Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRevised Item 3 dsFacaf s. 6 J=i\ PLANNING COMMISSION NUM ER ` - ! AGENDA REPORT 3 cqC n oR,P./ TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jim Basham, Community Development Director DATE: August 15, 2016 SUBJECT: ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 15-1 RELATING TO ALLOWABLE INCIDENTAL BUSINESS ACTIVITIES LOCATION: CITYWIDE RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission hold a public hearing regarding Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) 15-1 and after considering all evidence and testimony presented adopt Resolution No. 16-19 recommending to City Council approval of ZTA 15-1 LEGAL NOTIFICATION: Legal notice of the workshop was published in the Sun Newspaper on August 4,2016. An affidavit of publication is on file. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code§§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations 15000, et seq.) because the amendment relates to existing rules and procedures governing amplified and unamplified entertainment as an incidental business activity: consists only of the proposed modification of the existing zoning provisions regulating entertainment incidental to a primary business activity or other use on a site, including upgrades and other revisions and clarifications to enhance the existing regulations and procedures related thereto: and consists of actions taken to assure the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the environment. The amendment therefore, does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment. Consequently, it is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15301, 15305, and 15308, actions in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. Zone Text Amendment 15-1 Commercial Zones Citywide BACKGROUND: At the City Counci' meeting of September 28, 2015 the City council discussed a draft ordinance to include a new chapter in the Seal Beach Municipal Code regulating the issuance of an entertainment permit to allow businesses to obtain an administrative permit for live music incidental to the primary use of the business. After deliberation the City Council instructed staff to prepare a revised ordinance that would designate the Planning Commission as the approval body. At the City Council meeting of October 12, 2015, the City Council discussed the revised draft ordinance and after, receiving public testimony, directed staff to prepare a zoning ordinance amendment to Municipal Code Section 11.4.05.01O.D that maintains the Planning Commission as the review body with a public hearing process for incidental entertainment permits, and refines the standards applicable to incidental entertainment activities as well as the parameters for determining when an incidental entertainment permit is or is not required. Based on this City Council direction, Staff revised the parameters governing the permit process to include discretionary entertainment restrictions that may be applied at the discretion of the Commissioners when an incidental entertainment permit is required, and operational standards that apply to all entertainers and business operators regardless of whether or not an incidental entertainment permit is required. Both the discretionary entertainment restrictions applicable to permits, and the operational standards applicable to all incidental entertainment, have been developed in order to provide the City with mechanisms to balance entertainment activities conducted at commercial uses while protecting nearby businesses and residents given the close proximity of many commercial areas to residential uses in the City. At the City Council meeting of November 9, 2015 the City Council feviewed the Deleted: revised draft ordinance and instructed staff to present the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission and recommended that the Commission also consider the following suggested comments: • Should a solo entertainer be required to obtain an incidental entertainment permit and follow the public hearing process? Currently the draft ordinance would allow a solo entertainer to perform unamplified or amplified entertainment in a restaurant or other commercial use without an incidental entertainment permit, but would Comment ISM]:Confirming that this entertainer could require that two to four entertainers require an entertainment permit. be of any type:musiaan,comedian,magician,book The current Zoning Code allows up to two entertainers to perform author,etc... unamplified music without a permit, but prohibits all amplified Comment ISE2l:Some businesses have impromptu or entertainment. The basis for distinguishing between a solo performer scheduled meetings,like Ellery's Meet&Greet whici creates enhanced impacts. Would an entertainment and multiple performers is that often an individual performer does not permite be required if she and the City manager were typically create the same types of impacts or intensity of impacts on to be at Bogarts on a semi-regular basis as that is"two surrounding uses as the impacts that are likely to result from or more entertainers"? entertainment provided by multiple performers or entertainers, and Comment lSE3i:Two UNAMPLIFED still seems thus there is less need for the same amount of oversight for a solo reasonable. Why restrict this? performer or other entertainer as would be warranted for multiple entertainers or performers. Under the proposed ordinance, a solo performer would be required to amend their Business License to add incidental entertainment with a solo performer so that staff can maintain a record of business activities covered by an establishment's business license. Comment ISE4l:This language is confusing. Should Page 2 of 4 not it read"Under the proposed ordinance,a BUSINESS who wished to have a solo performer, would be required to amend their business license...Otherwise it sounds like the PERFORMER needs to amend their business license,which is nor- sensical. Zone Text Amendment 15-1 Commercial Zones Citywide •Should the City require that ambient music obtain an incidental entertainment permit? Ambient music, as used in the proposed ordinance, was intended to mean recorded background music or entertainment played or broadcast over speakers during the business' primary activities (e.g. recorded classical music played in a restaurant, store or other commercial use, a juke box playing music in a restaurant, or a radio broadcasting a sports game). After further consideration of this issue and discussion with the City Attorney's office, staff does not recommend that the City separately regulate ambient music or other entertainment through the Zoning Code, and has modified the proposed ordinance to delete references to pre- recorded music and broadcast entertainment from the incidental business activities permit process. Instead, noise levels of all entertainment in any zone, including background music, broadcast games, and similar entertainment, would continue to be regulated by the City's current noise ordinances Comment ISE51:I strongly support this amendment and contained in the Municipal Code, including Chapter 7.15, Noise; Chapter confirm the staffs recommendation. 