HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem MFebruary 12, 2001
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Attention: Donald F. McIntyre, Interim City Manager
From: Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner, Department of Development Services
Subject. t PUBLIC HEARING -- APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR EXPANDED
OPERATING HOURS AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT
AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 143 MAIN STREET
(HENNESSEY'S TAVERN)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council, after receiving all public testimony:
1) Direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the appeal and affirming the decision of the
,.� Planning Commission.
Alternatively, the City Council may choose one of the following options:
2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal to allow expanded operating homy
and live entertainment.
3) Take other action deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
On November 8, 2000, the Planning Commission considered the appellant's application for
Conditional Use Permit 98-18 (Indefinite Extension) and for modification of the conditions of
approval of Conditional Use Permit 98-18 to allow (i) the restaurant to open at 7 a.m. daily; and (ii)
live entertainment on a nightly basis. On December 6, 2000, after receiving all testimony at the
public hearing and extensive deliberation, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Planning
Commission Resolution No. 00-36, which approved a 6 month extension of Conditional Use Permit
98-18 and denied the requests for expanded operating hours and live entertainment.
AGENDA ITEM /" I
PuMi[NMN-API. cflygm ^fcaWimvY U. Plm 99.IdEvJ
on�aBMm
FeMnry11.MI
The appellant asks that the City Council overtum the Planning Commission's refusal to modify
Conditional Use Permit 98-18 to allow expanded operating hours and live entertainment.
Additionally, for the fust time, the appellant requests that Conditional Use Permit 98-18 be modified
to eliminate the condition banning exterior advertising of alcoholic beverages and the condition
requiring closure of the outdoor dining area at 9 p.m. nightly. The applicant would have to file a
new application for a modification of the conditions to Resolution No. 4677, which imposed those
conditions, because this new request is outside the scope of the appeal.
FACTS:
The City Council adopted City Council Resolution No. 4677 on January 11, 1999 and
thereby approved Conditional Use Permit 98-18, which authorized an interior remodel and a
new outdoor dining area at the subject restaurant. Among other things, Conditional Use
Permit 98-18 contained conditions prohibiting opening before 11 a.m. Monday through
Saturday and 9 a.m. on Sunday (Condition #9); prohibiting exterior advertising of alcoholic
beverages (Condition #11); prohibiting five entertainment (Condition #18); and requiring
closure of the outdoor dining area at 9 p.m. nightly (Condition #25). The appellant agreed to
all of these conditions by signing an acceptance of conditions form, which is on file with the
Department of Development Services.
■ 'Oe Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 8, 2000 to
consider the appellant's application for CUP 98-18 (Indefinite Extension). In conjunction
with such hearing, the Planning Commission also considered the appellant's application for
amendment of Conditional Use Permit 98-18 to allow (i) the restaurant to open at 7 a.m.
daily; and (ii) live entertainment on a nightly basis. Both written and oral evidence was
submitted for and against the applications. At the public hearing, the appellant's
representative and one other person spoke in favor of the applications while numerous
people spoke in opposition.
■ After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a 6
month extension of Conditional Use Permit 98-18, subject to compliance with the terms of
City Council Resolution No. 4677, and denied the appellant's requests for expanded
operating hours and live entertainment. Planning Commission Resolution No. 00.36,
adopted on December 6, 2000, set forth the findings and determination of the Planning
Commission regarding these matters.
■ The appellant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on December 18, 2000,
and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a public hearing.
CUP 9& 18 (aansion) - Appeal Sletf Repos
I na4'HrmLrg re:.4yaY ef.}yvdafl��vM Un Pemry A41IXF �du+l
M�=MAT.
£eMwry/3.30Jf
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED:
The two issues to be considered by the City Council at this public hearing are the appellant's
requests for the following changes to the conditions attached to Conditional Use Permit 98-18:
1. Expansion of the operating hours to allow opening at 7 a.m. daily (closing hours would be
unchanged - 1 a.m. Monday through Saturday and 11 p.m. on Sunday).
2. Elimination of the ban on live entertainment so that live entertainment can be offered from 9
p.m. to 12 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
As noted above, the applicant also seeks deletion of two other conditions:
The prohibition on exterior advertising of alcoholic beverages; and
The requirement that the outdoor dining area be closed nightly at 9 p.m.
If any Councilmember feels that such conditions are worthy of being re -visited, he or she may
request that the applicant apply for a modification to the CUP.
The Planning Commission's approval of a 6 month extension for CUP 98-18 is not before the City
Council because no appeal of the extension was timely filed during the appeal period.
The Planning Commission considered issues #1 and #2 and gave them considerable deliberation
before denying the appellant's requests. Please refer to the Planning Commission minutes of
November 8, 2000 (Attachment 6). The appellant has raised issues #3 and #4 for the fust time in
connection with this appeal. This report addresses each of the four issues separately below.
A. Expansion of Operating Hours
The appeal states: "The change of hours to allow opening at 7:00am on a daily basis is appropriate
since other dining establishments in the immediate vicinity currently open at 7:00am for breakfast on
a daily basis, without any complaints or concerns voiced by the merchants or residents."
Staff Comment: Condition #9 of Conditional Use Permit 98-18, imposed by the Council when it
adopted Resolution No. 4677, states:
119. The hours of operation shall be as established by CUP No. 2-89:
11:00 A.M. to 1:00 A.M., Monday through Saturday
9:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., Sunday."
The City Council discussed the operating hours for the restaurant when it considered the application
for Conditional Use Permit 98-18 (See Attachment 4, City Council minutes of January 11, 1999)
3
CUPW-18(ex on) -Appal SuR Repos
PFD&' Harty
Ory Gv/I ADF4^^
F4nnry/3.ZWl
and at that time the appellant only expressed concern regarding the required closing time. During
the discussion, Councilman Boyd noted that there was a breakfast menu submitted in the
application packet, yet the hours of operation indicalted that the business would not be opening until
I 1 a.m. In response, Mr. Hennessey indicated that there would possibly be a Sunday brunch (page 8
of City Council Minutes January 11, 1999). The hours of operation were approved as set forth
above, and the appellant signed an acceptance of conditions form (on file with the Department of
Development Services) following the approval.
During staff review of the CUP extension request, staff discovered that the appellant had been
regularly opening at 7 a.m. Staff informed the appellant that the approved hours of opening were
not until 11 a.m. Monday through Saturday and 9 a.m. on Sunday. The appellant's response was
that the operating hours condition in CUP 98-18 only dictated when alcohol could be served on the
premises. Staff explained that the appellant had misconstrued the condition, and that the operating
hours must be changed through discretionary review from the City. The appellant subsequently
asked to change the operating hours in conjunction with the CUP extension application.
The Planning Commission declined to extend the hours, for a number of reasons. (See, Attachment
5, Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-36, and Attachment 6, Planning Commission Minutes
November 8, 2000, pgs. 12-13 & 19-21).
Staff does not have any major objection to the request to open at an earlier time. There are several
business operations that open at 7 a.m. on Main St. Generally there are not major problems with
noise and other related effects from breakfast traffic. Staff recommends that if the City Council
decides to allow an earlier opening time for the restaurant, then the City Council should also require
that the double paned glass windows on the outdoor dining area remain closed until 9 AM. Such a
requirement would help mitigate any effects generated from the earlier opening time.
B. Elimination of Ban on Live Entertainment
The appeal states: "The applicant feels that no adverse effects will occur as a result of the proposed
limited live entertainment. Further, he feels that the subject property is an appropriate location for
limited live entertainment — e.g.: guitar and piano, and/or vocalists, very similar to that which
occurs at Borders Bookstores, Deidrich Coffee houses, etc. The entertainment Could be conditioned
to the hours of 9pm to 12am on weekends and special holidays. The addition of limited live
entertainment will not result in trash, noise, parking, and/or traffic problems for the adjacent
community. The entertainment can be monitored during the six (6) month extension."
Staff Comment: Condition #18 of CUP 98-18, imposed by the Council when it adopted
Resolution No. 4677, states:
4
CUP 98-18 (am ion) - Appeal&eff Report
Pul4[ff n-Allw.fAlr Lf�,� un Pmnrt93.IdEumtienl
aY OkN.YOFepn
F6w 1z ]
"18. There shall be no live entertainment, amplified music, or dancing permitted on the
premises at any time unless a Special Activities permit is issued to the applicant by the City
Manager of the City of Seal Beach."
The Commission and Staff feel that live entertainment on a regular basis is an inappropriate use
within the Main St. area. Currently the City Manager has the authority to issue "special event"
permits for similar types of events on an occasional basis. The applicant's proposal, however,
would allow more frequent live entertainment on the property on a regular basis and would result
in all the effects associated with such on-going entertainment. Staff feels that live entertainment
creates additional adverse effects on the neighborhood that include (but are not limited to):
additional noise, different atmosphere, and possible unruly behavior as result of the
entertainment. Further, the close proximity of Hennessey's to the residential neighborhoods of
the Old Town area only exacerbates the potential effects of this type of a request.
Staff acknowledges that live music, when properly conditioned and regulated, may enhance the
dining experience. However, staff also believes that the possible negative impacts associated
with this type of a use on a "regular" basis far outweigh the benefit of allowing the
entertainment. Staff feels that the existing program of dealing with "special event" permits as
they arise allows the businesses within the City to apply for a music permit for special occasions
and affords those businesses the opportunity to hold events where live music is a "change of
pace" or something different, adding to the flavor of Main St. However, the wholesale allowance
of live music has the potential of negative effects in the areas discussed above.
In addition to the potential for negative effects, the City has taken a policy in recent years of
preferring special event permits over live entertainment permits. By amending CUP 98-18 to allow
for live entertainment, several applications for live music may follow. After the "special events"
described above, there are invariably phone calls from interested parties inquiring if they can get the
same live entertainment permit that that business had. Staff then has to inform them that it was a
"special" event. Staff feels that the approval of this request would open the gates for several similar
applications within the City and that the City Council should consider this effect when ruling on this
part of the appeal. The Planning Commission and Staff therefore recommend that the City Council
deny the appellant's request for elimination of the ban on five entertainment. If the City Council
wishes to consider live entertainment on Main Street, then it would be appropriate to instruct staff to
perform a comprehensive review of this issue.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR CUP APPLICATIONS:
Under Code Sections 28-2503 and 28-2504, all CUP requests must be evaluated in light of three
issues:
CUP 98-18(exre mi)- Appeal Sniff Repot
!'aae Nrring rt: AryrIXgAryrouM�fm]YbW Un Pmrw SpJ&Eumim)
M 6reN SyPgm
F<buaryl3.MW
1) Is the use conditionally permitted in the zone;
2) Is the use compatible with the General Plan; and
3) Is the use compatible with, rather than detrimental to, surrounding uses and the
community in general.
Additionally, under Code Section 28-1251, all CUP requests for property within the Main Street
Specific Plan boundaries must be evaluated in light of the following issues:
I) Is the use consistent with the intent and purpose and vision established for the Main
Street Specific Plan; and
2) Does the use conflict with the Specific Plan's goal to establish and maintain a balanced
mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non -local populations; and
3) Will the use contribute to the unique character of Main Street and the qualities that
provide the Main Street sense of identity; and
4) Does the use comply with all applicable City Council policies, such as the policies the
City Council has adopted concerning alcohol serving uses?
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS:
1) Direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the appeal and affimvng the decision of the
Planning Commission.
2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal to allow expanded operating hours
and five entertainment.
3) Take other action deemed appropriate.
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Development Services Department
CUP98-I8 (uansi.)-Appeal Staff Report
NOTED AND APPROVED
Don McIntyre
Interim City Manager
�Xwring re: np�m'gAgm,W gCaawo,�m Ux Pemro- sl4J&£neMml
tsr m..a.tm9�
Fe6wry13,MW
Attachments: (7)
ATTACHMENT 1: Applicable Code Sections
ATTACHMENT 2: Appeal by Hennessey's Tavern, received December 18, 2000
ATTACHMENT 3: City Council Resolution #4677; approving CUP 98-18
ATTACHMENT 4: City Council Minutes of January 11, 1999
ATTACHMENT 5: Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-36
ATTACHMENT 6: Planning Commission Minutes of November 8, 2000
ATTACHMENT 7: Planning Commission Staff Report of November 8, 2000,
with Attachments 1 through 6
7
CU 98-18(e ftm n) -Appeal Steffi Report
Attachment 1
CODE SECTIONS
"Section 28-1250.13 Uses Subject to Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
16) Restaurant, with or without alcohol sales (not including drive-in
restaurants). Permitted operating hours of restaurants shall be 7:00a.m. to
I0:00p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 am., Friday,
Saturday, and holidays." (Ord. No. 1406)
"Section 28-1251. Limitations on Permitted Uses.
Every use permitted shall be subject to the following conditions and limitations:
1) All uses shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building except
such uses as:
a) Growing stock, only when in connection in with horticultural
nurseries;
b) Parking lots;
c) Restaurant, semi -enclosed."
"Section 28-2503. Conditional Use Permits May Be Granted. The Planning
Commission may grant a conditional use permit in the case of an application for a
use which is required to be reviewed and conditioned prior to approval so as to
insure compatibility with surrounding uses and the community in general and the
General Plan. (Ord. No. 948)"
`Section 28-2504. Pumose of Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of a
conditional use permit shall be to insure proposed uses are compatible with
surrounding uses and not detrimental to the neighborhood. (Ord. No. 948)'
Attachment 2
Independent Processing
p g Services
.The real property paperwork people."
Ku J. GIFFIN - OWNER
Detailed Statement for Appeal of Resolution No. 00-36
Why the decision of the Planning Commission is being appealed?
The decision is being appealed because the decision deprives such property owner of privileges enjoyed by other
property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications.
The specific conditions of approval are being appealed m follows:
Resolution No. 4677: Condition #9 (prohibiting opening before 11:00am Monday — Saturday and 9:00=
Sunday); Condition #1 (prohibiting exterior advertising of alcoholic beverages); and Condition #25 (requiring
closure of outdoor dining area at 9:00pm nightly) and request to amend CUP 98-18 to permit limited live
entertainment starting at 9:00pm.
Statements indicating where the Planning Commission may be in etror:
a The proposed use will be consistent with the General Plan and Main Street Specific Plan.
b. The site is adequate in size, shape, topography, location, utilities, and other Factors to accommodate
said request.
c. Them is adequate street access and traffic capacity.
d. The proposed usage will be compatible with the existing and intended use of the area
The applicant feels tha[ no adverse effects will occur as a result of the proposed limited live entertainment.
Further, he feels that the subject property is an appropriate location for limited five entertainment— e.g.: guitar
and piano, and/or vocalists, very similar to that which occurs at Borders Bookstores, Deidrich Coffee Houses,
etc. The entertainment could be conditioned to the hours of 9pm to 12am on weekends and special holidays. The
addition of limited live entertainment will not result in trash, noise, parking, and/or traffic problems for the
adjacent community. The entertainment can be monitored during the six (6) month extension.
The change of hours of operation to allow opening at 7:00am on a daily basis is appropriate since other dining
establishments in the immediate vicinity currently open at 7:00am for breakfast on a daily basis, without arty
complaints or concerns voiced by the merchants or residents.
The applicant has been and will continue to be a good corporate citizen in Seal Beach and will eliminate any and
all concerns that may have resulted in trash, noise, parking, and/or traffic concerns or problems for the 4aceot
community. The applicant respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission's
decision and allow the requested modification.
�C\
2210 "D" Marine Avenue Gardena, Califomia, 90249
Phone(310)532-9630 Fax(310)532-9625 /
110 E. Wilshire Avenue #300 Fullerton, California 92832 Q
Phone (714)879-7816 Fax(714)879-7682
e-mail kafti)home.com
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NUMBER 72
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH SUSTAD41NG
THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
OF CUP NO. 98-18, ALLOWING A
MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL ON AN EXISTING LAND USE
ENTITLEMENT TO ALLOW INTERIOR
REMODELING AND AN OUTDOOR DINING
AREA AT AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT
143 MAIN STREET (HENNESSEY'S TAVERN)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND FIND:
Section 1. On November 5, 1998, Hennessey's Tavem Inc. (the
"Applicant") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for
Conditional Use Permit 98-18, for an interior remodeling of the existing restaurant, the
creation of a semi -enclosed outdoor dining area, and the relocation of the front entry into
the restaurant from the front of the restaurant to the northerly side of the restaurant,
adjacent to Main Street.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 and § II.B of
the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for
CUP 98-18 for the proposed interior remodeling is categorically exempt from review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs.
§ 15301 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because the proposal involves a
negligible expansion of an existing use; pursuant to § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land
Use Limitations), because the proposal involves a minor alteration in land use limitation
and does not involve either a property in excess of 20% slope or a change in land use or
density; and, the proposed outdoor dining area was considered as part of Negative
Declaration 96-2, evaluating the environmental impacts of the Main Street Specific Plan.
Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on December 9, 1998, to consider the application for CUP 98-18. At the
public hearing the applicant spoke in favor of the request, with persons appearing both in
favor of and in opposition to the request.
Section 4. The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit 98-18 subject to 35 conditions through the adoption of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 98-50.
CUfy Doa® kIZESOCUP98.18 Appal(Hm--,,OCC P. duAo &,o N 142-99
City CaundlResdutim No.
Caditlnml Use Pennir 98-18, Appeal ofPlmm'ng Cmmu'ssim Deumlii xim
143 Main Street-HeMessey'sTa m
J.., 11, 1999
Section 5. An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of
Conditional Use Permit 98-18 was timely filed. On January 11, 1999 the City Council
held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. The Council considered all oral
and written testimony and evidence presented at the time of the public hearing, including
the staff reports.
Section 6. The record of the hearings before the Planning Commission
and City Council indicates the following:
(a) On November 4, 1998, Hennessey's Tavern Inc., submitted an
application for CUP 98-18 with the Department of Development Services.
(b) Specifically, the applicant is proposing to remodel the interior of
an existing restaurant and proposing to convert the front 12 feet of the existing restaurant
to an outdoor dining area.
(c) The subject property contains approximately 8,813 square feet and
is located at the southwesterly corner of Main Street and Central Avenue.
(d) The subject property is legally described as Orange County
Assessor's parcel number 199-034-02. The adjoining parking lot, under a joint (ease by
the subject restaurant business and John's Food King, is legally described as Orange
County Assessor's parcel number 199-034-01.
(e) The subject property contains a restaurant which is proposed to be
refurbished and remodeled. Previous to the present owners, Papillon Restaurant had
operated on the site for over 8 years with no history of extraordinary demand for law
enforcement services regarding the restaurant or sales of alcoholic beverages on the
property.
(f) The proposed restaurant is a full service restaurant, relocating from
across Main Street at 140 Main Street. The restaurant will sell an assortment of non-
alcoholic beverages as well as beer, wine and distilled spirits.
(g) The City has granted the following approvals for the property:
o Variance 15-84 — parking variance for less than the required
number of on-site parking spaces.
❑ CUP 19-84 — permit on -sale beer and wine sales in conjunction
with a delicatessen restaurant.
o CUP 22-84 — permit the establishment of a take-out delicatessen
restaurant.
CLIP 98-I8 APPW(limmey,).CC RmlWim 2
1
Ciry Council Nreolutim No.
Cardifiawl Uu Permit 98-18. Appral ofPlmuu i; Commi.ssian Lktrrminmian
143Man Street -Hennessey i Tar
J=.y 11. 1999
❑ Variance 2-89 —parking variance for less than the required number
of on-site parking spaces in conjunction with a new restaurant.
❑ CUP 2-89 — permit an on -sale general liquor license in conjunction
with a new restaurant.
❑ CUP 92-13 —permit a single, unamplified entertainer between 7:00
P.M. and 11:00 P.M., daily.
(h) The subject property is legally nonconforming due to inadequate
parking. The property is eleven (11) spaces deficient and is required to participate in a
pre-existing in -lieu parking program.
(i) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH Existing restaurant in the Main Street Specific Plan Zone.
SOUTH & Commercial retail businesses and restaurants in the Main Street
EAST Specific Plan Zone.
WEST Grace Brethren Church in the Residential High Density (RHD)
Zone.
0) Michael Sellers, Chief of Police, has reviewed the proposal and
existing records, and has no reservation regarding the proposed remodeling, other than a
concern regarding persons stepping outside the restaurant for smoking purposes, and the
potential for related noise created by those persons. He also recommends the proposed
semi -enclosed outdoor dining area be enclosed as recommended by Staff after 11:00 P.M.
(k) An appeal of the Planning Commission determination was filed by
Donald Shoemaker on December 16, 1998, in accordance with Article 29.4 of the Code
of the City of Seal Beach.
Section 7. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including
those stated in §6 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28-1400, 28-2503 and 28-2504 of
the City's Code, the City Council hereby finds:
(a) Conditional Use Permit 98-18 is consistent with the provisions of
the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan and the Main Street Specific Plan,
which provides a "Main Street Specific Plan" designation for the subject property and
permits restaurants serving alcoholic beverages subject to the issuance of a conditional
use permit and semi -enclosed restaurants. The use is also consistent with the remaining
elements of the General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and
reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use, as conditioned by the
CUP 99-19 Appal (Hrmcueyr) CC Ruolmion
Cly Co .IR..Iwim No.
Cmditiarul Uet Pnmit 98-19, Appeal ojP1.mng Cmmiuim Detrrminatlm
113 Main Street-Hemevey i Tavern
lmuary ll, 1999
City Council regarding utilization of the outdoor dining area, parking area and side door,
is consistent with the General Plan and the Main Street Specific Plan.
(b) The style, height and bulk of the remodeled existing structure are
consistent with surrounding commercial and institutional uses, in that a restaurant has
been operated in the structure for 8 years.
(c) The building and property at 143 Main Street are adequate in size,
shape, topography, and location to meet the needs of the proposed remodeled restaurant
and the proposed outdoor dining area, as the existing building provides a buffer between
the outdoor during area and the adjacent commercial and institutional uses. The nearest
residential property is approximately 130 feet to the southwest, south of Grace Brethren
Church and 340 feet to the west, along Central Avenue at the comer of Central Avenue
and Seventh Street. In addition, the proposed conditions of approval regarding the
outdoor dining area, parking lot and side door, are sufficient to protect the residential uses
within the area from adverse noise impacts.
(d) Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes will
ensure there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use.
