C K B A R C C /I 3a 36 / 2 ; I,I ,,� , �� / 20 dl, ,.>" i rj� �, JI, d• J�,i: " 11, N•' ,�� ,.11, �i' • ,i; r .v TYP 4B PATH OF i TRAVEL IN Irk' SCHEMAI Ot REL 20 NEW WAL WAL CUB: PAR' SAC. OREW TO STO( 4O NEW SO NEW O (3) R[ 7O NEW SYSTE SO NEW DRAINE ONEW F 0 RELOC, STAINLE G RELOCf G SAFE 12 (4) NEW 13 NEW 10 W/ 6" L 14 NEW AN( S (a) NEW 6 NEW FUL 17 NEW PAR j 18 NEW FURL 19 NEW FREE PLACE • 141 Exhibit #3 Findings for Denial Planning Director's Use Permit No. 69 • Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 76 1. The expansion of the existing use by increasing the net public area, indoor and outdoor seating increases the vehicle and parking demand. The parking for the expanded eating and drinking establishment should be calculated based upon the net public area as the use has a significant proportion of take out service. Therefore, the increased establishment requires 14 parking stalls based upon Section 20.66.070 (C) using the I parking space per 75 square feet of net public area formula (1,000 sq. ft. / 75 sq. ft. = 13.33 Z 14 parking spaces). The project has 9 spaces devoted to it and is deficient 5 spaces. The proposed project is inconsistent with Chapter 20.66 which establishes minimum off - street parking. 2. The proposed project will be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the outdoor dining permit as proposed would not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the following reasons: a) The increase in seating will increase current parking demand which will further hamper the effectiveness of the existing on -site parking and traffic circulation system on -site and in the vicinity. Such impacts would cause increased vehicular traffic that may obstruct the entry driveways and extend into the public right -of -way on Goldenrod Avenue thereby creating unsafe and hazardous conditions. • b) The increased seating and resulting increase in parking demand will place further burdens upon the parking in the abutting residential area and would exacerbate traffic and circulation conflicts at the southerly portion of the intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway. C) The availability of off -site parking lots is unknown and municipal parking lots are not located in a close proximity to the establishment to be useful to substitute for required off - street parking. • L4 1 -22 -2001 1:A7PM FROM CCA ARCHITECTS INC. 9A9 833 11,10 P_1 "REC_1l1°n q.FIE AtMRA 22 January 2001 Mayor Gary Adams City Council Members City of Newport Beach Dear Mayor Adams and City Council Members I reside at 515 Goldenrod, Corona del Mar and am a neighbor of the Starbucks Coffee that is proposing to expand. I am opposed to the expansion unless Starbucks is required to mitigate some of the problems that such an intensive use has caused on the residential areas of CdM. I have enclosed copies of a letter that I sent to the Planning Department during their hearings as well as a petition, which was signed by most of the residents near the Starbucks. Much of the testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing focused on the Parking issue and though that is only part of the problem, I feel that anyone who has studied the situation, believes that Starbucks has enough current parking, much less think that a larger Starbucks should not provide additional parking! Starbucks claimed, correctly. that they are not the sole cause of the parking problem and that enforcement was the problem. I agree with part of their position, however Starbucks is essentially an "attractive nuisance" for those people who are willing to park illegally "just to grab a cup of coffee" and do not realize the traffic problems the illegally parked cars cause. I raised many of the other issues in the letter to the Planning Department, which I have enclosed, and hope you will study any possible solutions. I urge you to require Starbucks to adhere to the highest requirements, and furthermore enforce any requirements, thereby becoming a positive influence in the neighborhood rather than a negative. Th for y ur consideration of our position yi Calvin J. Coatsworth 515 Goldenrod Corona del Mar, CA 92625 T rm M m-r n Oh N N _m A� M R1t7 r N =� v �M 1 -22 -2881 1 :d8PM FROM CCA ARCHITECTS INC. 9d9 822 11d0 P.2 17 October 2000 Mr. Jay Garcia Planning Department City of Newport Beach Dear Jay cag"A I am writing in response to the postcard notice we just received for the Starbucks expansion at 2801 East Coast Highway. I am opposed to any Starbucks expansion unless Starbucks is required to take some steps to mitigate their impact on the neighborhood. Starbucks has not been a good neighbor! I am not singling out Starbucks; Seattle's Best and Bruegers have not been good neighbors either. The main issues that I would like to see addressed by Starbucks are trash, parking, operational noise and traffic. There has been and increase in the trash left on the front lawns and sidewalks of all of the houses on Goldenrod, and I am sure other streets. I would like to see Starbucks be required to send an employee up and down each side of Goldenrod to pick up trash each morning and afternoon. I would like to see the other vendors do this as well. In a dream world they could share the duty but... The parking issue is that nobody uses the parking beneath Starbucks. Instead they park anywhere, and I mean red zones, handicap parking stalls and anywhere else that a car can fit. A car parked in the red zones and Goldenrod essentially chokes of the intersection of Goldenrod and PCH by forcing "northbound" cars toward the center and pinching off the cars turning right off of PCH. A car trying to merge after parking in the red zone "just to get a coffee" has even hit my car. I would like to see resident permit parking on. Goldenrod, or metered parking with permits exempting residents. Starbucks has been very diligent about keeping their premises and sidewalk clean_ Unfortunately they do not care what time of day they clean. The situation has improved slightly in recent times, but they have a tendency to power wash as early as light allows it. I have seen power washing going on as early as 5:00 am, When I complained to Starbucks I was told by a rude manager that they had to do it that early, before the customers arrived. What about those of us trying to relax in our homes? Starbucks also decided to open earlier for a period of time and didn't seem to bother checking with the requirements of their CUP. The point is that Starbucks is always pushing to try to get away with something and I think that they should be sent a message and stopped in their tracks. Traffic is a bigger issue for which I have no solutions. Goldenrod has become a commercial street for which it was not designed and I feel that any more intensive use of the spaces that contribute to that traffic should be limited, Thanks for he ring my complaints and suggestions. �I. Calvin J. Coatsworth 515 Goldenrod Corona del Mar, CA 92625 1 -22 -2001 1:d8PM FROM CCA ARCHITECTS INC. 9A9 833 11A0 To: Newport Beach City Council We, the neighbors of Starbucks, feel that the Starbucks Coffee located at 2801 East Coast Highway should NOT be allowed to expand without substantially, significantly and meaningfully addressing the parking, traffic, noise and trash issues that exist with the current facility and will surely be intensified with any expansion. Thank you for your attention with this matter. e 5i5 'i2 Address A ' ` ANDY K.ILGo Ke Sort roct Ave, Name /> Address e '? yUZ5- Signature P. 3 S I1Y2- C-111&A 4 Cr, nn 1, e4v� 12 r, a 5— 1 -22 -2001 1:A9PM FROM CCA ARCHITECTS INC_ 9A9 833 11A0 P.d To: Newport Beach City Council We, the neighbors of Starbucks, feel that the Starbucks Coffee located at 2801 East Coast Highway should NOT be allowed to expand without substantially, significantly and meaningfully addressing the parking, traffic, noise and trash issues that exist with the current facility and will surely be intensified with any expansion. Thank you for your attention with this matter. �V,( D CA6� 6 ID .B"6- 4(4- De4 spr&' �D 'r q2.0 2-5~ (�(: Z� Address nature Name Signature Signature Address