7.35, Public Nuisances; and Chapter 7.45, Noise Disturbances. For example, Chapter 7.15 sets decibel limits for interior and exterior noise based on noise zones. Commercial properties are in Noise Zone 2, and must limit exterior noise to 65 db(A)at all times generally, and 60 dB(A) for music. Chapter 7. 15 also prohibits a property from producing noise above specified levels when measured over specified time periods from a residential property. • Determine if a noise standard performance level should be introduced such as maintaining a sound measurement level of 15- 25 dB(A) along with a distance separation when commercial uses are adjacent to residential or other sensitive uses areas. The City Attorney's office and staff are still reviewing this suggestion as potentially the best approach to apply noise and distance requirements to balance noise between commercial and residential uses. Comment ISE6l:I would urge caution and careful consideration. It is unclear how this could still be done • Reduce the annual renewal provisions to be less restrictive. The later if a draft ordinance is approved. I presume that proposed Ordinance, as currently drafted, would provide that the City's the current ordinance does NOT contain this provision approval of an incidental entertainment permit would be for one year, currently. and that failure to renew the permit by the renewal date means that the permit will expire on the expiration date. The proposed ordinance also states that if a permittee fails to submit a renewal application at least 30 days prior to the expiration date, the permit will expire as stated and the permittee cannot apply for a new permit until one year has passed. The purpose of the one-year prohibition is to encourage permittees to obtain renewals of their permits if they wish to continue incidental entertainment. Based on the City Council's discussion that this one- Formatted:Highlight year prohibition is too strict, Staff suggests that we modify the current text to state that if the "applicant does not renew the incidental Deleted: entertainment permit by submitting a letter or other,email communication• Deleted: to the Director seeking renewal at least 30 days prior to the annual Formatted:Justified,Indent:Left: 0.97",First line. 0", expiration date, then the permit holder will ce notified and given (30) Line spacing: exactly 14.4 pt thirty days to submit a renewal request. Should f301 thirty additional Deleted:application days elapse, then the permit_will automatically expire until the applicant obtains approval of therenewal permit through the renewal process". Deleted: The proposed Deleted: Page 3 of 4 Zone Text Amendment 15-1 Commercial Zones Citywide ordinance would continue to state that any permit not renewed by the expiration date will expire on the date stated in the permit, but there would be no prohibition on renewing or applying for a new permit. Comment ISEZI:This does NOT seem to be significantly different than the earlier automatic sunset At the Planning Commission meeting of December 7, 2015 staff ,conducted a clause. I would suggest that it workshop on the draft ordinance pertaining to the incidental business activities and Deleted: incidental entertainment permit requirements. At the conclusion of the workshop, the Commission asked staff to research the possibility of adding a noise threshold. Subsequently, staff solicited the services of an Acoustical firm to conduct an ambient noise survey and provide recommendations on noise limits. Also, to allow ambient music as a permitted activity since it can be regulated through existing provisions set forth in the Municipal Code under Chapter 7. At the Planning Commission meeting of June 20, 2016 staff conducted another workshop to present the noise study and recommendations from the noise consultant, Acoustics Group (AGI). After the presentation by the consultant, the Commission recommended that the draft ordinance include a noise limit Lmax of 50 dBA. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to provide a balance between the needs of the business community and shield the residents from potential nuisances that may occur as a result of live music on a continuous basis. Staff believes the draft ordinance incorporates comments from both City Council and Commission and since the proposed ordinance will amend the Zoning and Land Use Chapters of the City's Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is required to review the draft ordinance through a public hearing process and make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed ordinance through a resolution. Since the current Zoning Ordinance prohibits all amplified entertainment and also requires a Minor use Permit or Conditional Use Permit for unamplified entertainment, depending on the frequency that incidental entertainment is provided, staff prepared a draft ordinance that modifies permit exemptions, consolidates incidental entertainment regulations into one incidental entertainment permit, and also amends and updates provisions of the Zoning Code to resolve inconsistencies and provide clarification on applicable procedures. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing regarding Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) 15-1 and after considering all evidence and testimony -presented adopt Resolution No. 16-19 recommending to City Council approval of ZTA 15-1. Prep d by: Jim Bas am Director of mmunity Develop$ent Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance 1648 Page 4 of 4