(e) The previously approved hours of operation cannot be modified by
the City without the matter being properly before the City for consideration, either by a
request for modification of the hours of operation, or through an enforcement matter for
ongoing disturbances to the surrounding land uses by the operating hours of the
restaurant. Neither of those circumstances exist. However, the appellant's concern is
already addressed by existing law, which requires a public hearing before the Planning
Commission prior to any amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, including a change in
the hours of operation.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby
approves Conditional Use Permit 98-18, subject to the following conditions:
I. CUP k 98-18 is approved for the interior remodeling of an existing restaurant
and to permit a partially enclosed and covered outdoor dining area within the
front 12 feet of the existing restaurant structure located at 143 Main Street,
Seal Beach. The bar shall be reduced in length from 32 feet to 28 feet.
2. The applicant remains bound by all conditions of CUP No. 2-89 and Variance
No. 2-89.
3. The Applicant has voluntarily agreed that there shall be no live entertainment
on the subject property, and thus agrees to surrender all rights and privileges
granted by Conditional Use Permit 92-13 regardingJive entertainment on the
subject premises.
CUP 99-18 Appul (nunuaeys).CC Rewrwiva 4
City Commit RCJalmlml No.
Cmdipomf U -Permit 98-18, App-- ofP1..,W Comeuvtoa UeterrrvMtion
Ili bfo(a Street - Nemmury'.r Tamm
Jmmary 11, 1999
4. The applicant shall comply with all restrictions placed on the license issued by
the State of California's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC).
This shall be done as soon as the license is received by the applicant from
ABC.
5. All alcoholic beverages sold in conjunction with the on -premise -licensed
establishment must be consumed entirely on the premises prior to closing
time. None shall be sold as take-out. Consumption of alcoholic beverages is
prohibited in the establishment's parking area or on any public rights-of-way
adjacent to the subject property. There shall be posting of signs both inside
and outside the licensed premises indicating that law prohibits drinking
outside the licensed premises.
6. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant/licensee to provide all employees
that sell or serve alcoholic beverages with the knowledge and skill enabling
them to comply with their responsibilities under State of California law.
7. The knowledge and skills deemed necessary for responsible alcoholic
beverage service shall include, but not be limited to the following topics and
skills development:
o State law relating to alcoholic beverages, particularly ABC and penal
provisions concerning sales to minors and intoxicated persons, driving
under the influence, hours of legal operation and penalties for violation of
these laws.
o The potential legal liabilities of owners and employees of businesses
dispensing alcoholic beverages to patrons who may subsequently injure,
kill, harm themselves or innocent victims as a result of the excessive
consumption of alcoholic beverages.
o Alcohol as a drug and its effects on the body and behavior, including the
operation of motor vehicles.
o Methods of dealing with intoxicated customers and recognizing under age
customers.
8. The following organizations provide training programs, which comply with
the above criteria:
o Provider:
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Program:
Licensee Education on Alcohol & Drugs (LEAD)
Telephone:
(714) 5584101
Date:
1st Monday of each month
Time:
10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Cost:
Free
Place:
ABC, 28 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana
CUP 99-18 Appel (Heinessry't).CC R.W.
City CQ CURMOIv mNo.
Cmdilimd Uu Permit 98-18, Amort ofPlanW' g Cm.wjm De4mtir�mim
143 Main Sh I -He ,,y's Ta m
Jmvary 11, 1999
u Provider: Qranize County Health Care Agencv
Alcohol & Drug Education Prevention Team (ADEPT)
Program: Serving Alcohol Responsibly (BARCODE)
Telephone: (714) 834-2860 • Karen Keay
Date: They will schedule appointments
Cost: 512.95 per person
9. The hours of operation shall be as established by CUP No. 2-89:
11:00 AM. to 1:00 AM., Monday through Saturday
9:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., Sunday
10. No video games or similar amusements shall be permitted on the premises
unless a separate conditional use permit is approved for that use.
11. There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including
advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the
availability of alcoholic beverages.
12. The applicant will prominently display these Conditions of Approval in a
location within the businesses' customer area that is acceptable to the Director
of Development Services.
13. The establishment shall have a public telephone listing.
14. Litter and trash receptacles shall be located at convenient locations inside and
outside the establishment. Operators of such establishments shall remove
trash and debris on an appropriate basis so as not to cause health problems.
There shall be no dumping of trash and/or glass bottles outside the
establishment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
15. In the event staff determines security problems exist on the site, the
Conditions of this permit may be amended, under the procedures of The Code
of the City of Seal Beach, to require the provisions of additional security
measures.
16. CUP 498-18 shall be automatically terminated if the operation is no longer
maintained as a "bona fide public eating place" as defined by the ABC, and as
audited by the City staff. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all
reasonable costs associated with said audit, said reasonable costs not to exceed
$3,000.00. Said audit to be conducted upon completion of the first twelve
(12) months business operation. The Planning Commission is hereby
delegated the discretion to accept an audit prepared on behalf of the ABC in
lieu of requiring a separate audit. Thereafter, additional City audits shall be at
the sole expense of City unless said audits verify incorrect percentages of food
CUP 99-I8 Aypnl (Ii... cy.).CC R.Iulien
City CavnnlResoluam No.
Codiannal Use Permit98-18, Apps! of Planning Commimim Deiermi m
113Main Street-HermesseyS Tavem
J.Y 11, 1999
and alcohol sales so as require reclassification of the licensed premises as
other than a "bona fide public eating place" as defined by the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control, based on audits or financial reports as submitted
by the business operator as part of its yearly internal audit/financial reports or
audit reports submitted to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
IT The establishment must serve a complete menu of food until thirty (30)
minutes prior to closing time,
18. There shall be no live entertainment, amplified music, or dancing permitted on
the premises at any time unless a Special Activities permit is issued to the
applicant by the City Manager of the City of Seal Beach.
19. The establishment shall comply with Chapter 13D, "Noise Control', of The
Code of the City of Seal Beach as the regulations of that Chapter now exist or
may hereafter be amended. Should complaints be received regarding noise
generated by the establishment, the Planning Commission reserves the right to
schedule the subject CUP for reconsideration and may require the
applicant/operatorto mitigate the noise level to comply with the provisions of
Chapter 13D.
20. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City
"Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the
presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned
to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) calendar -day appeal period
has elapsed.
21. A modification of this CUP shall be applied for when:
o The establishment proposes to change its type of liquor license.
o The establishment proposes to modify any of its current Conditions of
Approval.
o There is a substantial change in the mode or character of operations of the
establishment.
22. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP
pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if harm
or retail -related problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of criminal or
anti -social behavior, including but not limited to the congregation of minors,
violence, public drunkenness, vandalism, solicitation and/or litter.
23. Whenever the outdoor dining area is being utilized for the sale, service or
consumption of alcoholic beverages, a premise employee shall be in
attendance. He/she must maintain continuous supervision at all times to
ensure the outdoor dining area does not create a public nuisance contrary to
public welfare and morals.
CUP 98-18 Appel (Hem,eseeye).CC Raolmi.
City Coundl Resolutlm No.
Co dM --al Ux Permit 98-1$ Appeal ofP/am/ng Cmm ,a Determimtim
143Mnin Street-Hemrevey i7 -.m
lmuary 11, 1999
24. All alcoholic beverages served in the outdoor dining area must be served in
glass containers; none may be served in bottles.
25. The outdoor dining area shall be completely surrounded by a minimum 36"
high fence/enclosure. In addition, this area shall be capable of being
completely enclosed by double -paned sliding glass doors, and said area shall
be completely closed in at 9:00 PM each night. No ingress/egress shall be
permitted to/from the outdoor dining area, except through the interior of the
restaurant and the permitted entrance from the parking lot area adjacent to
Main Street.
26. The applicant shall continue to pay a parking impact mitigation fee in the
amount of $100 per space per year for the eleven (11) deficient parking
spaces, and building permits shall not be issued for the proposed construction
approved by this Conditional Use Permit until all delinquent fees are paid in
full and no outstanding payments for this property exist.
27. Provide a minimum 3 -foot wide landscaped planter area along Central
Avenue, enclosed by a minimum 6" high concrete curb. Landscape plans to
be reviewed and approved by the Street Tree Division of the Parks and
Recreation Department. Automatic sprinkler system to be provided.
28. A grease trap shall be provided for the restaurant in accordance with the
standards of the Orange County Health Department.
29. Applicant and City to explore in good faith the feasibility of constructing a
"comer bench, Newspaper racks, and trash receptacle" structure at the comer
of Main Street and Central Avenue as set forth in the design concepts for the
"Preliminary Streetscape Plan — Main Street Specific Plan" as prepared by
RRM Design Group. City and applicant to share on a 50/50 cost ratio the
preparation of preliminary design concept and final construction plans, if
determined feasible. If construction is determined feasible, City and
Applicant to share all construction costs on a 50/50 cost ratio. -
30. Within 3 months of the final inspection for said remodeling activities, the
Applicant shall complete the following public improvements along Main
Street and Central Avenue:
E) Central Avenue - Remove and replace all sidewalk, curb and gutter, and
replace in accordance with City standards (City to share costs on a 50/50
ratio).
u Main Street—Remove and replace all stamped brick sidewalk/access ramp
at the comer of Main Street and Central Avenue and replace in accordance
with City standards; remove and replace curb, gutter and sidewalk along
CVP 9819 Appel(H.ny.).CC ReWjl n
City Caanal ReiolaN. Na.
C9vda-,WUu PIMU98-18, Appwt.&I.Wg Cammiu. lhiem,i .
143 Main Sneel-Nennaeryb Tavern
January 11. 1999
that portion of Main Street adjacent to the front building overhang, back to
the second score line, and replace in accordance with City standards (City
to share costs on a 50/50 ratio).
U Health and viability of existing ficus trees along Central Avenue to be
reviewed by the Street Tree Advisory Committee, and if determined to be
appropriate to be replaced, City to share replacement cost on a 50/50 ratio.
32. The door to the establishment facing Central Avenue shall be an emergency
exit only, subject to the approval of the Orange County Fire Authority. If the
door is required to be operational for ingress and egress, the exterior side of
the door shall be designed to discourage use as a main entrance to the
establishment.
33. The parking lot shall be designed with a low wall to prevent direct pedestrian
access to the parking lot from the Northeast comer of the building. Applicant
shall provide a bench or other seating acceptable to the Director of
Development Services and ashtrays within the pedestrian access area.
34. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of
the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the
Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to
the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior
to such expiration date.
,35. The term of this permit shall be six (6) months, beginning the first day of
operation of the new restaurant. At the end of the initial term, the applicant
may apply to the City for a twelve (12) month extension, and finally, an
indefinite extension. The Planning Commission may grant an extension as
discussed above, provided that all Conditions of Approval have been met and
no significant police or other problems have occurred. The applicant is
hereby advised that a new application and accompanying fee must be
submitted to the City prior to consideration of any extensions,
Section 9. The time within which judicial review, if available, of this
decision must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure and Section 1-13 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, unless a shorter time is
provided by applicable law.
D, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Con 'L of the City of
Seal h at a meeting thereof held on the ��Y-C day of
1999, by the following vote:
CUP 98-I9 Appel (Hmneuey',).CC Reolmi.n
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
VACANT:
T:
CLERK
Ciry cm -.I Re 01/ m No.
Cmdmmnl UnPmft 98-18, Appeal ofPla..g Co iuim Ikremri�m
143 Man Sneer-H..e y'e Ta m
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do_heleby certify that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number on file in the
a
he City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Cou f the City of
ch, at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of
, 1999.
f Clerk
CUP 98-18 Appel 10
Attachment 4
Page Six - City Council Minutes - January 11, 1999
letters of interest, the top five firms were interviewed,
there were several qualified firms, however the Robert Bein,
William Frost and Associates firm stood out amongst the
others, they have done several similar projects for other
cities, it is felt they will provide the City with a good
product, they are prepared to start their work immediately,
the Measure M funds are available now, a letter requesting
ninety percent of the funds for this project will be
forwarded tomorrow, at the end of the project the final ten
percent will be received, these monies come directly from
OCTA, the monies allocated for the engineering phase of this
project is about $300,000. The Director noted that there
will be some funds remaining, however due to the complexity
of this project some outside help will be needed for the
management of the project, a person specifically dedicated
to this, that will be an additional cost that will likely
use the remainder of the $300,000. He mentioned that it
will probably cost $650,000 to get completed plans,
everything that is being done is financed through Measure M
and developer fees, and at the construction stage, depending
upon the final cost, a small portion of gas tax may be
needed, it is anticipated that ninety-nine percent of this
project will be outside funding. Councilmember Campbell
asked if any funds for this phase are forthcoming from
Bixby, to which the Director responded that Bixby funds will
be in the form of traffic impact fees and applied equally to
design and construction, those fees based upon a fixed
formula that has been established by the City, no Bixby
funds for this phase, the bulk of funding is Measure M.
Councilman Boyd noted that even without the Bixby project
the City would still incur some costs associated with this
project in that the bridge needs to be widened at some
point, and to that the Director confirmed that there is
necessity to widen the bridge regardless of what development
may occur around the area.
Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve the Professional
Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and
Associates to provide planning, environmental, and
preliminary engineering services in conjunction with the
City's planned Seal Beach Boulevard Bridge widening over the
I-605, Project Number 750, the cost of said services not to
exceed $227,800, and authorized the City Manager to execute
said Agreement on behalf of the City.
AYES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Yost
NOES: None
VACANCY: One Motion carried
PUBLIC H PEAL - CONDTTIONAL USE
MAIN STREET - HENNESSEY'S
Mayor ProTem Campbell declared the public hearing open to
consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of
Conditional Use Permit 98-18, permitting an interior remodel
and outdoor dining area at an existing restaurant at 193
Main Street, Hennessey's Tavern Grill. The City Clerk
certified that the notice of public hearing was advertised
and mailed as required by law, and reported there have been
no communications received. The Director of Development
Services presented the staff report, explained that the
Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit Number
98-18 on December 9th, an interior remodel of the former
Papillon Restaurant, the remodel does a number of things to
the interior, at significant to the Commission, and
requiring a CUP is the opening of the front twelve feet of
the existing building to an outdoor dining area similar to
that at BS's in the next block, as part of that the existing
Page Seven - City Council Minutes - January 11, 1999
bar area is moved back about nine to ten feet from the
current location and further away from the street with the
dining area redesigned around the front of the building, a
copy of the design and -eating plan on display for
information of the Council. Other changes involve the
redesign of the kitchen area to make it more efficient for
the proposed restaurant use, expansion of the restrooms to
meet ADA requirements for handicapped accessibility, and
once those modifications are made the actual public seating
area of the restaurant decrease. about fifty square feet, a
fairly minor change. As stated, the Planning Commission did
approve the request however with thirty-five conditions of
approval, several of those condition. address the use and
design of the outdoor dining area and the entrance into the
front portion of the building which is proposed to be moved
from the frontage on Main Street to the corner of the
building at the parking lot adjacent to Main Street. The
Director noted that subsequent to the action of the
Commission an appeal was filed by Mr. Don Shoemaker, a copy
of which is included in the Council packet, explained that
the staff report addresses the two basics of the appeal, the
first the entrance to the restaurant, the appeal requests
that it be relocated back to Main Street, the report goes
through the conditions imposed by the Commission in response
to concerns expressed to that body and the findings made in
support of its determination, the second portion of the
appeal was a request that any proposed change of hours of
the restaurant only be approved by the City Council,
explaining that was not an item of consideration at the
Commission level as those hours were established for the
restaurant in 1989 with the approval of Papillon's, those
hours have not changed nor has there been a request to
change them, nor has there been any complaints received by
the City to warrant a rehearing at the Commission level
regarding the hours of operation, and although the
Commission heard testimony, they took no action on that
issue, also, it is the opinion of staff and the office of
the City Attorney that the issue of hours is not one before
the City Council at this meeting. The Director advised that
a draft resolution in support of the action of the Planning
Commission has been provided for consideration, if, at the
conclusion of this hearing it is felt that the resolution is
not appropriate and the decision of the Commission should
not be supported, staff would request direction as to how it
should be revised to reflect concerns of the Council. The
City Manager said in an effort to simplify the issue before
the Council it is actually a fairly simple choice, the
restrooms must be made handicapped accessible, the interior
of the prior restaurant was in poor condition and needed to
be removed, this could be characterized as to whether the
new restaurant should be built exactly as it was before,
except for the restrooms, or should there be a
reconfiguration of the changes proposed by the applicant.
Mayor ProTem Campbell invited members of the public wishing
to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state
their name and address for the record. The City Attorney
questioned whether the appellant was present, advising that
that person should be allowed to speak first. It was noted
that the appellant was not present. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal
Beach, expressed his opinion that the Council should sustain
the appeal of Mr. Shoemaker. He recalled that Hennessey's
has come forth with a high priced menu claiming that it
would be an eating establishment rather than a drinking
establishment, similar to what was said with the original
Hennessey's, which he claimed was not the case, in this case
possibly there should be an additional condition requiring
Page Eight - City Council Minutes - January 11, 1999
the purchase of a full meal, the idea of being a restaurant
first and a drinking establishment second, changing the name
does not make it so. Mr. Clewley claimed that this Grill
will be much smaller than was Papillon's, the building
configuration should be left as it was previously but with a
larger kitchen to encourage the sale of food rather than
enlarging the bar area. As to hours of operation he said
this establishment should close fairly early. Ms. Carla
Watson, Catalina Avenue, said she too is concerned with the
proliferation of pubs on Main Street, there are enough of
those establishments already, Papillon'. had a smaller bar
with the restaurant, and encouraged fine dining. There can
not be everything in one City, at one time people wanted
entertainment, yet a different program was established, with
that comes different guarantees, those are that people are
going to enjoy a different, simpler type of life, not
restaurants open until all hours of the night, if that is
wanted then one goes somewhere else. Mayor ProTem Campbell
closed the public hearing, however the City Attorney
recommended that the applicant be heard, to which Mayor
ProTem Campbell reopened the hearing.
Mr. Paul Hennessey, 143 Main Street, stated that he had
spoken to Mr. Shoemaker, his understanding was that the
appeal was to be withdrawn, it is believed that he was
misinformed as to the entrance, that it was going to be
moved off Main Street, yet in fact the entry would be at the
corner with entry afforded from Main Street and the parking
lot, a better configuration of the floor plan and for those
walking up Main Street. He offered to respond to questions
of the Council. Councilman Boyd stated he had read the
application as well as the staff report, has reviewed the
floor plan more than once, developed some questions as t0
the mode of operation that the intent is to bring, noting
that this does seem different than the prior
restaurant/tavern. Mr. Hennessey said the name of his
company is Hennessey's Tavern, Incorporated, the name of the
restaurant will be Hennessey's Grill, there is a Grill
operating in Redondo Beach, there is another concept which
is the Lighthouse Cafe, an old jazz club, he also operates a
flame broiler which is rotisserie fish, chicken and seafood,
this will be Hennessey's Tavern Grill. He noted that the
menu was presented to the Planning Commission along with
pictures of the different items, it is presumed the Council
has those, also showed the different wine dinners, this
establishment will not be the same concept as was across the
street, as a business decision they would not open another
Walt's Wharf, a pizza restaurant, or, as said, another like
they had across the street, they are already there, that
would not make sense for than, and they do operate other
restaurant concepts. In reference to information submitted
with the application, Councilman Boyd noted that the menu is
much different than the past and asked if that would in fact
be the restaurant menu, to which Mr. Hennessey replied that
it would be a combination of those submitted for the Grills
and Taverns and the wine dinners, it will be appetizers,
seafood items, pasta, etc. Councilman Boyd mentioned that
there was a breakfast menu submitted yet the hours of
operation are from 11:00 a.m., to which Mr. Hennessey said
there will be a Sunday brunch until about 3:00 p.m.,
possibly a Saturday lunch until 2:00 p.m., if there are a
number of requests from the public for breakfasts that could
prompt a request for an earlier opening hour, the public
controls a restaurant to a great degree. Councilman Boyd
asked if there is a development agreement and is Hennessey's
subject to the parking space requirements. The City Manager
responded that no development agreement is necessary, and,
Page Nine - City Council Minutes - Salary 11, 1999
there is a parking impact fee requirement on this property
that pre -dates this application, the unpaid fees of the
prior occupant would need to be brought up to date before
issuance of a permit. As to the floor plan, Councilman Boyd
expressed his opinion that it is improved over Papillon's,
to which Mr. Hennessey said it is believed to be more
efficient for the staff to serve the food, also from a
visual perspective. Councilman Boyd said his understanding
is that Mr. Hennessey has made agreement to do some exterior
improvements to the building, parkway, and sidewalks, which
he deemed will greatly improve the appearance of that area.
Councilman Yost made reference to the open patio area, an
area similar to W's Pizza, to his knowledge it is unusual
to have an open patio area at the front of nice restaurants
that stay open late and serve alcohol, to that Mr. Hennessey
responded that that has been driven by the desire of most
towns to create a more pedestrian friendly atmosphere and
what customers have requested of them for luncheon and early
dinner hours, an outdoor seating arrangement yet having the
ability to be closed off, there will be access by means of
an entryway off to the side, the frontage the only open area
and it has a low ceiling. Councilman Boyd made reference to
the Planning Commission condition requiring a thirty-six
inch high fence or enclosure, that the area shall be capable
of being completely enclosed by double -paned sliding glass
doors, and completely closed at 11:00 p.m., expressed his
opinion that the thirty-six inch enclosure from the ground
up is good however 11:00 p.m. is too late to close that
area, his preference would be 9:00 p.m., a concern as well
with the patio area as it relates to the uses on the rest of
Main Street. Councilmember Campbell referred to condition
twenty-four that requires a premise employee to be in
attendance whenever the outdoor dining area is being
utilized for alcoholic beverages to ensure that the area
does not create a public nuisance contrary to public welfare
and morals, to which she questioned if that condition can be
reasonably enforced, what if an employee can not be there at
all times, to that Mr. Hennessey said he believed it to mean
it is being serviced by an employee at all times, that
alcohol is not being brought out by someone else, a
customer. Councilman Boyd again directed his comment. to
the patio area at the drawing on display, referred to the
patio as a significantly remodeled portion of the building,
pointed out that some time back State law prohibited smoking
in bars and a consequence of that is that there is an
excessive amount of cigarette butts that line the streets,
sidewalks, alleys, curb and gutter areas immediately
adjacent to the bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. He
suggested that a condition be placed on this establishment
that smoking is not permitted in the patio or the frontage
area, he inquired of legal counsel if and how this
establishment could be so conditioned, could smoking be
restricted to an area that is cordoned off, there is a low
retaining wall frontside, then envisioning a small area by
the entry door with a bench of some description and a
repository for cigarettes, as people and the City want to do
away with such debris. The City Attorney confirmed that the
patio could be conditioned for no smoking within that area,
entry seating could also be required, however with respect
to preventing people from walking around and smoking, that
is an enforcement issue, they can not be prohibited from
smoking on Main Street, theoretically they can not drink
there, the property owner would need to be vigilant in the
enforcement that people not smoke and/or pass beverages
across the wall. Councilman Boyd noted that should a
customer choose to smoke to the front of the establishment
and to also consume an alcoholic beverage, that becomes an
Page Ten - City Council Minutes - January 11, 1999
enforcement issue for the property owner and with the
Alcoholic Beverage Control. Mr. Hennessey responded that
they would not allow someone to be in the front area smoking
and drinking, the main entry area was meant for someone who
wished to leave and smoke there, they donot allow smoking
in their establishments anyway, by restricting the patio all
one is doing is pushing the people out of the building who
do want to smoke, defeating what is being attempted, which
is keeping them off of Main Street, that is why the design
is as presented. Mr. Hennessey offered that such a
condition as stated with seating and a receptacle in the
entryway was acceptable, however noted that by restricting
patio smoking, for those people who know that the law states
smoking is allowed on a patio, it will Sake it difficult for
the employees. Councilman Yost once again asked why a patio
would be desired for a restaurant, which is said what this
establishment will be. Mr. Hennessey responded it is
because the public have said they like Bitting outside, in
fact other towns up and down the coast are encouraging
outdoor seating even on city property, yet said it would be
less expensive to remodel the building otherwise.
Councilman Doane said he must have misunderstood as he
thought the plan was to have an open air area where people
could smoke, a new restaurant in the Leisure World Shopping
Center has a large outdoor area specifically for the smoking
customer, and business has increased for the Main Street
Grill because they too have the outdoor area, therefore he
misrepresented the outdoor patio as being a dining area for
someone who may wish to smoke. Mr. Hennessey stated it is
not specifically for smokers, yet again, according to State
law someone could do so, after the doors are closed they
could not. Councilman Boyd said he was not suggesting that
smoking be prohibited on the patio, rather his thought was
that a person could smoke either on the patio or in the
entry area, his concern was someone standing on the front
sidewalk, leaning over the patio wall and smoking, talking,
eating and drinking, in that case enforcement would fall
back upon the City rather than Hennessey's. Councilman
Doane inquired if this type of condition was applied to
BJ's, to that Councilman Boyd said he has never observed
anyone smoking on their patio, they are somewhat different
in that they have benches against the enclosure wall for
those who are awaiting tables. Mr. Hennessey stated he has
have a number of restaurants with large outdoor patios, they
do not set tables with ash trays, if a customer wishes to
smoke they are provided, however that is less than five
percent. Councilman Yost asked if the tables will be fixed
or moveable, and could the tables be prevented from being
moved on occasions such as St. Patrick's Day. Mr. Hennessey
responded that they are free standing, moveable to
accommodate larger groups that wish to sit together. In
response to Council, the Director of Development Services
explained that occupancy loads for restaurants are based on
square footage of public area not the number of seats and
tables, that is what the Fire Authority would enforce and it
is posted on the building at the time of issuance of
building permits. Councilman Boyd suggested that the staff
be directed to request that a Fire Authority Code
Enforcement Officer be present on St. Patrick's Day for on-
site inspections of possible occupancy violations. The City
Manager informed the Council that staff plans to meet with
the Main Street restaurant operators prior to St. Patrick's
Day to discuss through the Police Department what measures
they plan to take to keep things calm.
Councilman Boyd again made reference back to the patio area,
the thirty-six inch wall and sliding door enclosure having
Page Eleven - City Council Minutes - January 11, 1999
been discussed, reported his intent to make a motion to
require the enclosure of the patio area at 9:00 p.m. As to
taking action on the various suggestions, the City Attorney
explained that the public hearing remain. open, questions
can be posed of the applicant, and once the hearing in
closed motions or one motion incorporating any changes may
be acted upon. Councilmember Campbell said she too had a
concern with the open .eating area, and questioned how this
alcohol license differs from BS's, to which Councilman Boyd
responded that MS's has a beer and wine license, Mr.
Hennessey has an alcohol license to include distilled
spirits, to which Councilmember Campbell expressed concern
with such spirits being in such close proximity to the
street. Councilmember Campbell inquired as to how long
Hennessey's Tavern operated at its prior Main Street
location, to which the response was thirteen years, she also
made reference to Section 6(e) of the proposed Resolution
relating to Papillon's who had no history of extraordinary
demand for law enforcement .ervice.,and asked if there had
ever been such a demand at Hennessey's, the response to the
question was that the staff report to the Planning
Commission set forth a statement that no excessive law
enforcement requirements were documented. Councilmember
Campbell questioned the door facing Central Avenue and it
was explained net it is to be used for an emergency exit
only, basically a one way door, not accessible from the
outside, no lighting, no canopy. It was also explained that
the AHC considers beer and wine and distilled spirits the
same, as alcohol, the policing issue would be the same, and
again, the reason for opening the establishment up with a
patio area was in response to their customers. Councilman
Boyd referred to comments of Councilman Yost with regard to
the patio and fine dining, stated that BS's Pizza has
approximately the same square footage and table area, they
have a beer and wine license, suggesting that consideration
could be given to conditioning the patio area by only
allowing the service of beer and wine, not distilled
spirits, the enforcement would lie with Hennessey'a, that in
an effort to have a consistency with BS's and any other
establishment that may wish to have a front patio area at
some point. As to the enforcement issue, the City Attorney
said it would be difficult for staff to enforce such a
condition, Mr. Hennessey advised that only the food server
would carry drinks outside, a situation could be foreseen
where a patron would purchase a mixed drink and try to take
it outside, it would be virtually impossible for the City to
enforce such condition, to limit to beer and wine
enforcement would be the primary problem, it would not be
recommended that staff be involved in that, also, it would
need to be tied into compatibility issues, to support such a
finding the Council would need to have good rationale
distinguishing between beer and wine versus distilled
spirits. Mr. Hennessey confirmed that the food and alcohol
ratio is part of his ABC license, sixty percent food, forty
percent alcohol. Councilman Yost inquired if the City does
or have ever monitored the percentages. The Development
Services Director explained that the City has not done that
in the past, however as a condition of approval of this
project there is a provision to allow the City to audit
those figures, reflected as Condition 17, it is believed
that reports to the ABC are quarterly. The City Manager
noted that the condition does not provide a requirement that
the proprietor reimburse the City for any audit expenses
incurred. Given the fact that the Planning Commission is
the body that deals with conditional use permits, Councilman
Yost suggested that such reports be agendized for the
Commission for their information so that they are not
Page Twelve - City Council Minutes - January 11, 1999
missed, to that the Manager inquired if the quarterly report
Would be sufficient and should their be concerns the matter
could be set for hearing, and Councilman Boyd asked that
such report also be forwarded to the Council. The Manager
said since this is the only establishment to which this
condition would apply, asked if a certain time frame would
be adequate and if there are no problems the time frame
could be extended, to which Councilman Yost pointed out it
is the Planning Commission that handles the CDP process.
Making reference to the prior entertainment at Papillon's
that was not to have been amplified yet was, Councilmember
Campbell concurred with a monitoring program. In an effort
to be realistic, the Manager suggested that quarterly review
be done diligently for the first year, periodically beyond
that, under the direction of the Commission, unless there
are complaints, then it could be done more often.
Councilman Boyd made reference to the staff report with
regard to the floor plan, improved over that of Papillon's,
from a functional standpoint as a restaurant, as the
applicant stated, allows an increase of the serving capacity
and quality of service as well as ADA accessible restrooms.
He offered that his concern is with the bar area, recalling
a prior delicatessen operation of the Old To" Wine and
Gourmet where there was no alcoholic beverage service, after
a period of time it became Papillon's, now Hennessey's, the
bar area is proposed to be thirty-two feet by eight feet as
opposed to bar for Papillon's that was approved at twenty-
three feet long and nine feet wide, the workable bar area
was shortened to eight feet to accommodate seating, etc.,
currently there are fourteen seats, and inquired as to the
number of bar seats at the previous Hennessey's. Mr.
Hennessey responded that there were thirty-eight stools at
Hennessey's, thirty-five seats at Papillon's, to that a
Hennessey's staff person clarified there had been eighteen
actual bar seats. Councilman Boyd said if this is to
actually be a restaurant he would propose the thirty-two
foot bar area be reduced to twenty-three feet as was
approved by CUP 92-13 for Papillon's, the additional area
will allow two more tables and four chairs. Mr. Hennessey
explained that the footage referenced is a service area, if
people can not get served additional tables and chairs would
mean nothing, typically everyone who site at the bar during
lunch hours are eating, about fifty percent of the patrons
at night, both end: of the bar are designed for computer
stands and waitress service. It was clarified that
Papillon's had thirty-eight seats in the establishment that
were dedicated to bar service, with Councilman Boyd
inquiring specifically as to the number of bar seats at
Papillon's, Mr. Hennessey stated there were more seats than
ware shown. Councilman Doane pointed out that the bar runs
straight across where the Papillon's bar curved at both ends
accommodating additional seating, a piano bar with another
eight seats, the entire front of that establishment was bar
seating, there was three times as much bar area seating as
with this layout, that Mr. Hennessey is limiting bar seating
to the bar only where Papillon's did not. Councilman Boyd
agreed that he could take that into consideration however is
not, his argument is that if Mr. Hennessey is going to open
a restaurant it needs to be a restaurant with tables and
seating, and if this bar area is expanded from what
previously existed, that is the fault of the City.
Councilman Yost inquired as to how this bar is similar or
different from the bar, in terms of sire and configuration,
of the previous Hennessey's, is it basically the same
length. Mr. Hennessy responded that it is not, there were
thirty-eight bar stools, this bar is shorter by about ten
Page Thirteen - City Council Minutes - Ta ... ry 11, 1999
feet than the prior, which is believed to have been about
forty-five feet. It was the consensus of the Council that
Mayor ProTem Campbell declare the public hearing closed.
Councilman Doane made reference to comparisons of this
Proposal to Papillon'., offered that Papillon's was a fine,
gourmet restaurant when it opened, the problem was that
there were not enough people who wanted that type of dining
yet the people that did objected to the people from the bar
walking past their tables to the restrooms, that would not
happen with the proposed floor plan because of where the
restrooms are located, if the applicant in this case wanted
to have an extended bar he would likely have left it as it
was, there was a much larger bar area in Papillon's than
there is with this plan or even in comparison to the prior
Hennessey's. Councilman Doane expressed his opinion that
this is actually a restaurant rather than a bar, his
preference would be to have a restaurant row to encourage
residents to eat in town, and spoke in support of the floor
plan as proposed. Councilman Boyd countered that a number
of establishments have come to town, opened as a restaurant
and closed as a bar, Papillon's an example, a restaurant
when it opened, to which Councilman Doane explained that it
had been an upscale restaurant, then the cost of the menu
items was reduced, linens removed, yet there was effort to
make the restaurant work, in his opinion one of the reasons
that Papillon's failed was that it was a bar in the front,
attracted bar people, most of the food was hors d'oeuvre
items served over the bar, thus the restaurant failed.
Again, said his feeling is that the Hennessey's Grill will
not meet the same fate because of the way it is designed,
and the bar should not be further restricted because it has
already been reduced. Councilman Boyd agreed that this
establishment will likely be much more successful than
PaPillon's, it is a good floor plan, however if this
establishment/location can be conditioned so that it will be
a bonefide eating establishment with strengthened guidelines
by allowing less eating at the bar seating area and more
dining tables are required, that will benefit Mr. Hennessey
if he in fact wants a restaurant, and benefit the City by
ending the restaurants that then become hers because of
failure, and should he approach the City at some point in
the future because the restaurant is having problems, that
would force him to come back to the City to request
lengthening of the bar because the CUP would allow only so
many feet, and the City would make the determination at that
time. Councilman Boyd said this action would merely
increase the dining seating area and reduce the bar seating.
The City Manager suggested that there be discussion with Mr.
Hennessey as to whether the shortened bar would be
acceptable.
By unanimous consent of the Council, the public hearing was
reopened. Mr. Hennessey explained that considerable time
and effort was spent with professional architects and
designers to get what is needed in equipment to serve the
public, to cut the bar area back would be a great hardship,
they do not want another area with a piano bar, the intent
is to get away from that, the bar stool seating has been cut
from thirty-eight to eighteen, where it has been learned
from experience that when single people come in at lunch or
dinner times they prefer to sit at the counter and eat, they
do not want to sit at a table by themselves, the bar area
has been cut down drastically from that of Papillon's, and
all of the equipment is needed minimally to serve the
public. It was confirmed to Councilman Yost that there are
several establishments such as the Hennessey's Grill and an
Page Fourteen - City Council Minutes - January 11, 1999
HT Grill, to which question was raised as to how long the
actual bar is in the other upper scale eating
establishments, to the HT Grill Mr. Hennessey responded that
that one is totally different, a horseshoe shape having
about thirty-three stool.. As a point of reference,
Councilman Boyd said a twenty-three foot bar would be the
length of the Council dies. Mr. Hennessey again pointed out
this bar is to be considerably less than was Papillon's,
declaring it was not set up to be workable as a restaurant
in the manner that he feels it needs to be. Councilman Boyd
said the job of the Council is to either sustain, deny, or
revise this appeal, and if there is an opportunity to
improve the character of the community by whatever changes
are made, he would like to discontinue the comparison to
Papillon's as it is felt that Hennessey's is a much more
upscale, desirable establishment. Mr. Hennessey said it
will be successful for a number of reasons, the service that
is provided, the atmosphere, and the food, yet the food
could be the greatest in the world and if people can not get
served they will not come back, added that he has never
heard of a specific area being restricted whether it be to
beer, wine, or liquor, and from a customers standpoint, an
example would be if one in a party of four seated in the
patio area desired a cocktail, that would not be allowed
unless the patrons were to move inside, if it were he, he
would simply leave the establishment. There being no
further comments, the public hearing was once again closed.
To a question of Council with regard to what actions may be
taken, the City Attorney confirmed that reasonable
conditions could be imposed in addition to those imposed by
the Planning Commission, there is the option as well to
return the matter to the Commission, action can be taken by
one motion or on each proposed condition, and to inquiry of
a closed session discussion, advised that it would require a
two-thirds vote to add to the agenda however there is no
evidence of the required urgency.
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to declare a recess at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:16 p.m.
with Mayor ProTem Campbell calling the meeting to order.
There was a consensus of the Council to consider each item
discussed with regard to the appeal, revision of and new
conditions separately. The City Manager stated that pre-
existing conditions would need to be accepted by both
parties, therefore failure of the applicant to accept the
conditions would result in reverting to the conditions as
they were previously for Papillon's. The City Attorney
concurred that the Council could impose conditions however
if they are unacceptable to the applicant he would have the
choice of returning to the original floor plan.
The City Attorney made reference to Condition 26 pertaining
to the outdoor dining area and enclosure, proposal was to
change the hour for complete closure to the outdoors was
from 11:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Hennessey said 10:00 p.m.
would be more reasonable especially when patrons do not
arrive until 8:30 or 9:00 p.m., yet if 9:00 p.m. is what the
Council desires they would accept.
Boyd moved, second by Yost, to amend Condition 26 to reflect
the patio area closure at 9:00 p.m. rather than 11:00 P.M.
AYES: Boyd, Campbell, Yost
NOES: Doane
VACANCY: One Motion carried
Page Fifteen - City Council Minutes - January 11, 1999
With regard to Condition 17, the City Attorney noted
discussion of quarterly audit reports, the applicant to
reimburse the City for all reasonable costs associated with
the audit. Mr. Hennessey expressed concern, questioned if
that is standard for every other business, the manner in
which he has previously seen such provision written is if
the audit is different from what the establishment claims,
otherwise this gives an open field for anyone doing an
audit, numbers are provided, an audit is done, the cost may
be $4,000, yet there is no difference in the numbers, the
way this is proposed to be written he would ba required to
pay $4,000 or whatever amount for providing true and
accurate figures, which he deemed to be unfair. The City
Attorney suggested that it may be a good idea for staff to
have some monetary figure in mind, it is understood the ABC
does this, the cost for the City to do an independent audit
is not known, to that Mr. Hennessey reported that his
accountant changes thousands of dollars for a full audit.
Councilman Yost cited this condition as important in that
people feel this is an intensification of use of this
property, and inquired if a compromise could be reached to
somehow share the cost. A suggestion of council was to
require quarterly reports with one annual audit in the first
year, to that the Manager suggested that the cost be borne
by the applicant for the first year then under the terms of
the Condition. Councilman Doane asked why the ABC audit
could not be made available to the City. Councilman Yost
said since CUP's are handled by the Planning Commission it
would seem appropriate that such audit be reviewed by them
with possibly an informational copy to Council. Councilman
Boyd said to his knowledge the City does not receive ABC
audits. Councilman Doane suggested that they be requested.
Councilman Boyd said it is doubtful that ABC will respond.
The City Manager said he believed that could be done for the
first year at a reasonable cost, thereafter the City could
continue to monitor until such time as a discrepancy may be
found. Councilman Yost suggested that the figures from the
first audit could be used as a guide. Mr. Hennessey again
said that the standard procedure in business, is that the
City could request an audit and if it is found to not be
truthful the cost of the audit then falls upon the
applicant, yet if it is a true and correct audit that the
City chooses not to believe, accept, or not accept, and upon
audit found that accurate figures vera not provided the
applicant would bear the cost of the audit. Mr. Hennessey
again gave his opinion that such requirement has not been
imposed on any other business on Main Street, no other
business that has remodeled has been requested to go through
what this project has, in this case it is the remodel of the
kitchen and floor plan, and to his knowledge no other
restaurant that has remodeled in the past twenty years has
had to do this.
The City Attorney directed attention to Condition 35, a
condition applied to all CUP's for restaurants, the permit
term is six months, the Planning Commission then reviews it,
the applicant can then apply for a twelve month extension.
With regard to the comments of the City Manager, the
applicant would pay for the first audit, thereafter the City
would assume the cost unless there are discrepancies.
Councilman Boyd said he was uncomfortable with not citing a
specific audit cost to the applicant, suggesting payment for
the audit up to a certain amount. Mr. Hennessey asked if it
would be helpful if they provide an audited statement to the
City, prepared by a certified CPA. The City Manager noted
that this would be an additional workload on a limited
staff, if overtime needs to be paid to review audited
Page Sixteen - City Council Minutes - January 11, 1999
statements, or pay a contract consultant to do so, that is
an added cost to the City, this is an applicant that is
requesting a permit to operate a business therefore for the
first audit he felt this would be a reasonable expense to be
reimbursed. Councilman Yost suggested a maximum amount of
$3,000, to which Mr. Hennessey said is a fee that he is
being charged that other businesses are not. Councilman
Boyd expressed his opinion that it is incumbent upon the
Council to implement a Code enforcement process in the City,
for year one the City could say it will incur the cost of
the audit, if there is a discrepancy the applicant would
incur such cost, suggesting that if the interest is to
ensure that this is a bonefide eating establishment then it
should be worth $1,000 a year of the budget in the interest
of health, safety and public welfare of the residents, ft=
a business perspective this means another $3,000 or $500 a
month cost to the applicant. The question is then if the
City should not spend an amount on a regular basis to assure
compliance of all of the restaurants and alcohol serving
establishments. Councilman Yost said he recognized the
point, however when this property went from a gourmet food
shop to a restaurant the Council struggled to assure that it
was a restaurant, it is known what Hennessey's was across
the Street, there needs to be a guarantee that this stays a
restaurant use, his desire is to see the percentages of food
to alcohol consumption, the applicant knows the numbers, he
has a following, and it is not felt to be too much to ask
that this stays a restaurant. He restated his intent of a
not to exceed $3,000 for an audit the first year, with
subsequent reports from the ABC to be agendized for Planning
commission review, then future audits depending upon how
close the first audit is to the actual figures. Councilman
Doane said he wanted the ABC audit reports pursued which in
turn would eliminate the need for the additional $3,000.
Councilman Boyd noted then that the Condition would be
imposed that all costs associated with the audit will rest
with the applicant, not to exceed $3,000, stipulating that
if ABC will provide the City with their reports, and they
are believed to be true, the applicant would then not incur
the cost of an audit, yet if there are discrepancies in the
future the applicant would incur the cost, and Councilman
Yost asked if it would be acceptable to allow the Planning
Commission to review and make the determination based upon
those reports. Mr. Hennessey agreed to the Condition as
stated. Yost moved, second by Boyd, to adopt a motion based
upon the comments above.
AYES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Yost
NOES: None
VACANCY: One Motion carried
Next, the City Attorney mentioned discussion of ashtray
receptacles and a bench or seating in the vestibule area at
the northeast corner of the building. Mr. Hennessey
explained the intent originally had been that this area
would be a protection from cars, a pedestrian area to
enhance the entrance, however if the desire is for ashtrays
and benches that could be done, the short protective wall
was thought to match the front wall at about thirty-six or
thirty-two inches. The City Attorney directed attention to
Condition 33 to which a sentence can be added to read
"applicant shall provide a bench or other seating acceptable
to the City and ashtrays inside this area.- Boyd moved,
second by Yost, to approve the additional language as stated
by the City Attorney.
Page Seventeen - City Council Minutes - January 11, 1999
AYES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Yost
NOES: None
VACANCY: One Motion carried
As to a new Condition numbered 36, the City Attorney
provided language to read "there shall be no eating or
drinking on the sidewalk", and it should be understood that
this is an enforceability issue, the applicant to make every
effort to inform their patrons of such.
Mr. Hennessey confirmed that smoking is allowable on a
Patio, it is hoped that there will always be people eating
at the eight tables in that area, if they choose to smoke,
this is an area provided for them. He confirmed also that
they do not want people standing on the adjacent sidewalk
Smoking as that would bother the patrons. Councilman Boyd
stated that when he discussed smoking an the sidewalk
outside the patio he was not aware that smoking is allowed
in an open patio area, to which Mr. Hennessey confirmed that
they would not be allowed to smoke even on the patio once it
is enclosed at 9:00 p.m.
The City Attorney referred to Condition 5, suggesting
additional language to the third sentence to read
"consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited in the
establishment's parking area and on the public right-of-
way." Mr. Hennessey suggested the words "entirely within
the building", which the City Attorney confirmed is the
first sentence of that Condition. Boyd moved, second by
Yost, to add the language as proposed by the City Attorney.
AYES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Yost
NOES: None
VACANCY: One Motion carried
The City Attorney said although it is not necessary, an
additional condition could be added to provide that there be
no smoking anywhere inside the premises after 9:00 p.m.,
which would cover the patio area clearly, that is State law.
It was consensus to not add the condition.
The City Attorney was advised by staff that the parking
impact fees are required to be brought current for the
location, cited as Condition 27. Mr. Hennessey agreed to
the Condition.
Councilman Boyd asked if a restriction to beer and wine
consumption on the patio is desired. Council determined it
is not enforceable.
As to the size of the bar, Councilman Boyd restated his
request that it be consistent with Conditional Use Permit
92-13, a length of twenty-three feet, and so moved. Mayor
ProTem Campbell seconded the motion. Councilman Yost
Suggested some compromise. At the request of Council, Mr.
Hennessey explained that he has cut the bar back almost in
half from what was there previously and removed the piano
bar, it appears obvious that he has not convinced the
Council as to what he is trying to accomplish, it is
believed they have the only entertainment permit downtown,
there is no intent to offer entertainment and he would be
willing to give up the entertainment so that he would not be
creating a piano bar nor would anyone else in the future to
provide an additional bar area, in order to leave the design
as proposed. Councilman Yost asked if there is any way to
decrease the bar size by maybe six or ten feet, to which Mr.
Hennessey responded that one of the problems when this was
Page Eighteen - City Council Minutes - January 11, 1999
built, and there are health laws that moat be adhered to
other than the handicapped, in that in the area where the
glasses are washed the drain boards had to be lengthened
from what was two feet to something longer and with another
drain board, there is one area where some of the front
equipment could be moved to the back then possibly four feet
could be relinquished, other than that he is locked into the
amount of equipment that is needed in accordance with the
current Health Codes. Council asked if he would then give
up the entertainment Permit, suggesting that a special
permit could be requested for specific occasions, to which
Mr. Hennessey agreed. The City Attorney advised that a
condition could be imposed that there shall be no
entertainment, revise the language of Condition 3 whereby
"the applicant has voluntarily agreed that there shall be no
entertainment on the property and thus agrees to surrender
all rights and privileges granted by CUP 92-13^, and
clarified that 92-13 is believed to be just entertainment
however if anything else is found the remainder of 92-13
would remain in effect. To that Mr. Hennessey agreed. The
City Attorney advised that Condition 10 should also be
deleted which governs the hours of non -amplified
entertainment, as there will be no entertainment. Yost
moved, second by Boyd, to approve the revised language of
Condition 3 and deletion of Condition 10.
AYES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Yost
NOES: None
VACANCY: One Motion carried
The City Attorney clarified again that the bar shall now be
four feet shorter, revised to reflect twenty-eight rather
than thirty-two feet as shown on the floor plan, and to that
Mr. Hennessey agreed.
Yost moved, second by Doane, to deny the appeal and that the
conditions imposed by the Planning Commission shall stand as
amended by the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution
Number 4677 entitled ^A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVAL OF CUP NO. 98-18, ALLOWING A MODIFICATION TO THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON AN EXISTING LAND USE ENTITLEMENT
TO ALLOW INTERIOR REMODELING AND AN OUTDOOR DINING AREA AT
AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 143 MAIN STREET (HENNESSEY'S
TAVERN).11 By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution
Number 4677 was waived.
AYES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Yost
NOES: None
VACANCY: One Motion carried
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
The City Manager reported that the beach sand replenishment
project is about ninety-eight percent complete, there will
be one more train load, this project has widened the beach
by about seventy feet, although there will be some back
passing of sand the project is a success and is being looked
at by other cities as a model, the train transport superior
in terms of the environment instead of by truck. Mayor
ProTem Campbell noted that there has been about nine hundred
car loads, to which she inquired as to how many tons are in
a train load. The Public Works Director said the number of
cars vary, usually between twenty to thirty, about one
hundred tons per car or two thousand tons per train load,
the efficiency of the rail transport much improved in the
second half of this project. Mayor ProTem Campbell pointed
out that the entire project is approximately ninety thousand
Attachment 5
RESOLUTION NO. 00-36
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CUP 98-18 (6 MONTH
EXTENSION), ALLOWING CONTINUED USE OF A
PREVIOUSLY -APPROVED OUTDOOR DINING AREA AND
DENYING REQUESTS FOR EXPANDED OPERATING HOURS
AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT AN EXISTING
RESTAURANT AT 143 MAIN STREET (HENNESSEY'S
TAVERN)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On September 18, 2000, Hennessey's Tavern Inc. (the "Applicant')
filed an application with the Department of Development Services for an indefinite extension of
CUP 98-18, which permitted the conversion of 12 feet of existing restaurant to an outdoor dining
area and related modifications at 143 Main Street. The Applicant also requested amendment of
the conditions of CUP 98-18 to allow (i) the restaurant to open at 7:00 AM daily; and (ii) live
entertainment on a nightly basis.
Section 2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQX ), the
state CEQA guidelines and the City's local CEQA guidelines, staff has determined that the
application is categorically exempt from CEQA review pursuant to: state guidelines Section
15301 because the proposal consists of the continued operation of an existing private facility and
involves no expansion of use; and because the environmental impacts associated with outdoor
dining area were evaluated at the time the City undertook environmental analysis of the Main
Street Specific Plan and determined there would be no adverse environmental impacts, thereby
adopting Negative Declaration 96-2.
Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on November 8, 2000 to consider the application. At the public hearing, the
applicant spoke in favor of the request and members of the public appeared both in favor of and
in opposition to the request.
Section 4. The record of the November 8, 2000 hearing indicates the following:
(a) On September 18, 2000 the Applicant filed an application with the
Department of Development Services for an indefinite extension and amendment of CUP 98-18.
The Applicant proposed to (i) continue use of the outdoor dining area; (ii) change the hours of
operation to allow opening at 7 a.m. on a daily basis; and (iii) offer live entertainment starting at
CACt1KCUP 98-18(Wefwt &tmion)�UP 98-I8&trnion-PC Rm.dmcLWA 1-28-00
Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-36
Conditional Use Permit 98-18, 6 -Month Extension
141 Main Street, Hennessey's Tavern
December 6, 2000
9 p.m. on a nightly basis. The existing use is a full service restaurant offering an assortment of
food, non-alcoholic beverages, beer, wine and distilled spirits.
(b) The subject property contains approximately 8,813 square feet and is
located at the southwesterly comer of Main Street and Central Avenue. The subject property is
described as Orange County Assessor's parcel number 199-034-02.
(c) The City has granted the following approvals for the subject property:
❑ Variance 15-84 authorizing less than the required number of on-
site parldng spaces.
❑ CUP 19-84 authorizing on -sale beer and wine sales in conjunction
with a delicatessen restaurant.
❑ CUP 22-84 authorizing the establishment of a take-out delicatessen
restaurant.
❑ Variance 2-89 authorizing less than the required number of on-site
parking spaces in conjunction with a new restaurant.
o CUP 2-89 authorizing an on -sale general liquor license in
conjunction with a new restaurant.
❑ CUP 92-13 authorizing a single, unamplified entertainer between
7:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M. daily.
Q CUP 98-18 authorizing an interior remodel and a new outdoor
dining area. CUP 98-18 contains a condition prohibiting live
entertainment and supercedes CUP 92-13.
(d) The land uses and zoning surrounding the subject property are as follows:
NORTH Existing restaurant in the Main Street Specific Plan Zone.
SOUTH & Commercial retail businesses and restaurants in the Main
EAST Street Specific Plan Zone.
WEST Grace Brethren Church in the Residential High Density
(RHD) Zone.
(e) Captain John Schaeffer of the Seal Beach Police Department has reviewed
the application and noted that there has been no extraordinary demands for law enforcement at
the subject property since the Applicant began operation.
(f) The Applicant's representative testified in favor of the application but
conceded that the Applicant has not abided by the following conditions of City Council
CUP 98-I8 atmian - PC Reno
Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-36
Conditional Use Permit 98-18, 6 -Month Extension
142 Main Street, Hennessey's Tavern
December 6, 2000
Resolution No. 4677: Condition #9 (prohibiting opening before 11:00 AM Monday -Saturday
and 9:00 AM Sunday); Condition #11 (prohibiting exterior advertising of alcoholic beverages);
and condition #25 (requiring closure of outdoor dining area at 9:00 PM nightly).
(g) One member of the public spoke in favor of the Applicant's request for
entertainment, while numerous members of the public spoke in opposition to live entertainment
and expanded hours. A petition opposing the request was introduced into evidence. In general,
those opposing the request indicated that the subject property is not an appropriate location for
on-going live entertainment, and that the Applicant's operations have resulted in trash, noise,
puking and traffic problems for the adjacent community.
Section 5. Based upon substantial evidence, including but not limited to the facts
contained in the record and those stated in § 4 of this Resolution, and pursuant to §§ 28-1251,
28-2503 and 28-2504 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings:
(a) A six (6) month extension of Conditional Use Permit 98-18, to enable the
continued use of the outdoor dining area, is consistent with the intent and purpose and vision
established for the Main Street Specific Plan. By adoption of Resolution No. 4677, the City
Council detennined that operation of an outdoor dining area at the subject property is consistent
with the Main Street Specific Plan.
(b) The continued use of the outdoor dining area does not conflict with the
Main Street Specific Plan's goal of establishing and maintaining a balanced mix of uses that
serve the needs of both local and non -local populations. The continued use of the outdoor
dining area in compliance with City Council Resolution No. 4677 is consistent with the Main
Street Specific Plan and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
(c) The continued use of the outdoor dining area in compliance with City
Council Resolution No. 4677 contributes to the unique character of Main Street and the qualities
that provide the Main Street Sense of identity.
(d) The continued use of the outdoor dining area in compliance with City
Council Resolution No. 4677 complies with all applicable City Council policies. The Applicant
has operated its business in compliance with most, though not all, of the conditions of approval
prescribed by City Council Resolution No. 4677. A six (6) month extension of the outdoor
dining area use will enable the Applicant to demonstrate the ability and willingness to abide by
the operating conditions imposed by the City. Primarily due to the Applicant's failure to comply
with the conditions of City Council Resolution No. 4677, the Commission is unable to make the
necessary findings as to the merits of the requests to change operating hours and offer live
entertainment in connection with this application.
CUP 98-18 Roeam- PC Resp 3
Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-36
Conditional Use Permit 98-18, 6 -Month Extension
142 Main Street, Hennessey's Tavern
December 6, 2000
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby (i)
approves a six (6) month extension of CUP 98-18; (ii) denies without prejudice the Applicant's
request to amend CUP 98-18 to change the hours of operation to allow opening at 7:00 AM on a
daily basis; and (iii) denies without prejudice the Applicant's request to amend CUP 98-18 to
pemtit live entertainment starting at 9:00 PM on a nightly basis. The six (6) month extension of
CUP 98-18 is subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall comply with all Conditions of Approval prescribed by
City Council Resolution No. 4677.
2. The term of this approval shall be six (6) months, beginning on the date of
adoption of this Resolution. On or before the end of such term, the Applicant may apply to the
City for an indefinite extension of CUP 98-18. The Planning Commission may grant an
extension, indefinite or for a designated tern, provided that all Conditions of Approval have
been met and no significant police or other problems have occurred. The Applicant is hereby
advised that failure to apply for an extension within the allotted time shall result in the expiration
of CUP 98-18 and, concurrently, the required cessation of the outdoor dining area. The
Applicant also is hereby advised that a new application and accompanying fee must be submitted
to the City prior to consideration of any extension.
Section 7. This action shall be final and effective ten (10) calendar days after the
adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in
accordance with the provisions of the Code of the City of Seal Beach.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 6th day of December , 2000, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon and Sharp
NOES: Commissioners None
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners None
CUP 98-I8 Extension- PC Resp
Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-36
Conditional Use Permit 98-18, 6 -Month Extension
142 Main Street, Hennessey's Tavern
December 6, 2000
David Hood, Ph.D.
Chairman of the Planning Commission
Lee Whittenberg
Secretary of the Planning Commission
CUP 98-18 Extemion- PC Resp
Attachment 6
City or Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes or November 8, 2000
MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0
AYES: Brown, Cutuii, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would contact the ALUC to determine what their
schedule is and Staff would provide to them any documentation necessary to
expedite the review process.
Chairperson Hood reported that he would be out of town from the middle of
December to the end of January 2001.
4. Conditional Use Permit 98-18 (Indefinite Extension)
143 Main Street
Applicant/Owner: Hennessey's Tavern, Inc. / Dorothy Nescher
Request: To request an indefinite extension of a previously
approved Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, the
applicant proposes to amend the original permit to
change the hours of operation to 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.,
Monday through Saturday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
on Sunday. The applicant also proposes to amend the
original CUP to allow live entertainment 7 days a week
from 9:00 p.m. until midnight.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 00-36.
Staff Renort
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
presented photographs of the tavern. He stated that in addition to the request for an
indefinite extension, the applicant is also requesting the ability to change the hours
of operation to begin operation at 7:00 a.m. and to reinstate the live entertainment
permit to allow entertainment 7 days a week from 9:00 p.m. to midnight. He
reported that previous approvals on the property include a Variance in 1984 for less
than required parking and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) granting the on -premises
sale of beer and wine. Mr. Cummins stated that in 1989 a Variance was approved
for less than required parking and a general on-site sale liquor license was
approved. He noted that in 1992 a Live Entertainment Permit was approved for a
single, non -amplified entertainer, and in January of 1999 CUP 98-18 was granted for
the interior remodel and a new outdoor dining area. He stated that one of the
Conditions of Approval (COA) for this CUP was that the applicant surrender CUP 92-
13, giving up the right to have any live entertainment on the premises.
City of Seat Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2000
1 Mr. Cummins presented the options for determination by the Planning Commission
2 in reviewing this application as follows:
3
4 1. Should the Commission approve indefinite extension of this CUP or attach
5 another review period to this CUP?
6 2. Should Hennessey's be allowed to open at 7:00 a.m. or should the hours of
7 operation be restricted to those conditioned in CUP 98-18?
8 3. Should live entertainment be allowed and, if so, what type of live entertainment
9 would be allowed?
10
11 Mr. Cummins stated that denial of this request would simply mean that the applicant
12 would not be allowed to continue to operate with outdoor seating. He said that the
13 CUP approved in 1989 granting the ability to have a general on -sale liquor license is
14 not currently in question. He reiterated that CUP 98.18 was granted only for an
15 interior remodel and addition of an outdoor patio dining area, and that tonight's
16 review of this CUP is only for indefinite extension for the continued use of the
17 outdoor dining area.
18
19 He described the surrounding land uses as follows:
20
21 NORTH & SOUTH: Retail businesses within the Main Street Specific Plan
22 (MSSP) Zone.
23
24 WEST: Residential housing in a Residential High Density (RHD)
25 Zone.
26
27 EAST: Commercial businesses within the Main Street Specific Plan
28 (MSSP) Zone and residential housing in a Residential High
29 Density (RHD) Zone.
30
31 Mr. Cummins stated that when Staff was completing the initial review of this
32 application, a number of infractions of the COA were discovered. He apprised the
33 Planning Commission of the following infractions:
34
35 1. The hours of operation as approved for CUP 98-18 are 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.
36 Staff has discovered that Hennessey's is opening earlier than allowed and has
37 been serving breakfast. A letter was sent to the owner of Hennessey's directing
38 that they cease operations beginning prior to 11:00 a.m. until granted approval
39 for a change in the hours of operation.
40
41 2. Condition No. 11 of CUP 98-18 provides for no exterior advertising of any type
42 related to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Currently there is a painting of a glass
43 of Guinness ale that is clearly visible from the street.
44
10
City of Seat Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2000
3. Enclosure of the patio area was to have been completed by installing
double -paned glass windows, which were to be closed every night at 9:00 p.m.
Staff has received reports that this has not been done.
4. The current lease agreement states that parking is to be shared by Hennessey's
and John's Food King, with two-thirds of the parking dedicated for use by
customers of John's Food King and one-third dedicated for use by Hennessey's
Tavern. Staff has received complaints that at certain peak periods the parking lot
is being entirely used by Hennessey's customers. The lease states that no
signage specifying parking is to be posted. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission consider imposing a condition that signage be allowed to designate
8 reserved parking spaces for John's Food King.
With regard to the applicant's request to change the hours of operation to 7:00 a.m.
to 1:00 a.m., Mr. Cummins noted that Staff had no concerns about approving this
change. Staff does recommend that the Planning Commission impose the condition
that the double -pane glass windows around the outdoor patio remain closed until
9:00 a.m. to help mitigate against additional noise emanating from the tavern early in
the morning.
Mr. Cummins stated that CUP 92-13 for live entertainment was surrendered as part
of the approval of CUP 98-18, to which the applicant agreed by signing the
Acceptance of Conditions form. He said that the City now issues special event
permits that allow an applicant to request a permit for live music 3-4 times a year.
He noted that Staff has concerns regarding issuing a permit for live entertainment 7
days a week from 9:00 p.m. to midnight, particularly because of the close proximity
to residences and Grace Community Church. Staff recommends denial of the
request for live entertainment, and recommends approval of the indefinite extension
subject to conditions. He stated that one of the COA is that another 6 -month review
period be placed upon Hennessey's, due to the lack of compliance in the past with
all of the previously approved COA. Mr. Cummins reported that the proposed
outdoor use is consistent with the surrounding land uses and with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan. He noted that the building and property are adequate
in shape, size, and topography to meet the needs of the proposed use.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Cutuli asked if any comment had been received from nearby
neighbors. Mr. Cummins reported that at the beginning of Hennessey's operation
last summer, Staff had received quite a few complaints regarding trash piled up in
the alley. He said that Staff had spoken to the manager of Hennessey's several
times, and Staff has not heard much about this issue since then.
Chairperson Hood stated that because the applicant had violated several of the COA
and had not acted effectively to prevent or alleviate the parking problems, he did not
believe that the Commission should grant approval of these requests and in so doing
11
City Of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2000
reward the applicant. Mr. Cummins stated that as Staff has included an additional
6 -month review period as a condition of approval. Chairperson Hood stated that this
would simply allow Hennessey's "to show that they are not going to comply and they
are going to thumb their nose even more at the City and the City's regulations." He
said that this was not necessarily a corrective action and he asked how Staff had
come to the decision to "reward someone for doing something wrong" Mr.
Whittenberg stated that the request before the Planning Commission tonight does
not impact Hennessey's license to sell alcoholic beverages granted in 1989. He
emphasized that the issue to be decided tonight is whether the applicant is in
compliance for the operation of an outdoor eating area, and aside from the
infractions mentioned earlier, Staff has not been made aware of any other issues
regarding the outdoor dining area. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff did not feel that
approval of additional hours in the morning for breakfast operation would be
detrimental to the ability of the Planning Commission to continue to monitor the
property and provide additional conditions if it felt it were appropriate. He said that
instead of granting an indefinite extension, which would give the Commission the
right to review this CUP for violations of conditions or public health or safety and
welfare issues, the 6 -month review would automatically bring this application back to
the Planning Commission to review for compliance. He noted that if at the 6 -month
review there were no compliance issues, Staff would then recommend approval of
an indefinite extension.
Chairperson Hood stated that all the Planning Commission would be granting
approval to allow Hennessey's to do something legally that they had already been
doing illegally. He compared this to a child stealing a bike and a skateboard, and
telling him to return the bike while allowing him to keep the skateboard.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would let the Planning Commission decide what an
appropriate determination would be. He said that he understood Chairperson
Hood's concerns and noted that if other members of the Commission shared these
concerns, they had the authority to grant a 6 -month extension, not allow the
additional hours in the morning, and prohibit the serving of food in the outdoor dining
area if the double -paned windows are open.
Public Hearing
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Michael Tahvildari, manager of Hennessey's, stated that he was representing
Mr. Hennessey tonight. He said that regarding the hours of operation, the tavern
has been open at 8:00 a.m. to serve breakfast, but during the 6 -month review no
alcohol has ever been served before 11:00 a.m. As far as the advertising, Mr.
Tahvildari stated that the mural of the Guinness pint is not intended to attract
customers from the outside to come in. He said that he had spoken to Mr.
Hennessey and he said that he would be more than happy to paint over the mural to
remove the picture of the Guinness pint. With regard to keeping the outdoor dining
12
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes or November B, 2000
area windows closed, Mr. Tahvildari said that they were closed at 9:00 p.m. during
the first six months of operation, and considering the lack of loud music or "rowdy
crowds," the patio was kept open later during the summer months. He stated that it
appears that Hennessey's is "constantly picked on" for anything that they do. He
stated that despite Hennessey's reputation in the past, at its current location it is a
family restaurant, and not just "another bar on Main Street." He invited the
Commissioners to visit the establishment to get a better idea of the kind of business
it is. In responding to the issue of the trash in the alley, Mr. Tahvildari stated that in
the restaurant business numerous deliveries arrive and it is difficult to store them all
at the same time. He noted that the boxes in the alley were dry goods waiting to be
unpacked and stored inside the restaurant. He said that once this was done the
empty boxes were removed and thrown in the trash bin. He said that once the City
advised him that items delivered could not be stored out back, the supplies were
moved indoors.
Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Tahvildari if a copy of the COA for CUP 98-18 was
visibly posted inside the restaurant. Mr. Tahvildari responded that it was not posted.
Commissioner Sharp asked the Director of Development Services if the posting of
the CUP was one of the COA. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was usually a
standard condition.
Commissioner Brown asked if Mr. Tahvildari's understanding of the COA was that
no alcohol could be served before 11:00 a.m., but that they could open for
operations before 11:00 a.m. Mr. Tahvildari responded that this was correct. He
said that he was shocked to discover that the hours of operation were restricted to
the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.
Commissioner Cutuli asked about how Hennessey's could account for using all of
the parking spaces in the shared parking lot. Mr. Tahvildari reported that from his
understanding of the lease, there would be no assigned parking, and parking would
be shared on a first -come -first-served basis. He said that when he was approached
by the owners of John's Food King (JFK) to discuss resolution of this problem, he
had suggested going against what the lease stated and putting up signs to designate
parking for JFK. He stated that sometimes during the busy weekend hours, some of
Hennessey's customers would park in the JFK spaces, and the owners of JFK
began to issue parking tickets. Mr. Tahvildari said that if he spent all of his time
monitoring the parking situation, he would not be able to perform his job as manager
of the restaurant. He stated that he had no control over the parking lot, and once his
patrons began to complain the parking signs were removed. Commissioner Sharp
stated that at one time there had been a parking attendant to monitor parking in this
lot. He stated that it would be difficult to monitor the parking situation in this lot. Mr.
Tahvildari stated that the parking attendant was there to direct customers to
Hennessey's or to JFK, but did not assign parking spaces.
Chairperson Hood read Condition No. 12 of the COA aloud, which states that the
Conditions of Approval must be visibly posted in the business customer area. He
13
City o/ Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes o/ November 8,20W
asked if Mr. Whittenberg had been able to check to see if the conditions were
posted. Mr. Tahvildari interjected that he had already stated that they were not
posted and there was no need to ask the Director of Development Services to verify
this.
Mr. Woody Woodruff, the owner of a building adjacent to Hennessey's, stated that
there were no protests when the restaurant moved across the street to its present
location. He said that he had spoken on behalf of Hennessey's when they first came
to Seal Beach, which he now feels was a "big mistake." He said he is also a former
restaurant/bar manager. Mr. Woodruff stated that the City had been told that
Hennessey's at its new location would be a high-end restaurant. He stated that the
citizens of Seal Beach did not want another bar open to the street, but that is what
Hennessey's is. He complained about excess trash behind the restaurant and
stated that the restaurant can pay extra to have their trash picked up more
frequently. He stated that he was in disagreement with Staff regarding some of the
issues. Mr. Woodruff stated that Hennessey's had built a cement ramp in the public
alley behind the restaurant and the City had them remove it. He said they put a
steel shelving rack in the public alley for storage of 13 kegs; then a 55 -gallon grease
drum was stored in this area. He reported that the same delivery trucks that are at
Walt's Wharf for 15.20 minutes are at Hennessey's for 30-45 minutes. He said that
he has observed the restaurant manager go out to chitchat with the truck drivers and
then invite them in for lunch. He stated that the female parking monitor will go in to
speak to the truck drivers about moving their trucks and comes out of the restaurant
in fears. He said that there are 65 spaces up from Hennessey's and they are being
underused. Mr. Woodruff noted that when there has been entertainment at
Hennessey's, the noise is so loud that he cannot even hear his own stereo. With
regard to signage he said that if the restaurant is displaying a painting of a beer, it is
attempting to sell beer. He also referred to the "martini signs," a 25 -foot blow-up
bartender sign that has been displayed on the roof of the restaurant, smoke that
comes from the building, and a multitude of other problems that he could mention if
he had more time. He said that many car accidents have resulted because of the
congestion in the public alleys. Mr. Woodruff noted that these types of problems
were not happening at Walt's Wharf or O'Malley's. He said that he did not
understand why Hennessey's is being rewarded for their infractions of their CUP.
Ms. June stated that she lives behind Hennessey's and has also
had many problems with this establishment. She stated that after working all day
she does not need to return to her home to hear live music coming from
Hennessey's 7 nights a week. She said that she already gets a lot of noise from the
restaurant and the parking lot. She said parking is always a problem, and many
times she and her husband have to park on the street then wait until 10:00 p.m. to
see if they can park their cars in the 8" Street parking lot. She said that if
Hennessey's was not abiding by the law they should not expect further rewards.
She recommended denial of the request for live entertainment.
14
City o/ Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2800
Mr. David Rosenman stated that he was shocked to see that the City's records for
Hennessey's are inadequate. He noted that there were problems with an Alcohol
and Beverage Control raid on Hennessey's for serving alcohol to minors and also
problems with the fire marshal for exceeding their capacity. He stated that he
believed this should be a revocation hearing and that more privileges should not be
granted. He said that he did not believe indefinite extensions on CUPs should be
granted and that this property should be designated for 6 -month reviews for the life
of the property. He stated that the request for live entertainment was being used to
distract the Planning Commission from the violations of the existing CUP. He
reminded the Commissioners that when the initial application from Hennessey's
came before the Planning Commission, their representatives assured the City that
parking would not be a problem. He reiterated that the City had not documented all
of the complaints filed against Hennessey's by residents of Seal Beach. He
recommended denial of the requests for extended hours and live entertainment.
Ms. Lisa Woodruff stated that it was her understanding that in order to receive
approval of extension of a CUP, the applicant must adhere to all of the COA. She
asked why the Planning Commission was even considering an indefinite extension
for Hennessey's when they clearly have not adhered to all of the COA. Some of the
problems he noted are the manager arbitrarily extending the hours of operation,
leaving trash in boxes in the alley, and leaving the kitchen door open preventing
clear access to the alley. She stated that Hennessey's does not care about the
other merchants or residents, but cares only about making money. She said that
she monitors the parking for her business and feels that Hennessey's should do the
same. Ms. Woodruff said that Mr. Hennessey was not at his restaurants on a daily
basis and was not aware of what goes on. She said that instead of being on their
best behavior in order to gain approval of an indefinite extension, Hennessey's
followed the rules for a month or two and then simply did what they pleased
regardless of the conditions of their CUP. She challenged the Commission to do
what is right for the community by denying the requests for extended hours and live
entertainment.
Mr. Gordon Shanks stated that during her entire tenure on the City Council, Marilyn
Hastings had promoted creating an Entertainment Ordinance. He noted that this is a
good example of why this was a good idea. He said the Staff Report lists the
nearest residence at 130 feet, while Mr. Hennessey says the nearest residence is
500 feet away. Mr. Shanks stated that there is no enforcement of laws in Seal
Beach, otherwise Hennessey's would not be opening for business at 6:00 a.m.
instead of 11:00 a.m. He noted that Hennessey's was not the only business in
violation of City Code and better enforcement of laws is needed. He recommended
denial of the requests for extended hours and live entertainment and stated that
another 12 -month review period should be required.
Ms. Joan Ward a neighbor of Hennessey's said that she has patronized this
restaurant for many years. She stated that she wished to rebut comments made
about delivery trucks at Hennessey's. She said that she is always awakened in the
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2000
early morning hours by delivery trucks arriving at Walt's Wharf, Bay Hardware, and
Nick's Deli. She said she does not like to complain because she feels fortunate to
live in Seal Beach. She spoke in favor of approval of the indefinite extension of CUP
98-18.
Mr. stated that rather than notifying Hennessey's only two or three
weeks ago of their violation of the COA, Staff should have acted sooner. He said
that Hennessy's began opening for breakfast back in July. He noted that he had
driven by Hennessey's on Tuesday, November 7, 2000 at 8:15 a.m. and breakfast
was being served in the patio. He said that Mr. Hennessey has chosen to ignore
any warnings from the City and he had all summer to come in to apply for
permission to open earlier. He recommended denial of this request and that the
patio be closed down for 6 months, and that a system be created to have applicants
pay a fine when in violation of a CUP.
Ms. Kim Shear, one of the owners of John's Food King (JFK), stated that the
Hennessey Corporation is an anchor business on Main Street with a long,
successful history. She said that there has been a steady decline in business for
JFK due to problems with parking. Mr. Shear stated that the main problem was with
the peak periods of evenings, weekends, and holidays. She said that because
customers of JFK could not easily locate parking, they have stopped shopping at
JFK. She noted that the lease allows JFK 13 of the 19 spots, and states that no
spots can be specifically designated for either business, and that neither business
can monopolize the parking. She said that the extra Hennessey's parking spaces
are supposed to come from other sources. She stated that the owners of JFK have
attempted multiple solutions to the problem of parking, but have not been able to
come up with a workable compromise. She said that when JFK attempted to
enforce parking on this lot, they encountered unreasonable domination of a lot they
pay to share and that should be for the beneficial use of both businesses. She
emphasized that all the owners of JFK are asking is that they be allowed to conduct
their business fairly.
For the record, Ms. Gail Ayers read letters from Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Rafe and Mr.
Bob Gardini both speaking in opposition to Hennessey's request for live
entertainment and indefinite extension of CUP 98-18. These residents could not be
present at tonight's meeting. Mr. Ayers stated that she lives on Central Avenue and
is a frequent visitor to Main Street. She said that she had not been aware that
Hennessey's was in violation of the COA by displaying advertising promoting liquor
sales, and leaving trash bags and broken glass in the alley and trash in the parking
lot. She stated that Hennessey's had originally agreed to no entertainment when
seeking approval of CUP 98-18. She inquired if Hennessey's had paid the $1,100
mitigation fee for parking. She said that employee and customer parking has
impacted her ability to shop at JFK, and that when she asked one of the employees
about the Hennessey's operating hours, she was told that they open at 7:30 a.m.
Ms. Ayes said that Hennessey's "has been cheating," have not been good
16
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2000
neighbors, have no respect for the City of Seal Beach, and have made a mockery of
the CUP process, and should be denied their request.
Mr. John Bentson, the attorney representing Ms. Dorothy Nescher, owner of the
property at 143 Main Street, said that Ms. Nescher's only concern is to address the
issue of parking lot signage. He reported that Ms. Nescher's husband, John, had
operated JFK for many years until his death in the late 1970s. He said that Mr.
Nescher purchased the parking lot to serve John's Market and purchased 143 Main
Street, where Hennessey's is located to protect the parking lot. He stated that from
that time until today the parking lot has always been a shared, no signage parking
lot. He said that the statement that JFK is entitled to two-thirds of the parking
spaces is not true. He said that earlier leases had a two-thirds/one-third allocation,
but that dealt with paying the property taxes and other incidental expenses. He read
from the Hennessey lease regarding the parking lot as follows:
"Lessor has leased the remaining undivided interest in said parking
lot to the present tenant of lessor's 140 Main Street grocery store
business for the purpose and with the intent that said parking lot will
be used for customer parking only for both businesses in such
reasonable manner that customers for both businesses shall have
the beneficial use of all of the parking spaces there at. Neither
tenant nor the 140 Main Street tenant shall, however, be entitled to
segregate, mark, or otherwise designate any particular parking
stalls for the exclusive use of the customers of their respective
businesses. Any incidental revenues from the parking lot and the
cost of repairing and maintenance thereof shall be divided equally
between the tenant and the tenant at the 140 Main Street grocery
store"
Mr. Bentson stated that Ms. Nescher has in recent years given up her lease right to
require the tenants to divide the parking lot taxes, and is paying these taxes herself.
He said that this lease provision has been in each of the last three or more leases
going back 20 years on both properties. He stated that this has been done "very
deliberately,' and it has worked very well until now. He said that the former tenants
have had parking lot attendants on site to chase away the beach goers and the oil
island workers wanting to park there. He said that Ms. Nescher does not want to
take sides, but the arrangement has worked for 20 years, and earlier this year she
had directed Mr. Bentson to write to both tenants telling them that if they both agreed
to segregate or mark the parking spaces, Ms. Nescher would allow them to do so.
He noted that there was signage for a while, but when the owners of JFK began
ticketing cars in December 1999, Hennessey's took the position that they no longer
wanted to have signage posted. Mr. Bentson stated that Mr. Hennessey was well
within his rights to elect to do this. He said if an attendant is brought in, the expense
will have to be shared equally by both tenants. He said that the Planning
Commission should seriously consider imposing a condition on this CUP that would
require or perhaps permit either or both of the tenants to commit a substantial
17
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meering Minutes of November 8, 2000
breach of their lease. Chairperson Hood noted that he had a copy of the lease from
which Mr. Bentson had read, and the last sentence of the section on Chairperson
Hood's copy was different. It read:
Any incidental revenues from the parking lot and the repair and
maintenance and tax costs thereof shall be divided two-thirds to
tenants and one-third to the tenant of the 143 Main Street
business."
Mr. Bentson stated that this text was from a copy of an earlier lease agreement. He
said that the Hennessey lease states "equal," and the same courtesy was being
extended to JFK.
Commissioner Sharp stated that for as long as he remembered from his participation
in City government, the figures for the parking lot have always been 13 spaces for
JFK and 6 remaining spaces for 143 Main Street. He said that the definite numbers
were necessary for approval of the CUP. He asked Mr. Bentson if he had any idea
where this figure came from. Mr. Bentson stated that this allocation of spaces came
from an earlier lease and was not a part of the Hennessey lease, and this number
applied primarily to the payment of taxes and Incidental expenses. He said that
there has never been any segregation of spaces. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that
documents of approvals granted back in 1989 for this property show the two-
thirds/one-third split, which is how Staff came up with the allocation of 6 parking
spaces for a restaurant at 143 Main Street. Mr. Bentson stated that the Coastal
Commission parking requirements also further complicate the matter.
Mr. David Rosenman stated that based upon what Staff had just said, there is no
inland parking for this property. The Director of Development Services stated that
this was not correct, and that he had not made such a statement. Mr. Rosenman
said that Mr. Bentson had just said that there was no allocation of spaces. He said
that before any decisions are made, the Planning Commission must determine
whether Hennessey's has any inland parking. Mr. Bentson interjected that
Hennessey's has not only paid all of the in -lieu parking fees but has also paid all of
the in -lieu fees due from the previous tenant of this property.
Mr. Jeff Hudson stated that his home sits back quite far on the lot and his bedrooms
are right on the alley, exposing them to most noises from the alley. He said that he
has had to call the police several times about drunken brawls in the alley. He stated
that the thought of having live entertainment is frightening to him as he has small
children. He said that trash in the alley is also a frequent problem, as well as
delivery trucks blocking the alley. Mr. Hudson said that the open kitchen door facing
the alley creates a dangerous situation for cars driving through the alley and
employees exiting this door. He stated that Hennessey's must decide if it is going to
be a family restaurant or an entertainment bar.
18
City or Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes o/ November 8, 2000
Mr. Tahvildari said that the referrals tonight about Hennessey's not being a good
neighbor overlook the good things that have been done for the city by Hennessey's.
He cited several incidences of fundraising and donations made to charitable events
by the Hennessey Corporation. Regarding the complaints about the trash and
delivery trucks, Mr. Tahvildari stated that he needs to receive his deliveries and it
takes longer than 10 minutes for the truck drivers to unload six or seven hundred
pounds of products. He said that the steel ramp referred to earlier is only used when
deliveries are made and is later taken down. He stated that having the kitchen door
in the back is dangerous but it is required by fire code. He said the door closes
automatically and remains closed. With regard to the live entertainment, Mr.
Tahvildari stated that the only reason for this request is to be able to compete with
another business that has live entertainment on a frequent basis. He said that if
another business is going to be allowed to have live entertainment, Hennessey's
should be allowed to compete. He stated that Hennessey's pays thousands of
dollars a year for landscaping and paid to have the sidewalk redone. Mr. Tahvildari
said that residents should not be concerned that having live entertainment will attract
rowdy customers, because the majority of Hennessey's customers are residents of
Seal Beach.
Mr. Whittenberg requested that for the record a letter from Grace Community Church
stating their opposition to the live entertainment and the hours of operation only. He
also noted a letter from Roger and Kathy Coombs stating their opposition to live
entertainment and concern for the lack of compliance with the COA. He also noted
a letter from Paul Hennessey addressing a number of issues in the Staff Report and
expressing his concerns about some of the statements in the report and made
recommendations for the COA.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lyon asked for the location of the restaurant that has live
entertainment. Mr. Whittenberg reported that currently there is no restaurant on
Main Street that has an entertainment permit from the City for live entertainment. He
stated that O'Malley's has had a number of special activity permits that have
included entertainment. Commissioner Lyon asked if Hennessey's could apply for a
special permit for entertainment. Mr. Whittenberg responded that there is a Special
Activities Permit that may be issued by the City Manager's office for these types of
activities. Chairperson Hood asked if reviewing the number of special activities
permits issued to an establishment would come under the purview of the Planning
Commission. Mr. Whittenberg responded that in the opinion of Staff, if more than 4
Special Activity Permits are requested, then the request should come before the
Planning Commission and would require a CUP. Chairperson Hood asked if the
Director of Development Services could ask the City Manager to provide a list of
dates for which the Special Activities Permits were issued. Mr. Whittenberg stated
that he would be more than happy to do so.
19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2000
Commissioner Sharp stated that he believed Chairperson Hood should approach the
City Manager for this information. Chairperson Hood polled the Commissioners to
see if they were all in agreement. There was no opposition to Commissioner
Sharp's statement.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Sharp stated that the City has no control over the lease agreement,
but can only control designation of what is being used in order to get a parking
permit along with the CUP. He said that neither the Planning Commission nor City
Council could do anything related to enforcing the lease.
Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Sharp's statements and stated that
the parking issue was a landlord/tenant issue. He said that although he was
concerned with how the number of parking spaces are determined for CUPs and
in -lieu parking fees, as long as the City is being consistent with the method used,
then he said this was fine. He stated that as he recalled, it was not the Planning
Commission who designated the hours of operation, but that Mr. Hennessey had
stated that he did not intend to open for breakfast. He said that he had no objection
to the restaurant opening for breakfast, but he felt that Hennessey's should abide by
the conditions set in the CUP. He agreed with Chairperson Hood's statement that
the Planning Commission should not reward people for violating the conditions of
their CUP. He recommended that Mr. Tahvildad read the COA for CUP 98-18 and
for the next 6 months do all he can to abide by these conditions, as these were the
conditions agreed to when the CUP was approved. Regarding the patio door,
Commissioner Brown stated that he did not believe this to be a double -paned
window, but a roll -up garage door. He said that initially he did not feel there would
be a problem with the patio door being open later than 9:00 p.m., but because there
have been problems with violations of conditions, he recommended that another 6 -
month review period be applied and if necessary, revocation of the CUP be
approved if violations continue.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that the review period for CUPs was similar to a
probationary period during which a business should be on its best behavior so that
the City and the surrounding neighborhood will see that this is a desirable business
to have in the community. He said that it did not appear that Hennessey's was
attempting to do this. He stated the he had participated in the public hearing for
approval of CUP 98-18 and that Hennessey's had referred to themselves as a
restaurant, but that it appears to be a "bar" that is attempting to "stretch the rules"
Commissioner Cutuli agreed with the other Commissioners in recommending
another 6 -month review period to determine whether Hennessey's will abide by the
conditions of CUP 98-18 and whether the Planning Commission should take action
to revoke some of the privileges previously approved for Hennessey's. He said that
as far as the parking issue is concerned, the tenants should work together to come
to a workable solution to this problem. He stated that trash should never be left in
the alley and that the City should mandate stiff penalties for delivery trucks violating
20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2000
delivery hours. He noted that he was more irate about the whole situation than he
was able to express.
Commissioner Sharp stated that he had no objection to extending the hours for
breakfast, but he objected to all of the other violations of the conditions of CUP
98-18. He said that he was adamantly opposed to allowing live entertainment. He
stated that unless Hennessey's remains in compliance during the next 6 -month
review period, in all likelihood their CUP would be revoked.
Commissioner Lyon asked how many restaurants in Seal Beach remain open until
1:00 a.m. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Clancy's remains open until 2:00 a.m., and
Kinda Lahina and The Abbey can also stay open until 1:00 a.m. He said that he
would have to confirm this by reviewing the CUPs for these businesses.
Commissioner Lyon asked if Hennessey's intended to be a bar that serves liquor or
a restaurant that serves food. Mr. Whittenberg said that this is a question that is
raised by the Planning Commission whenever a restaurant applies for a liquor
license to serve liquor past a certain hour in the evening. He said that Alcohol and
Beverage Control (ABC) has definitions for what constitutes a bona fide eating
establishment and what constitutes a bar. He stated that as long as an
establishment complies with these definitions that is how the business is classified.
Commissioner Lyon said he did not object to extending the hours of operation to
allow Hennessey's to serve breakfast, but there was no excuse for the noise
problems and the trash in the alley.
Chairperson Hood emphasized that Seal Beach is a small town, and people are
neighborly by respecting each other's need for privacy, space, quiet, and fun. He
said that sometimes it becomes the job of the Planning Commission to insist that
these needs be respected.
Commissioner Brown stated that he would move to extend CUP 98-18 for another 6
months with no changes in the COA. He said that if Hennessey's wishes to apply for
an extension of the hours of operation at that time, they may do so. He said that he
was certain that their request for live entertainment would be denied and
recommended that Hennessey's not reapply for this request. He stated that if
Commissioner Sharp chose to put the extended hours to a vote, he could make a
motion to do so.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to extend Conditional Use Permit 98-18 for
six months with no change in any of the COA.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0
AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City of Seat Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2000
1 Mr. Whittenberg reported that the Planning Commission had indicated their intention
2 to grant a 6 -month extension of CUP 98-18 subject to existing conditions. He noted
3 that Staff would return at the next meeting with the Resolution for adoption to finalize
4 this decision. Mr. Whittenberg advised that the 10 -day appeal period would begin
5 after adoption of this Resolution.
6
7 Mr. Cummins interjected that there had been some confusion with Mr. Hennessey
8 about what a review period was. He noted that
thimextension
wilrequire a
9 public hearing in 6 months to include the applicants expense n
10
11 Commissioner Brown noted that one of the COA of CUP 98-18 was a 6 -month
12 review followed by a 12 -month review. He asked why the 6 -month review had not
13 been done. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this review had "fallen through a crack."
14 Commissioner Brown confirmed that the review tonight was actually the 12 -month
15 revie. Mr. ht
16 occurred much earlier,, b Whittenberg that a 6tmatonight's
onth review had been granted again.
should have
again
17
18
19 STAFF CONCERNS
20
21 Mr. Whittenberg referred the Planning Commission to a copy of the Draft Initis
22 Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a Subdivision of the Boeing Property.
23 He said that this document is now under a public review and 30 -day public comment
24 period. He noted that the Planning Commission would be scheduled to consider this
25 document and the subdivision map for approval on January 3, 2001.
26
27 Mr. Whittenberg distributed a memorandum regarding some activities at the Nava
28 Weapons Station as provided to the City Council.
29
30 In response to a request from Chairperson Hood, the Director of Development
31 Services reported that in -lieu parking fees for Howard Brief have been paid in full.
32 He stated that even though it may take a while, Staff does take care of code
33 enforcement issues in Seal Beach.
34
35 Mr. Whittenberg reported that the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
36 Commission is November 22, 2000, the day before Thanksgiving. He said that Staff
37 was assuming that because of the holiday, there would probably not be a quorum of
38 the Commission available to conduct business on that date, so they have not
39 advertised any matters for this agenda date. He stated that the next anticipated
40 meeting would be on December 6, 2000.
41
42
43 COMMISSION CONCERNS
44
45 Commissioner Sharp announced that each year Leisure World usually provides free
46 flu shots to senior citizens. He said that they have received notice that the serum for
22
Attachment 7
November 8, 2000
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
From: Department of Development Services
Subject: Conditional Use Permit 98-18 (Indefinite Extension)
143 Main Street
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
HENNESSEY'S TAVERN, INC.
DOROTHY NESCHER
143 MAIN STREET
MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE
AN INDEFINITE EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONTINUED USE OF
OUTDOOR DINING AREA. ADDmoNALLY, THE APPLICANT
REQUESTS: A CHANGE OF THE HOURS OF OPERATION TO 7 AM
— 1 AM MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY AND 7 AM To 11 PM
ON SUNDAY; AND PERMISSION TO HAVE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT
7 DAYS A WEEK FROM 9 PM UNTIL MIDNIGHT.
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA
REVIEW AND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH NEGATIVE DECLARATION 96.1
28.1250.B.(16); 28.2503; 28.2504
DENIAL OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT; APPROVAL OF OPERATING
HOURS CHANGE AND 6 MONTH EXTENSION, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, AND
AS MAY BE FURTHER REVISED BY THE COMMISSION AFTER
CONSIDERING PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
CUP 98-I8(Emnsion) S&fRvp n
CUP 98-18 (Indefrnite Extension), Planning Commission Sta$Reporr
143 Main Street - Nennessy's Tavem
November 8, 2000
FACTS
■ On September 18, 2000, Hennessy's Tavern Inc. (the "Applicant") filed an application with
the Department of Development Services for an indefinite extension of CUP 98-18. CUP 98-
18 permitted the conversion of 12 feet of existing restaurant to an outdoor dining area and
related interior modifications at 143 Main Street. The City Council's Resolution (Resolution
4766) approving CUP 98.18 is attached for your review. The Resolution contains the
conditions that were imposed at that time.
■ The applicant seeks an amendment to the following conditions of CUP 98-18: (1) Condition
9 to expand the hours of operation to allow operation to begin at 7 AM daily (instead of 9:00
on Sundays, and 11:00 the rest of the week); and (2) Condition 18 to allow live
entertainment during the hours of 9 PM to midnight, 7 days a week. Condition 18 prohibited
live entertainment, except for that permitted by a Special Activities Permit.
■ The Planning Commission's scope of authority for this hearing is to determine the following
issues: (1) should CUP 98-18 be extended indefinitely, for a specific period or not at all; (2)
should Hennessey's be allowed to open at lam daily; and (3) should live entertainment be
allowed at Hennessey's? The effect of a denial of the requested extension will be that the
applicant will have to cease outdoor dining.
■ The subject property contains an existing restaurant structure with currently valid alcoholic
beverage licenses for on -sale general liquor sales.
■ The subject property has received the following approvals from the City:
❑ Variance 15-84 for the provision of less than the required on-site parking.
❑ Conditional Use Permit 19-84 for on -sale beer and wine in conjunction with the
delicatessen restaurant, issued to Old Town Wine and Gourmet.
❑ Conditional Use Permit 22-84 to permit the establishment of a take-out restaurant (deli).
❑ Variance 2-89 for the provision of less than the required on-site parking in conjunction
with a new restaurant.
❑ Conditional Use Permit 2.89 for an on -sale general liquor license in conjunction with a
new restaurant.
a Conditional Use Permit 92-13 for a single, un -amplified entertainer between 7:00 P.M.
and 11:00 P.M., nightly.
❑ Conditional Use Permit 98-18, allowing for the modification of an existing CUP and
allowing the interior remodel and a new outdoor dining area. CUP 98-18 contains a
condition prohibiting live entertainment and supersedes CUP 92-13.
Page 2
CI 98-I8 (Exsensm) Staff Report
CUP 9818 (Indefinite Euemion), Planning Commission Stag Report
143 Main Street - Hemtesry's T"em
November8,1000
■ The nearest residential property is approximately 130 feet to the southwest, south of Grace
Brethren Church and 340 feet to the west, along Central Avenue at the comer of Central
Avenue and Seventh Street.
■ The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH — adjoining parking lot, with another restaurant on the north side of Central
Avenue, in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone.
SOUTH & EAST — Commercial retail businesses in the MSSP Zone.
WEST — Grace Brethren Church in the Residential High Density (RHD) Zone.
■ The subject property is considered to meet all on-site parking requirements through
combination of on-site parking spaces, in -lieu parking spaces and "grandfathered" spaces.
■ The operating hours currently authorized for the restaurant are:
a 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday
0 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Sunday
■ John Schaeffer, a Captain with the Sea] Beach Police Department has reviewed the
application and has noted that there has been no extraordinary demands for law enforcement
at the property since the applicant began operation. As such, he has no reservations regarding
this request.
Applicant's Statement: See attached application (Attachment 3).
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit No. 98-18. Pursuant to the entitlements
conferred by CUP 98-18, the applicant converted existing restaurant
space to an outdoor dining area, remodeled the interior and relinquished a live music conditional
use permit, subject to 35 conditions. The applicant signed an acceptance of conditions form,
which is on file at the Department of Development Services. The following conditions are not
currently being satisfied:
Condition #9: Hours of operation
The hours of operation, as per both CUP No. 98-18 and CUP No. 2-89, were established at
11:00 AM to I AM, Monday through Saturday and 9 AM to I1 PM on Sunday. Staff is not sure
of the exact time that the restaurant has been opening, but became aware the restaurant has been
open for breakfast, significantly earlier than the 11 AM opening time permitted. Staff has
informed the applicant that the business is not permitted to open before 11 AM Monday through
Thursday and SIAM on Sunday and that an amendment to the CUP would be necessary in order
to be open for business at the earlier time,.
Page 3
CUP 96-I8 (Ez¢mion) Suff Rcpon
CUP 9848 (Indefinite Enension), Planning Commission Slajf Repon
143 Main Street—Hennesry's Tawm
Hovember8,2000
Condition #11: Exterior Advertising
Condition 11 provides there shall be no exterior advertising of any type, including advertising
directed outside from within, relating to alcohol or the sale of alcoholic beverages. Currently
there is a Guiness beer advertisement painted on the wall of the outdoor patio dining area. The
picture depicts a glass of Guiness and is approximately 5 feet tall. Additionally, there is a
"martini special" advertisement hanging from the ceiling of the outdoor seating area. Both of
these clearly constitute violations of condition 11.
Condition 25: Enclosure of Outdoor Patio area
Condition 25 sets forth that the outdoor patio area "shall be capable of being completely
enclosed by double paned sliding glass doors, and said area shall be completely closed at 9 PM
each night." Staff has been informed that this is not occurring. While staff has not inspected the
property at such a late hour, several reports from citizens and other Main St. businesses/property
owners indicate that this condition has not been met.
Condition #33: Bench seating in parking lot area
Condition 33 sets out that the applicant shall provide a bench or other seating with ashtrays
within the pedestrian access area. This has not been implemented.
Other issues of concern with the operation of the restaurant: Staff has received the
following complaints regarding the operation of Hennessey's restaurant:
1. Hennessey's has left large bundles of trash in the alley, rather than depositing them into the
trash can, and then at some point in the future places all the trash in the bin. However, this trash
has stacked up and blocked part of the alley. While this complaint has not been lodged in the
recent past, it was lodged several times at the beginning of Hennessey's operation.
2. Hennessey's put up signs without the knowledge of staff and without the appropriate sign
application and building permits. Upon completion of installing the signs, staff informed Mr.
Hennessey that he needed to get the appropriate building permits for the signs and after multiple
phone calls, the applicant applied for and received sign permits.
3. A private lease, signed by both Hennessey's and John's Food King (JFK) calls for 2/3 of the
parking in the lot located at 145 Main to be allocated for JFK and 1/3 of the parking to be
allocated for Hennessey's. The lease specifically says that no signage shall be provided on site
distinguishing one business's stalls from anothers. According to JFK, patrons of Hennessey's
are allegedly utilizing all the parking in the lot at certain times, leaving JFK's customers with
little or no parking in the lot. While the matter is a private dispute between two parties to a
lease, staff is concerned that there may be an adverse impact on available street parking.
Staffs recommendation to the Commission is to add a condition requiring that a certain number
of parking spaces in the lot be designated "John's Food King only." Although this condition
Page 4
CLIP 98-18 (Extension) Sun Repon
CUP 9848 (Indefinite Eversion), Planning Commission siaffRepon
143 Main Street- Hennessy's Tavem
November 8, 2000
may be viewed as inconsistent with the current lease, last year the lessor indicated (in a letter
from her attorney) that she had no objection to the placement of signage if both JFK and
Hennessey's agreed.
There are currently 19 stalls in the lot, and the existing lease calls for 2/3 of the stalls to be
utilized for John's Food King. Understanding that demand is different at different times, staff
feels that 8 designated stalls may accommodate JFK's customers' parking needs.
Applicant's Proposed Amendments'
As part of the review of this application, the applicant has proposed 2 amendments to CUP 98-
18. They are to modify conditions 9 (operating hours of the restaurant) and 18 (re -instating live
entertainment on the property).
Amendment to Condition #9:
The applicant has proposed to modify condition number 9 to change the hours of operation to
open the restaurant at 7 AM daily. The only issue of concern with regard to this request involves
noise coming from the restaurant. By opening at 7 AM, rather than 11 AM, noise might emanate
from the restaurant at an unacceptable level. Staff feels, however, that as long as the double
paned windows remain closed (as conditioned) in the early morning, the noise potential is
adequately mitigated. Staff recommends that this request be granted, with an amendment to
condition 25, mandating that the double paned glass enclosure be kept closed from 7 AM to 9
AM daily. This, in staff s opinion, will alleviate any adverse consequences from noise emanating
from the restaurant in the early morning hours.
Amendment to Condition #18:
The applicant has requested that live music be reinstated similar to what had been previously
approved through CUP 92-13. CUP 92-13 allowed for a single (1) unamplified musician who
played either the guitar, harp, piano, or violin. The hours of operation on that permit were from 7
PM to 11 PM nightly. In addition, patron dancing was specifically prohibited. (Resolution
attached for the Commission's review)
Staff feels that this is an inappropriate use within the Main St. area. Currently the City Manager
has the authority to issue "special event" permits for similar types of events on an occasional
basis. The applicant's proposal, however, would allow continual live entertainment on the
property and would result in all the effects associated with such on-going entertainment. Staff
feels that live entertainment creates additional adverse effects on the neighborhood which
include (but are not limited to): additional noise, different atmosphere, and possible unruly
behavior as result of the entertainment. Further, the close proximity to the residential
neighborhoods of the Old Town area only exacerbates the potential effects of this type of a
request. Staff acknowledges that live music, when properly conditioned and regulated, enhances
the dining experience. However, staff also believes that the possible negative impacts associated
with this type of a use on a "regular" basis far outweigh the benefit of allowing the
Page 5
CUP 9618 (Ez¢nsion) Sufi Repos
CUP 98-18 (indefinite Eaension), Planning Commission Staff Report
J43 Main Slr r-Xermesry's renem
November 8, 2000
entertainment. Staff feels that the existing program of dealing with "special event" permits as
they arise allows the businesses within the City to apply for a music permit for special occasions
and affords those businesses the opportunity to hold events where live music is a "change of
- pace' or something different, adding to the flavor of Main St. However, the wholesale allowance
of live music has the potential of negative effects in the areas discussed above.
In addition to the potential for negative effects, the City prefers special event permits over live
entertainment permits. By amending CUP 98-18 to allow for live entertainment, several
applications for live music may follow. After the "special events" described above, there are
invariably phone calls from interested parties inquiring if they can get the same live
entertainment permit that that business had. Staff then has to inform them that it was a "special"
event. Staff feels that the approval of this request would open the gates for several similar
applications within the City and that the Commission should consider this effect when ruling on
this part of the application. Staff recommends denial of this portion of the request.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after
considering all relevant testimony, written or oral, presented
during the public hearing, direct staff to prepare a draft Resolution approving a 6 month
extension to Conditional Use Permit 98-18 subject to the following conditions:
1. A Six Month Extension of CUP No. 98-18 is approved for the continued use of an
outdoor eating area at 143 Main St.
2. Unless otherwise indicated herein, the applicant remains bound by all conditions of CUP
Nos. 98-18 and 2-89 and Variance No. 2-89.
3. The hours of operation shall not exceed:
7 A.M. to 1:00 A.M., Monday through Saturday
7 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., Sunday
4. There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed
to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic
beverages.
5. Applicant shall keep the trash enclosure clean and maintained at all times. This includes
depositing of all trash in the bin and keeping the alley clear at all times.
6. The applicant will prominently display these Conditions of Approval in a location within
the businesses' customer area that is acceptable to the Director of Development Services.
7. This Modification to CUP No. 98-18 shall not become effective for any purpose
unless/until a City "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in
Page 6
CUP 98.18 (Extension) Suff Repo.
CUP 98-18 (Indefinite Estennon), Ploroting Commission Staff Report
143 Main Street - Hennessy's rovem
November 8, 2000
the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the
Planning Department; and until the ten (10) calendar -day appeal period has elapsed.
8. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP pursuant to
Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Sea] Beach if harm or retail -related
problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of criminal or anti -social behavior,
including but not limited to the congregation of minors, violence, public drunkenness,
vandalism, solicitation and/or litter.
9. The outdoor dining area shall be completely surrounded by a minimum 36" high
fence/enclosure. In addition, this area shall be capable of being completely enclosed by
double -paned sliding glass doors, and said area shall be completely closed in at 9:00 PM
each night. In addition, the doors shall remain closed until 9 AM the next morning. No
ingress/egress shall be permitted to/from the outdoor dining area, except through the
interior of the restaurant and the permitted entrance from the parking lot area adjacent to
Main Street.
10. A minimum of 8 parking spaces in the "shared" parking lot immediately adjacent to 143
Main St. shall be designated with signs for "John's Food King Parking Only."
11. The term of this permit shall be six (6) months. At the end of this term, the applicant
shall apply to the City for an indefinite extension. The Planning Commission may grant
an extension as discussed above, provided that all Conditions of Approval have been met
and no significant police or other problems have occurred. The applicant is hereby
advised that a new application and accompanying fee must be submitted to the City prior
to consideration of any extensions. In the event Applicant has not applied for an
extension prior to the expiration of this permit, all entitlements conferred by CUP 98-18
or this modification shall expire.
Mac Cummins a Whittenberg
Assistant Planner Director of Development Services
Attachments (7):
1. Proposed Resolution (Tobe determined Later)
2. Code Sections
3. Application
4. CUP 98-18 Resolution (City Council Resolution #4677)
5. Previously approved Resolutions, re: CUP 2-89 & Variance 2-89
Page 7
CIDP 98 -IB (Fatensiw) Bun Repon
CUP 98-18 (Indefinite Extension), Planning Commission StaJfReport
143 Main Street— Hennessy s Tavem
November 8, 1000
6. Correspondence received by staff regarding application
7. In Lieu parking agreement
Page 8
CUP 98-18 (Exuntian) Sun Repos
CUP 98-18 (Indefinite Extension), Planning Commission Sta$Aepe,
143 Main Sheet - Xennessy's Tavem
November 8, 2000
Attachment 1
Proposed Resolution: To be determined at Planning Commission Meeting
Page 9
CUP 98-18 (Exmnsion) &uB Repon
CUP 98-I8 (Indefinite Extension), Planning Commission Sta fReport
143 Main Street— Hennrssy's Tavern
November 8, 2000
ATTACHMENT 2
CODE SECTIONS
"Section 28-1250.11 Uses Subject to Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
16) Restaurant, with or without alcohol sales (not including drive-in
restaurants). Permitted operating hours of restaurants shall he 7:00a.m. to
I0:00p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., Friday,
Saturday, and holidays." (Ord. No. 1406)
"Section 28-1251. Limitations on Permitted Uses.
Every use permitted shall be subject to the following conditions and limitations:
1) All uses shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building except
such uses as:
a) Growing stock, only when in connection in with horticultural
nurseries;
b) Parking lots;
C) Restaurant, semi -enclosed."
"Section 28-2503 Conditional Use Permits May Be Granted. The Planning
Commission may grant a conditional use permit in the case of an application for a
use which is required to be reviewed and conditioned prior to approval so as to
insure compatibility with surrounding uses and the community in general and the
General Plan. (Ord. No. 948)"
"Section 28-2504. Purpose of Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of a
conditional use permit shall be to insure proposed uses are compatible with
surrounding uses and not detrimental to the neighborhood. (Ord. No. 948)"
rr rr
98-I8 Staff Report - Hennesseys 143 Main Street - Indefinite Extension
CUP 98-18 (1Mefinite Evension), Pimming Commission Staffj?, on
143 Main Street - Hennessy} Tavern
November 8, 2000
ATTACHMENT 3
Application
98-I8 Staff Report - Hennesseys 143 Main Street - Indefinite Extension
r of Seal Beach • Department of Developr, K Services
211 8' Street • Seal Beach, California - 740
RECEIPT
S
Received From: �42 rn e�41", I'Vw .�dPfDate: AV IOJ
\I-1 SC' -e: C
Address:
ritern
Deposit, P
Appeal to City Council/Public Hearing Matters$500
(Appeal lb City CounCUNon-Pubtic Hearing L4aber„.._ .. .: ........ .:..
4100
Concept Approval (Coastal) (;
$100,
"Cond Botta Use PeirrBf, .. ..'-
45W
General Plan Amendment
$1,000
Variation ' ,'^�,.
'X5500 -..,. • ,_
1'Heip41
S
-.Maps ($2.50 persheel)
-
rMicrofilming _pages per page M:'.
MinorPlanReview
$100
Major Plan Review:
Planning Commission Interpretation
$200
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
`- Pre -Application Conference
$100
Profile
$75
Specific Plan
$2,000
Sign Appllcalfon
.: 450
„'
Variance5500
;..; ,... .....
Unclassified Use Pem1fl (UUP)
5
Zone Change
$1,000
Xerc)dng(51.50 setup+ A 5Per page),”
Environmental Impact Report
$10,000
Major Environmental Assessmeri:Qlnitial Study) 1
$250.: .....3
Minor Environmental Assessment (Determination)
$10
!. Negative Declaration .. , .. .... . # ..-
-, $SOg
00
o�-'�Soa u
O Amount To Be Paid
S Soo Ci
Account M
001-33017 Microfilming
001.35011 Building Plan Check
001-35020 Planning Fees
001-37004 Sale of Printed Material
P A l G
uu 0 2 70;;2
+ ppketlon for. (cbw* w w leery
:0 ta'+rrt�rthe wmr
Varve= d CITY OF SEAL BEACH
vr.e
G
PA2 11,110M PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION
1. Property Address: I`*'—.3 !7i41t/ orT. S',Ev4 �69C%�
2. Applicant's Name: �F✓✓EiS<y1 Tt/FQ �/ WG �g� L E /�/v �r
Address: /Fs<s
Home Phone: ( ) r
Work Phone:Sk�--CZ.4fG FAX: (31t,) 3/, -rias--
zO/Lo77J f1• N+EsQ/fE�, Titur�E< OF7'�
3. Property Owner's Name: ,OHN H. (/ � y,y� 5 �r NEJ
Address: 7pacr7 x"04 oectaun,� oa7.w�r GU /y73
44eis 1b 5 y/L/73 7�7 ,6vy�
Home Phone. r I
4. General Plan and Zoning Designation: J71C-z-z7 Sic fic �it9v
5. Present Use of Property: RE6.17- ylq �T v
6. Proposed Use of Property: .6sJ%90,44 l
7. Request For. ?!!�K/xz� v6
�X%t%✓6 lvvtE
B. Describe the Proposed Use: _,�cST a�lA✓T /-4LC aU
i
9. Describe how and if the proposed improvements are appropriate for the
character of the surrounding neighborhood: .4 ckR-X� 1i471't
L.0 cS�FiLC%C c� �t✓% aui F
Page 7
10. Describe how and if the approval of this Unclassified Use Permit would be
detrimental in any way to other property in the vicinity VOA1 r--
11. Proof of Ownership
Staff Is to a8ath here IN PhCIoalpy of o Picture I.D. and a phdompy of the Grant Deed provcw b/ the
aPNK*rt AAL
or
Sipned and ndar¢ed Owr»r s Alidavk to be oontpleted and attedred to the appliomion.
/`r9.wi dr
12. Legal Description (or attach description from Title or Grant Deed): y/rJt2i -07
By.
Pa.
SL
(Pid Name)
(Date)7--
407s 4`c1- ^V.O
(Signature of Applicant)
(Pira Name)
(Date)
Pape 8
Environmental Information and Checklist Form
General information
7. Name and address of Developer or Project Sponsor:
Name: 3VR.. L =. tfE.✓ds�/✓� fsy, T c �!,✓ �, i C,
Address: _&fJ S
City lk7^"tZ� &ERCf� State: G9-F)�2717
Telephone: FAX
2. Address of Project: A` -V,
Assessor's Parcel Number._
3. Name and address of Project Contact Person:
Name: 'A's'h'
Address:
City State:
Telephone: FAX Zip:
4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for
this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
Glpw d7Y/r% cSy�c�.�.c �/i9v
S. Ex sting zoni g: Existirrsgg General Plan:
6. Proposed use of site: AY7'-94* 4 -7 -
Pape 11
Project Descr(ption
7. Site size (square footage): ��% r c$ f
8. Square footage of proposed Project: 3�1J
9. Number of floors of oonstnidion: %u>D
10. Amount of off-street parking provided:
11. Plans (attach) ,V�iy
12. Proposed scheduling: £S-CsSTA'ka
13. Associated projects:
14. Anticipated incremental development: /
15. For residential projecis, indicate the: ``//
A Number of units: — N/
B. Unit sizes:
C. Range of sale prices or rents:
D. Household size(s) wpected:
16. For commercial projects, indicate the.
A Type of project PS;4-XI .AAC
B. Whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented: Gish
C. Square footage of sales areas: /7�
D. Size of loading facilities: _ .i 44?;k
i
17. For industrial projects, indicate the:
A Type of project: _ 4ZIif�
B. Estimated employment per shift
C. Size of loading facilities:
18. For institutionat projects, indicate the:
A Major fu xtion:
Page 12
B. Estimated employment per shift.
C. Es imated ocauparloy:
D. Size of loading facilities:
E. Community, benefits derived from the Project:
19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit/unconditional use permit,
height variation or rezoning application, state this and indicate dearly why the
application is required:
Are the following hems applicable to the Projed or its effects? Discuss below all items
checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary),
YES NO
20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands,
beadles, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of
/ ground contours?
✓ 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing
/ residential areas or public lands or roads.
22. Change in patten, scale or character of general area of
Prey.
23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
24. Change in dust, ash, snake, fumes or odors in vicinity.
V�
25. Change in ocean, bay, un
lake, stream or ground water
quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage
patterns.
26. Substantial Change in existing noise or vibration levels
in the vicinity.
_ . ( 27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more.
28. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such
as toxic substances, flammables or explosives.
Page 13
29. Substantial change in demand for municipal service
(police, fire, water, sewage, etc.).
✓ 30. Substantially Increase in fossil fuel consurnpbon
(electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.).
31. Relationship to larger project or series of projects.
Environmental Setting
32. on a separate page, describe the project site as it exists before theproject, including
information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural,
historical, or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the
use of the st uctures. Attach photographs of the site.
33. On a separate page, describe the surrounding properties, holuding information on
plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type
of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family,
apartment homes, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development
(height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity.
sheetsnmental impacts (Please explain all "yes" and "maybe" answers on separate
Page 14
YES
MAYBE NO
34. Fgrih.
Will the proposal result in:
A.
Unstable earth conditions or In
changes in geologic substructures?
✓
b.
Disruptions, displacements,
compaction or overcoverirg of the
doll?
C.
Charge in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d.
The destruction, covering or
mWiriration of any unique geologic
W physical features?
e.
Any inc ease In wind or water
erosion of solls, either on or or the
/
aIle?
Page 14
Page 15
YES
MAYBE NO
f.
Changes in depositon or erosion of
beach sands. or changes in
Siltation, deposftn or erosion
which may modify the Gunnel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet Or lake?
g.
Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
35, &ir.
Will the Proposal result in:
r
a.
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air quantal
✓
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
C.
Alienation of air movement, moisture
or temperature or any charge in
riimme, either locally or regionally)
v
36. Water. Will the Proposal result in:
a.
Charges in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements, in
either marine or fresh waters?
/
ye
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
/
surface water runofR
V
C.
Aleration to the course or now of
flood waters?
d.
Change in amount of surface water
in any water body?
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or in
any aneration of surface water
quality, Inctudirg, but not limited to
temperature, tlissolved orygen or
turbitlty?
/
✓
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
Page 15
37.
38.
Page 16
V
YES
MAYBE NO
g.
Charge In the quardhy of ground
waters, ehler through direct
additions or wlthdrewals, or through
Interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
h.
Substantial reduction In the amount
of water otherwise availabie for
pudic water supplies?
I.
PVosure of people or property to
water-releled hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves?
J.
Significant charges In the
temperature, flow or chemical
corderrt of surface thermal springs?
V/
Plant Life. Will the proposal result In:
a.
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any species of plants
(Induding trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, microflors and aquatic
✓
Plants)?
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants?
C.
Introduction of new species of
plants Into an area, or in a barrier to
/
the normal replenishment of
✓/
existing species?
d.
Reduction In acreage of any
/
agricultural crop?
✓
Animal Life. Will the proposal result In:
a.
Charge In the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of
animals (birds, land animals
Including reptiles, fish and shellfish,
benthic organisms, Insects and
/
microfauna)?
V/
Page 16
V
39.
40.
41.
42.
Ct<a
YES
MAYBE NO
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
/
or animals?
C. Introduction of new spades of
animals Into an area, or rewit In a
barrier to the migration or
movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
✓
Oise. Will the proposal result in:
A. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to server noise
levels?
Licht and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
Land V . Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area.V/
Natural Resource . Will the proposal result
In:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resource?
b. Substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable nature) resource?
/
Risk of Unset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the even
/
of an accident or upset conditions?
s/
b. Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or an
emergency evaluation plan?
Page 17
44.
45.
46.
47.
YES MAYBE NO
Population. Will the proposal eller the
location, distribution, density, or growth role
of the human population of an area?
Housino. Will the proposal area existing
housing, or mate a demand for additional
housing? ✓
TransoonatioNCirculation. cull the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional /
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing perking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
andfor goods? e/
e. Alterations to waterbome, tail or air
traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection? 7
C. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational /
facilities? V/
e. AAairdenence of pudic facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
Page 18
i
48.
49.
So.
51.
52.
Enem - Will the proposal result In:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial ax:reases In demand
upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new
sources of energy?
iltie . Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations
to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
C. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Stone water damage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazards (excluding
menial health)?
b. Exposure or people to potential
health hazards?
estheti Will the Proposal result In the
ObsWction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public, or will the proposal result In
the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view)
Cultural Resource .
a. Will the Proposal result In the
alteration of or the destruction of a
Prehistoric or historic archaeological
she?
Page 19
YES MAYBE NO
V
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
Physical or sesthetic effects to a
prehistoric of historic building,
structure a object?
C. Does the proposal have the
Potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
Potential Impact area?
a. Does the project have the Potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
Population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant and animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history
or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short -tens, to the
disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment Is one
which occurs In a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term Impacts will endure well into
the future.)
Page 20
YES MAYBE NO
V
C. Does the project have Impacts
which are Individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (A
project may affect two are more
separate resources where the
impact on each resource Is
Matively small, but where the
Off" of the total of those Impacts
on the environment is significant,)
D. Does the project have
envlronmemal effects which will
cause substantial adverse effect on
human beings, either directly or
Indirectly?
Page 21
YES MAYBE NO
V
Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement
The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are wntained on
the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962,5 of the Government Code. Accordingly, the
project applicant is required to submit a signed statement which contains the following
information: L� Saki L A
1. Name of applicant: i ,d rsF�i 1 7265 .,Z-1_
2. Street:l�4�S .% iDDi✓' 40c 3pe
3. City r.>,--`�Cllioa c�Jw✓9 G/J�
4. Zip Code: �OL77
5. Phone Number.-Z.)27f-
6. Address of site (street and zip): 17774,V
7. Local Agency (city/county): �'�v < gzViF �
6. Assessor's Parcel Number. % /li�'� 2-
9. Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code:
10. Regulatory identification rxxnber.
11. Date of list:
Date: 41Y—OD Signature:
Applicant 4ei.
Pepe 23
NOTE: In the event that the project site and any alternatives are not listed on any list
compiled pursuant to Section 659625 of the Government Code, then the applicant
rtxut certify that fad as provided below.
1 have consulted the lists comp led pursuerrt to Section 65962.2 of the Government Code
�d�YY that the development project and any aIle atives proposed in this
application are not contained on these lists.
Date: ` Signature: 9r,
Applicant '- f Js
Pape 24
PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
COUNTY OF ORANGE }
0y(We)
swear that (I amy(we are) the owner of the property at
(streal Address) (CeY) (state) (ZIP)
and that (I amy(we are) are familiar with the rules of the City of Seal Beach for preparing
" filing a Plan Review application. The information contained in the attached Plan
Review application is correct to the best of (myy(our) knowledge and (ly(we) approve of
this application to do the following work
(Ptird Name) 04grrWre) (Date)
(Address - Please Prirt) (City, state Q LP) (Teiephpu)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
THIS DAY OF -
Notary Public
Pape 26
CUP 98-18 (Indefinite Eaension), Planning Commission Sta$Repart
143 Main S+rset- Hennessy's Tovem
November 8, 2000
ATTACHMENT 4
Previous CUP 98-18 Resolution (City Council Resolution
#4677)
98-I8 Staff Report - Hennesseys 143 Main Street - Indefinite Extension
RESOLUTION NUhIDER/ 7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH SUSTAINING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
OF CUP NO. 98-18, ALLOWING A
MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL ON AN EXISTING LAND USE
ENTITLEMENT TO ALLOW INTERIOR
REMODELING AND AN OUTDOOR DIN NG
AREA AT AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT
143 MAIN STREET (HENNESSEY'S TAVERN)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND FIND:
Section 1. On November 5, 1998, Hennessey's Tavern Inc. (the
"Applicant") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for
Conditional Use Permit 98.18, for an interior remodeling of the existing restaurant, the
creation of a semi -enclosed outdoor dining area, and the relocation of the front entry into
the restaurant from the front of the restaurant to the northerly side of the restaurant,
adjacent to blain Street.
Section . Pursuant to 14 Calif Code of Regs. § 15305 and § TIS of
the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, stalT has determined as follows: The application for
CUP 98.18 for the proposed interior remodeling is categorically exempt from review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif Code of Regs.
§ 15301 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because the proposal involves a
negligible expansion of an existing use; pursuant to § 15305 Minor Alterations in Land
Use Limitations), because the proposal involves a minor alteration in land use limitation
and does not involve either a property in excess of 20% slope or a change in land use or
density; and, the proposed outdoor dining area was considered as pan of Negative
Declaration 96.2, evaluating the environmental impacts of the Main Street Specific Plan.
Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on December 9, 1998, to consider the application for CUP 98-18. At the
public hearing the applicant spoke in favor of the request, with persons appearing both in
favor of and in opposition to the request.
ct'on 4. The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit 98-18 subject to 35 conditions through the adoption of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 98-50.
CPI)Dmm,en ALSO CLIP 08.18 Appel Mnu,eugh) OC R..iv.d..,LM-01.12."
Qycu of Resdmm h'o.
Cu+daiov! Uu Penni, DdJa, Appeal ofPlawnR Cann,n,o . IJeun,urw�m
113 Alan Srren- Hmneuni 7evrm
Jonno� 11, /DDD
Section . An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of
Condition' use Permit 98-18 was timely filed. On January 11, 1999 the City Council
held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. The Council considered all oral
and wrinen testimony and evidence presented u the time of the public hearing, including
the staff reports.
Section The record of the hearings before the Planning Commission
and City Council indicates the following:
(a) On November 4, 1998, Hennessey's Tavern Inc., submined an
application for CUP 98.18 With the Department of Development Services.
(b) Specifically, the applicant is proposing to remodel the interior of
an existing restaurant and proposing to convert the front 12 feet of the existing restaurant
to an outdoor dining area,
(c) The subject property contains approximately 8,813 square feet and
is located at the southwesterly comer of Alain Street and Central Avenue.
(d) The subject property is legally described as Orange County
Assessor's parcel number 199.034-02. The adjoining parking lot, under a joint lease by
the subject restaurant business and John's Food King, is legally described as Orange
County Assessor's parcel number 199.034-01.
(e) The subject property contains a restaurant which is proposed to be
refurbished and remodeled. Previous to the present owners, Papillon Restaurant had
operated on the site for over 8 years with no history of extraordinary demand for law
enforcement services regarding the restaurant or sales of alcoholic beverages on the
property.
(f) The proposed restaurant is A full service restaurant, relocating from
across Main Street at 140 blain Street. The restaurant will sell an assortment of non-
alcoholic beverages as well as beer, wine and distilled spirits.
(g) The City has granted the following approvals for the property:
o Variance 15.84 — parking variance for less than the required
number of on-site parking spaces.
o CUP 19.84 — permit on -sale beer and wine sales in conjunction
with a delicatessen restaurant.
o CUP 22.84 — permit the establishment of a take-out delicatessen
restaurant.
CL? 91.19 Apr I(Nmmue.,,).00 R�hnfon
city Cdnn! Reidicim No.
Cadiliad Uu Pnmil 0819. Apps/ oJPl-19 Cmrmiu. [k�r.�umim
/IJ Mmn Srvsn-Nmnruryi row,
Jmnmry ll. 1000
O Variance 2-89—parking variance for less than the required number
of on-site parking spaces in conjunction with a new restaurant.
o CUP 2-89 —permit an on -sale general liquor license in conjunction
with a new restaurant.
D CUP 92-13 —permit a single, unamplified entertainer between 7:00
P.M. and 11:00 P.M., daily.
(h) The subject property is legally nonconforming due to inadequate
Parking- The property is eleven (11) spaces deficient and is required to participate in a
pre-existing in -lieu parking program.
(i) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH Existing restaurant in the Main Street Specific Plan Zone.
SOUTH & Commercial retail businesses and restaurants in the Main Street
EAST Specific Plan Zone.
WEST Grace Brethren Church in the Residential High Density (RHD)
Zone.
(j) Michael Sellers, Chief of Police, has reviewed the proposal and
existing records, and has no reservation regarding the proposed remodeling, other than a
concern regarding persons stepping outside the restaurant for smoking purposes, and the
potential for related noise created by those persons. He also recommends the proposed
semi -enclosed outdoor dining area be enclosed as recommended by Staff after 11:00 P.M.
(k) An appeal of the Planning Commission determination was filed by
Donald Shoemaker on December 16, 1998, in accordance with Article 29.4 of the cp�&
PIE the City of Seal Beach.
Section Based upon the facts contained in the record, including
those stated in §6 ofthis resolution and pursuant to §§ 28-1400, 28-2503 and 28.2504 of
the City's Code, the City Council hereby finds:
(a) Conditional Use Permit 99.18 is consistent with the provisions of
the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan and the Main Street Specific Plan,
which provides a "Main Street Specific Plan" designation for the subject property and
permits restaurants serving alcoholic beverages subject to the issuance of a conditional
use permit and semi -enclosed restaurants. The use is also consistent with the remaining
elements of the General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and
reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use, as conditioned by the
CUP04te Appel(Hm mLuys).CCR�wim
Codu,o,o/Uir ➢n+nir 98-00CannlXmdmim
1b, Appw10fP/am,1R Comm.,. Lrrr.wnriar�m
14J Mmn s"',- N.,.,) s 7owm
lmwq H. 1999
CityCouncil regarding utilization of the outdoor dining area, parking area and side door,
is consistent with the General Plan and the Main Street Specific Plan.
(b) The style, height and bulk of the remodeled existing structure are
consistent with surrounding commercial and institutional uses, in that a restaurant has
been operated in the structure for 8 years.
(c) The building and property at 143 Main Street are adequate in size,
Shape, topography, and location to meet the needs of the proposed remodeled restaurant
and the proposed outdoor dining area, as the existing building provides a buffer between
the outdoor dining area and the adjacent commercial and institutional uses. The nearest
residential property is approximately 130 feet to the southwest, south of Grace Brethren
Church and 340 feet to the west, along Central Avenue at the comer of Central Avenue
and Seventh Street. In addition, the proposed conditions of approval regarding the
outdoor dining area, parking lot and side door, are sufitcient to protect the residential uses
within the area from adverse noise impacts.
(d) Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes will
ensure there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use.
(e) The previously approved hours of operation cannot be modified by
the City without the matter being properly before the City for consideration, either by a
request for modification of the hours of operation, or through an enforcement matter for
ongoing disturbances to the surrounding land uses by the operating hours of the
restaurant. Neither of those circumstances exist. However, the appellant's concern is
already addressed by existing law, which requires a public hearing before the Planning
Commission prior to any amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, including a change in
the hours of operation.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby
approves Conditional Use Permit 98-18, subject to the following conditions:
CUP N 98.18 is approved for the interior remodeling of an existing restaurant
and to permit a partially enclosed and covered outdoor dining area within the
front 12 feet of the existing restaurant Structure located at 143 blain Street,
Seal Beach. The bar shall be reduced in length from 32 feet to 28 feet.
2. The applicant remains bound by all conditions of CUP No. 2-89 and Variance
To. 2-89.
3. The Applicant has voluntarily agreed that there shall be no live entertainment
on the subject property, and thus agrees to surrender all rights and privileges
granted by Conditional Use Permit 92-13 regardinglive entertainment on the
subject premises.
RY 91 Is Appal cc Rael,nion
Ory Comm/Rudvnm K.
C.&W...i U. P'—'19946. APP-/ ofPL--'T C.... D'Wm
313 M.n Sme-He .*, 7~v
Jmmmy II. 3999
4. The applicant shall comply with all restrictions placed on the license issued by
the State of California's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC).
This shall be done as soon as the license is received by the applicant from
ABC.
5. All alcoholic beverages sold in conjunction with the on -premise -licensed
establishment must be consumed entirely on the premises prior to closing
time. Tone shall be sold as take-out. Consumption of alcoholic beverages is
prohibited in the establishment's parking area or on any public rights-of-way
adjacent to the subject property. There shall be posting of signs both inside
and outside the licensed premises indicating that law prohibits drinking
outside the licensed premises.
6. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant/licensee to provide all employees
that sell or serve alcoholic beverages with the knowledge and skill enabling
them to comply with their responsibilities under State of California law.
7. The knowledge and skills deemed necessary for responsible alcoholic
beverage service shall include, but not be limited to the following topics and
skills development:
o State law relating to alcoholic beverages, particularly ABC and penal
provisions concerning sales to minors and intoxicated persons, driving
under the influence, hours of legal operation and penalties for vio:ation of
these laws.
o The potential legal liabilities of owners and employees of businesses
dispensing alcoholic beverages to patrons who may subsequently injure,
kill, harm themselves or innocent victims as a result of the excessive
consumption of alcoholic beverages.
o Alcohol as a drug and its effects on the body and behavior, including the
operation of motor vehicles.
la Methods of dealing with intoxicated customers and recognizing under age
customers.
8. The following organizations provide training programs, which comply with
the above criteria:
Provider: Deeartmeni of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Program: Licensee Education on Alcohol & Drugs (LEAD)
Telephone: (714) 5584101
Date: I st Monday of each month
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Cost: Free
Place: ABC, 28 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana
QIP 9918 A9pd(Hm e.,'e).CC R"e io.
Gn CovneilRuelunon Ab.
Cadman! iisr Pe -1198.18, Appeal ofha V Com ,.,. D"";7z,—M
113 Alain Snrn - Hrv,wq's Temren
Janup 11, 19YD
O Provider: Orince County Health Care Agency
Alcohol & Drug Education Prevention Team (ADEPT)
Program: Serving Alcohol Responsibly (BARCODE)
Telephone: (714) 834.2860 • Karen Keay
Date: They will schedule appointments
Cost: 312.95 per person
9. The hours of operation shall be as established by CUP No. 2.89:
11:00 A.M. to 1:00 AM., Monday through Saturday
9:00 A.1.f to 11:00 P.M., Sunday
10. No video games or similar amusements shall be permitted on the premises
unless a separate conditional use permit is approved for that use.
11. There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including
advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the
availability of alcoholic beverages.
12. The applicant will prominently display these Conditions of Approval in a
location within the businesses' customer area that is acceptable to the Director
of Development Services.
13. The establishment shall have a public telephone listing.
14. Litter and trash receptacles shall be located at convenient locations inside and
outside the establishment. Operators of such establishments shall remove
trash and debris on an appropriate basis so as not to cause health problems.
There shall be no dumping of trash and/or glass bottles outside the
establishment between the hours of 10.00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
15. 1n the event staff determines security problems exist on the site, the
Conditions of this permit may be amended, under the procedures of The Cod
of the City of Seal Beach to require the provisions of additional security
measures.
16. CUP *98.18 shall be automatically terminated if the operation is no longer
maintained as a "bona fide public eating place" as defined by the ABC, and as
audited by the City staff. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all
reasonable costs associated with said audit, said reasonable costs not to exceed
S3,000.00. Said audit to be conducted upon completion of the first twelve
(12) months business operation. The Planning Commission is hereby
delegated the discretion to accept an audit prepared on behalf of the ABC in
lieu of requiring a separate audit. Thereafter, additional City audits shall be at
the sole expense of City unless said audits verify incorrect percentages of food
Cl7 91.11 A,,a (Ns ., '.) CC R". j..
Gp Cawri/Badman hb
Candrtianol Uir Pena 9818. Appal *fPlannng Co+nm,suan Dnrrnuwr�an
W Afmn Sim#- Nmnuep 17~,
Januar) ll. 1999
and alcohol sales so as require reclassification of the licensed premises as
other than a "bona fide public eating place" as defined by the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control, based on audits or financial reports as submitted
by the business operator as pan of its yearly internal audit/financial reports or
audit reports submitted to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
17. The establishment must serve a complete menu of food until thirty (30)
minutes prior to closing time. _
1 B. There shall be no live entertainment, amplified music, or dancing permitted on
the premises at any time unless a Special Activities permit is issued to the
applicant by the City Manager of the City of Seal Beach.
39. The establishment shall comply with Chapter 13D, 'Noise Control", of The
Code of the City of Seal Beach as the regulations of that Chapter now exist or
may hereafter be amended. Should complaints be received regarding noise
generated by the establishment, the Planning Commission reserves the right to
schedule the subject CUP for reconsideration and may require the
applicant/operator to mitigate the noise level to comply with the provisions of
Chapter 13D.
20. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City
"Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the
presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned
to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) calendar -day appeal period
has elapsed.
21. A modification of this CUP shall be applied for when:
o The establishment proposes to change its type of liquor license.
o The establishment proposes to modify any of its current Conditions of
Approval.
o There is a substantial change in the mode or character of operations of the
establishment.
22. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP
pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if harm
or retail -related problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of criminal or
anti -social behavior, including but not limited to the congregation of minors,
violence, public drunkenness, vandalism, solicitation and/or litter.
23. Whenever the outdoor dining area is being utilized for the sale, service or
consumption of alcoholic beverages, a premise employee shall be in
attendance. He/she must maintain continuous supervision at all times to
ensure the outdoor dining area does not create a public nuisance contrary to
public welfare and morals.
M7911-18 A99d CH..,,'.) CC a.oW Jon
Cst> /Rndnim Ro.
Codmmd UM Rrrmir 98-18. AypdoJPlu ,g Camwuim Arvmunanm
1Q Alan Seen - H.,) i Tamm
Jm"mr
H. 1999
24. All alcoholic beverages Served in the outdoor dining area must be served in
glass containers; none may be served in bottles.
25. The outdoor dining area Shall be completely surrounded by a minimum 36"
high fencdenclosure. In addition, this area shall be capable of being
completely enclosed by double -paned sliding glass doors, and said area shall
be completely closed in at 2:00 PM each night. No ingress/egress shall be
permitted to/from the outdoor dining area, except through the interior of the
restaurant and the permitted entrance from the parking lot arca adjacent to
Main Street.
26. The applicant shall continue to pay a parking impact mitigation fee in the
amount of 5100 per space per year for the eleven (11) deficient parking
spaces, and building permits shall not be issued for the proposed construction
approved by this Conditional Use Permit until all delinquent fees are paid in
full and no outstanding payments for this property exist.
27. Provide a minimum 3 -foot wide landscaped planter area along Central
Avenue, enclosed by a minimum 6" high concrete curb. Landscape plans to
be reviewed and approved by the Street Tree Division of the Parks and
Recreation Department. Automatic sprinkler system to be provided.
28. A grease trap shall be provided for the restaurant in accordance with the
standards of the Orange County Health Department.
29. Applicant and City to explore in good faith the feasibility of constructing a
"corner bench, Newspaper racks, and trash receptacle" structure at the comer
of Main Street and Central Avenue as set fonh in the design concepts for the
"Preliminary Streeiscape Plan — blain Street Specific Plan" as prepared by
RRM Design Group. City and applicant to share on a 50/50 cost ratio the
preparation of preliminary design concept and final construction plans, if
determined feasible. If construction is determined feasible, City and
Applicant to share all construction costs on a 50/50 con ratio. -
30. Within 3 months of the final inspection for said remodeling activities, the
Applicant shall complete the following public improvements along ?.Lain
Street and Central Avenue:
o Central Avenue - Remove and replace all sidewalk, curb and guner, and
replace in accordance with City standards (City to share costs on a 50150
ratio).
o Main Street — Remove and replace all stamped brick sidewalk/access ramp
It the comer of Main Street and Central Avenue and replace in accordance
with City standards; remove and replace curb, gutter and sidewalk along
Cl'P 98.) 9 Moa' (HrMruryh).CC R"OL
Cly Caved/Raol tl. N.
Caedartnrol Uw Nn ft 9848. Appal ofP&a ng Cwn... Dearnw,m
1
43 Man Snow - Hemewq i 70vrm
Jammy rl. 1999
that portion of Main Street adjacent to the front building overhang, back to
the second score line, and replace in accordance with City standards (City
to share costs on a 50/50 ratio).
a Health and viability of existing ficus trees along Central Avenue to be
reviewed by the Street Tree Advisory Committee, and if determined to be
appropriate to be replaced, City to shah: replacement cost on a 50/50 ratio.
32. The door to the establishment facing Central Avenue shall be an emergency
exit only, subject to the approval of the Orange County Fire Authority. if the
door is required to be operational for ingress and egress, the exterior side of
the door shall be designed to discourage use as a main entrance to the
establishment.
33. The parking lot shall be designed with a low wall to prevent direct pedestrian
access to the parking lot from the Northeast comer of the building. Applicant
shall provide a bench or other seating acceptable to the Director of
Development Services and ashtrays within the pedestrian access area.
34. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of
the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the
Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to
the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior
to such expiration date.
_35. The term of this permit shall be six (6) months, beginning the first day of
operation of the new restaurant. At the end of the initial terin, the applicant
may apply to the City for a twelve (12) month extension, and finally, an
indefinite extension. The Planning Commission may grant an extension as
discussed above, provided that all Conditions of Approval have been met and
no significant police or other problems have occurred. The applicant is
hereby advised that a new application and accompanying fee must be
submitted to the City prior to consideration of any extensions.
Section The time within which judicial review, if available, of this
decision must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure and Section 1-13 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach unless a shorter time is
provided by applicable law.
D, APPROVED, ASD ADOPTED by the City Court i of the City of
Seal ch at a meeting thereof held on the day of
/ 1999, by the following vote:
CLT 91 It Appel(HeNr ',)CC Reoluion
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
VACANT:
C,pCwnnlRvdm:m A'o.
Coui:nond L'x Pmnil ➢d/d, Appc/ofPla,wng Cmun:aum De¢rwu�m
/13 Afun Strtrr-Hrmurp y 7,
I&t� P�
MAI OR PROIEM --
(2T:
2zz-� 7(
) I Y CLEPK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of Seal Beach, Califomia, doh eb' ratify that the
egoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number,
S-ce of the Ci Clerk, assed, % on file in the
9' p approved, and adopted by the City Cou f the City of
ch, ata regular mee7ng rhen�t held on the
�� day of
i , 1999.
Clerk
cv 98.it •b,w M=,,,a.ryq cc 10
CUP 98-18 (Oldeftnite Fslension), Planning Cammission Staff Repoel
143 Main Sheet - Nennessy's Tavern
November 8, 2000
ATTACHMENT 5
Previously approved Resolutions, re: CUP 2-89
& Variance 2-89
98-18 Staff Report - Hennesseys 143 Main Street - Indefinite Extension
FILE COPY
VB 100 eOed 1541
I sa0(Drlm or ra rUa M m M:m or
ra Cl" or BAL. erbl AYYPWIr q 1l
Rl=!rT " VE9 TIM ra Yralllm
o—sIT9 1.1w is tI1P111CTIQ W" 1 MIN
aLNat1W, 1141 IPI. bTPIIT. NAI. "CAC")
ra fl lc Nrt1mlm of ra Cl" of NAL B.V,]I mm nI,,m 2'4.12:
rs�IJs, a rebs." 17, 1919. Ybr uhMilarl .ulalttad an appLnUnn
for Cadltlael W feral, 1-99 and varlarce 1-99 to tlr
spigot of p ltpaent 9ervlers; and
aemvA9, M auo)e property t.i. appaeleetelY 9.911 parse :.et
ad 1s lwated at tti awtlreste,n Marne, of Central ,vena and
Mln 9tleet (11) win street), am
aamlvs, M aub}ct pro,a"y Na approaleetaly 75 foot of flarage m
.1. 6erwtl and
19mLt9, M "Object property toatalm an existing retail store apd
allat.asev .IN wrrentlY valid •Itebolic awrge tlteaoo
for a, -sal• bear ab .Ins and for an off -.t. bee, and ulna,
,.all wtI.t tappeand robruary 19901, and
rsmvA9, M sanjtn prnportY Ma rawl..d the tellwlnq epprwal• fro
tis pl.ml, Caalarlm,
A. brlaoa 19-14 for tIr p[wlslm of In. then Ile rewlfed
"a". petln, (*,,,coned Janw,y 19951.
S. Cadltlwal W raralt 1941 1., ar-.1. fear, and vine In
tonju iW vitt tie dellcal.sseN ,eel
tautant and wpad to
Old ?p. Vim and i oawt fapprwed Jawa,Y 1965)-
C. (Wdltlarl ve 9eralt ]]-94 to Pratt tM eetWllYaeoi of
a tate-wt reetutant (alll at 193 Mato street Igyroard
Jaoery 1995), and
rYA[Jd, M surrwndtp Iand w and ..I, are u folloee,
I,OrM hl.ttp tMtNnnt In the Samar
c:,aneere1.1 IC -D Mar.
¢IIII)i a GST CpxsrcLl .all bolus. In tM
6e11e matealt,W (C-1) tar.
WT Gaoe 9ralaren Qa«n In the sealant lal
Kip 4taity (IOD) iarr; am
IamIrJ15, win Street ad O ral Areae are ,Amery streets deee]yed to
tlrlr oltlar<
te tight-rof y 90 feet am tin feet loafer, ".1y,
and
1!®J95, M appllont recliners to meute . Continental—i.im style
rutwant by [lr mame of p lllw at 143 Min Street. M
ap9+llont also rpneat• a arritit for an -sale beer, Na. W
dlatllled spina to au r tine RtFar.d arrnu. Nrtbrt, t1ba
applicant regesre • vart. to the ragalred on -ale. Wait,
rpulrsvrs.
City of Beai Buck
Pl.ruiim Commission
esolution III
Page 1 of I
HmtUS. Fa appllcant'• nat"t"'ast mtt -shs approrlrtely 1,188
a,Tare feet ahlt9: mould raqula the pralslon of 18 arking
aps.; and
Mm:GS, Var lana 15-81 crad:tM the sohlatt property .11h11 parking
apKla Bldlm 1M b follM:
A- Car -alt. prkln9 prwlded........... 5 epicea
8. Q"f.tharad piling ............... spa.
C. In -]leu Pofkl...................... ..aaa
aTO1G5, Staff has ancluded, throgh rsrlea of tha lea" agreaen[
lae loaad), that the ammllant is mtltlad to tlr use of ovaa-
third of tha parklaq lot located at 1I5 min 6traet. t.ff
haa.d this tarrlualoi on tro a.ctloaa of tha 1'. ahich octad as
roll.:
L •Re mol proar[y and prsanIM raisin Iwad and let by
LiCSSop to idM1vi Coialata of: ...
(1) an ordlvidad Ona,-Nlyd passers., Interest In as to
this 50 • 111' lot ... •
1. 'said Porlinq lot 1115 Main et.) rill b octad for tcatomar
ps FUN only for both Wairraaee in such • rwpvhl•
Banar that TlHAMr (IU W n St., tha suhJact p " tyl and
Mr etas, uill have the b flcbl as of aWto.h.tely
�Nlyd of tha parklry spans tMraot,...'r and
IAORM, M irupectlon by surf m March 11, 1989, found 19 Porling
WetTa Provided or -alta. It is staff.. antmtlon tMafor.,
that the a
al*llnt la aneitlad to one-third or, 'is (6) of tinsnl rcteen 119) piling apaas praldad pr -site.
aa�rit5, K< rdLq to Nese .land figure, Its, suh)ec; property
torimtly praldes 13 parking spates as roll.:
A. Oo-dte Porlirq provided........... 6 sass
B. 4tard6NerM Porkiug.............. I 'Taus
C. to -lieu prk1M....................3 apaty
ToIK 11 .,,ac I
IamotaS, The Alcan[ Is tharefore 1a ting an addltioral 15 apac to
be, praided Krogh t4 City's Interim Imlieu parking proq<a;
ab
j Bs�ylS, The yyliont'A PrOP a Louts a operation are:
11:W ..8. to 1:00 a.a.. ttxtlay throgh yturLY
9:OD a.a. to 9:Oo P -a-. mamYr and
)ASSOM, -Mlle Stas., Chlef a Wlla, has tevlw,ed tla propaat .od !
erlatiog records, W hes ho reaervatiaa shout all ooirg time
laoFosad use: and
city Of Seal Yacp
Flannel eg t' Ittlm
Peaol utfon 1511
vage 3 of 1
tem VAS, m M1cb 3, 1989, the leD-rtznt Of OevelOprnt hrvlm
ecolvad a letter fru You v. M Wi , 131-A MIn Street,
-ec®e JN aiyrwal of V-1iance 2_99 W CUP 2-89; M
tt1P.tlm;, M Plaoning C®lulu makes tie folIoei,
1. .,1. 2-89 vill not adverea3y afte the General Plan
Mich dnl9netee the aObJe.t Dl W.[ty for Coaaer.lal uea.
l u"JN restaunts.
2. My at.
e e J.l property related clrovtarcva Mlco
d,De
rlvtle property at IU Min Street of tha Dfivllagea
mJ fed by oder prgertY In tM . vldnit, aM ..
Specifically. tine I. aha ahaR of the p[opei'y rad tha
eannat, In volch It vu level Wed prevent Iha p[wi,on of
28 perking spm u -alta.
3. M granting of Vartana 2_89 vill not constitute • grant
of special ptivlle9a Incam talent vIth other limlrstl ora
upon other proper[lea In toe ease vlclnitY aha sane.
1. M guntil of Vnlante 2-89 1. coe.l.tant alto [ha Intent
Of California Cmerment Cane satelon 65906.S On p,klnp
rattams ahiM all. for aWrwq of suck p,ki,
varlaotee If lm]lry fee, as Drwldsd IveW of an-a1[e
R[king .D,as.
NW. TtmVyOPt BE I2 Yt92 m that the plavling Ci..]., of tha City Of
Seal Bucy doee oe[ebY aWlwe Vulancv 2-89, subject to the follaving
mMittunar
3. Vat" 2-89 Is aWnwed for tha prwislon o[ lea- than tine lagelred
o, -It. p[kl ng In Conjunction the eatebllahsnt of • [ealrvraM at
113 It.
Street.
2. Mt a covenant b, ravore on tee title M tha moper'y MILT
stl Wlates that le adllllo] ,arklrg squs (15 prwlded tiro Vh
Variance 2-89 and 5 prm= by V.rlaw 15-YII one tqul rad for
reataurant one of toe property.
3. Mt the pro arty aner shall agnea to prticl Rte In auto lo-lla
parklN program u has bn:n or shall be eatebllaoed by the City
CmrcII for the avnunt anal to eighteen (181 spas. My cbugea to
the total parklrg regulrment for the site shall caw. the
Bodlficallon of tie rate of *,tldptj. In toe lo-ltry Pragra,
aobje,t to Planning Comalaalon approval. M appllunt and/or
W"ity curer -hall sign aha tecord toe In-1leo prkllg yreaaant
Prepred by tM City Wior to toe lasomcv of any building perel4
aM/or heiress liconea. M aWi car, r—"i— toot tota Is an
interim agreeant, aha a Rrmaren[ agreaent ay result In tortbe,
mt4 Rr space.
1. Mt all raryrrments of tha Orange County xea1N Oeparbent aha tie
WHO. Gilding Cade be mat RIO[ to
S. Allook litm, coon shall n" In substantial conformable vino tha Dlme
rvbutted, except u o,ditlwN by the Plenning C®lulm.
L
City of tool MCT
planning COrlrlm
MOlatlm 1911
pra a of a
P. That the [«toorant w rot "emacs tin At" MlgrbA on W site
pl. as atq'o by flat Planning Corlrim.
J. 9h appl lent dull rlalt plur to, oval tenioo m,,,vmal front tin
Depatlannt of Caves Ctaaont hrvlua ptiw to eM PlaC t of ovb
•Ignpe m tln subject ptpatty.
p. TNt apptwa] la am}ct to all tvMitloto ruEllahaJ for
tbnGltimal M Pamt 2-09.
Pu.. AP AND AOLpIm by tin Planning Calaalm a the City a
Ml MCA at a retlnq Hereof MIO m W 5th by of Wil, 19119, bl the
f.11.1, to:
Alb: CooIlaaloru Beam' Pmr, .Maar[, Nil.
PGLS: Commalularu
AlSDR: lib _
Af6TMVp Crelulmata
n1u!/ YRvrL
'Sw P rp. Claittmon
planning Corlulm
t0 n.
PlanningC®laslm
loCtk=
RESOICT10N No. 92-29
A RLSOLUTip, Or THE PLANNING MOCRISSION Or TMC
CITY Or SGL RrACN APPROVING OVP 02-89 A
RLOCfST TO INDEr1MITELY CCTEMD AM ON -SACC
GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE AT lU MAIM S"ErT,
SGL REACH, CA (PAPILLOM'S RnnumANT)
THE P%.AMIMG CCOMISSICN or THE CITY or slum BEACH DOES MERELY
REsoLvE:
wxo2As, On rebrsery 17, 1989, Mader Tahvlldarl aubeitted an
application for CUP 02-89 and variance 92-89 to Me
Dspertasnt of DeVOIDPoent Services: and
m)m1eA4. On April 5, 1989, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed Public Marl" and approved Clip I1-89 for a tem
oI twelve months through the adoption of Resolution No.
1540, .wbjeCt to ten conditions: and
M)RAI\4, On April IS, 1990. Me Plannlnq Coaisslon Mid a duly
noticed Public Nearing to Consider indefinite extension.
The Commission approved another twelve sonth extension
for CVP 92-89 through the adoption of Resolution No.
2513, subject to eleven conditions: and
WHEREAS, finance Department records Indicate the applicant 1.
current on all In -lieu p rking res for 1910 and 199].
The applicant will ove $1,100 (9100 x 11 delinquent
parking &"coal for 1992 and will be billed in July 1992:
and
MMERLA9, The subject property contains approximately 8,911 &,were
feet end is :mated at Na southwestern Cerner of Central
Avenue and Main Street at 143 Min street. Mir Street
and Central Avenue are primary struts and Mve Men
developed t0 their full extent, and
NL:.REAS, The surroundleq land sus and toning era as follows:
WORTH bieting restaurant In me C-1 some.
SO(rrM a WT commercial retail bu.lmeem In the C-1
ase.
MTSr Once mre[heren Churns In the Rim sone.
MM91EA3, Regardln, Papillon'. direct proximity to Grace breturan
Church, ASC Investigator Muir recently told staff that
AmC contacted Grace bretheran Murch 1n my 1989. pastor
Don Schumacher was concerned there might be an Increase
In litter due to the fixed ber but the church agreed not
to pretest the application If AMC would place a Condition
requiring no petitioner to M responsible for
asintainLq no area fru of litter for the praises over
Mich be be. control: and
MMCRLAS, The &Pplic&ntfs Mors of operation have Men l0:oo A.M.
to 1:00 A.M. daily as conditioned by the Departant of
Alccholle Beverage control.
The City had previously conditioned the hours of
operation to bet
11:00 A.M. - 1:00 A.X. Monday through Saturday
9100 A.M. - 9:00 P.M. Monday: and
1MIIF l' The Mier of police, M1111as Stearns, has revleved tis
propeesl and existing record. and Ms no reservations
about a11wLg an Indefinite ..tension of the use: and
MM£AGS, On December 0, 1991 the applicant obtained a !wilding
Deperteent pemit And installed seven new wind. on the
Mot side of the building. On "a outside be installed
Pale 9
MSOlution 91-15
vindow bows under each wlndw and Me thew planted with
flowers: and
WEREAS, m MY 11, 1991 the eppli sent obtuMd a Building
Npartrnt psrait tO relocate his Oar fro. the rear of
Me restaurant to the front of the restaurant. This
bring. Me dining area closer to the kltehm, no pralt
Also parsitted Installation of a new cOoklnq unit am
now venting hoad: 6nd
BRCIILt5, The Departwnt of Alcoholic h.v.Iage Control Petition for
Conditional Livens. (attaehad) Me four mndltlons:
0" Mies, sewlce and eomamaptlm of alcoholic
Mvea eragshall to peraltted only between Me hours
of 10:00 .... and 1:00 a.a., each day of Me weak.
01. There .Dail M " live est.rtoinoant permitted on
Me promises at any ties.
01. There -hall be row pool tables Or min -operated
gamaa seintalned upon the praises at any ties.
Oa. the pstJtioner(s) -hall M responsible for
se intainiW from of litter the area adjacent to the
presLes ower which he hos control; and
BBBRCAS, the Planning Coaalaalen makes the following findings:
1. Staff inspected the Ovbjmet property m July 19, 1991 and
found the restaurant to M abiding by most all conditions
of CUP 11-99. The •p,llcsnt la •biding by the hour. eat
forth by ABC and not by NO City'- 1.{c -ad hours.
1. fronting MN -99 On April 11, 1990 was consistent with
the prowlalese of the G ... Ul Pian which Indicate Me
Subject property Is to be Used for N[wIce CoMorcial
purpose&.
1. no building and property at 141 Min Street are adequate
In site. -hope, topography and location to wt the news
Of Me proposed use of the property.
a. Requirad adherence to the applicable building and fire
cods ensue. "or. will M adequate water supply .nd
utilities for no proposed use.
5. no continuation of Na use of the subject property ea a
restaurant serving Mer, vine and distilled splrlta 1s
compatible with Me intended character of no Min Street
area. Adherence to no conditions of approval placed on
the use by both the City of seal Mach and Me sepert-ent
Of Alcoholic sewerage Control should
.ltlgato any nyative 1 -pact- to the neighboring
residential properties.
6. no Mal Mach Pollee Mpertsent M- reslew d Me
existing record- Of Pspillon's and Ms So remarvtloma
regerdMq the requested Indefinite extension.
BOB, TBCRCYORB BE IT RBSOLM that Me Planning Coma/seim of Me
City of Seal Mach does hereby approve coMltio,al Dae Perait
01-99 for an indefinite ext Jcn, -Objact to the folloliM
cmdltloma:
1.
CUT' 02-49 1- •Pprovad for on --.le Mer, vine and distilled
spirits at 14I Min Street .ad Is issued bo Bader Tabvllearl
for Papillon'• restaurant. It 1s an ABC 947 llcaae: m -Sale
General -- Bating Place.
P.,. 1
Ass lutlen 91-25
1. All alcoholic baars9ev sold in mrlunct/on with Ma
restaurant operation rat M C91,weed entirely on Me
promises, AM nope shall ba sold ea tate-out.
1. the app"to"t shall Comply with ql restrictions Plae.d upon
the li-- by the State Of California DePartnt of Alcoholic
Mr
vora9e Control.
a. CUP 91-99 shell he autowatically [cremated 1f the operation
L oo longer rintained ow A -ton, fide public eating place -
as defined by Ne California Departwnt of Alcoholic Mvarage
Control.
S. With no applicant's consent the hours of operation shall he:
11100 A.M. - 1:00 A.M. Monday through Saturday
9:00 A.X. - 11:00 D.M. Sunday
The restaurant =at havo availability for ordering food until
thirty (30) .into* prior to closing tlr.
6. Xo vldr Sara or sI.i2.r aau.arnts shall to ponittad on the
prowls...
9. 90 light" Alcoholic beverage. shall be adwOrtiaod In the
wlndw are.., nor shall Any ether s19n..dvortlsin9 specific
brand& of alcoholic b,vang.. M p ralttad In the vin,.
ares&. Interior display* of alcoholic beware" which are
clearly visible to the erten., shall constitute • vlolstion
of this condition.
9. CUP 92-99 is non-tnMforrabls.
P. no &ppllcont Will promlrntly display thrs Conditions of
approval Within Me restaurant's idea ane that 1• Acceptable
M Me Director of covelopsent Serwice..
10. no applicant shell furnish Me City a Copy of his ASC Iicere
and A Copy of Me Condition& placed on Me Ii. . by Me
Departaont of Alcoholic D.vange Control when M recelvas It.
11. rhe. Conditions' Use P.nit &Mil not Mcor effActlom for Any
perpe.e l..s an •Acc.ptanc. of COMltloho. fon M. teen
•lgrsd by no applicant, not,rired and r,terhad to Me
plannln9 Oepartaentl and until Me tan (10) day Appeal period
he .lapsed.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by Ma planning Coomleaion of the City
Of SAal MAeh at a rating thereof hold on the
.L�ypA day of
.Lir 1992, by Ma following vote:
AIDS: C ea l.al.r. rife. new. erelnl en&rc
WAS: Covi..lorr. copy...
AfttCffr: COeal.slorn
AB.SIAIM: eoomlaslon.ra -
'lip DL CO.
planning 9A�..I.
Ste erg, Socre
arming Cond.alon
CUP 98-18 (Indefinite Esmmion), Planning Commission StafJReport
143 Main Street - Hemtessy's Tamm
No.ber 8,1000
Attachment 6
Correspondence Received regarding application
98-18 Staff Report - Hennesseys 143 Main Street - Indefinite Ectension
G7Y G_,EAL BEACH
City of Seal Beach
Re: Conditional Use Permit 98-18 OCT 2 % 2V
Attn: Lee Whittenberg
Mr. Whittenberg:
As a Seal Beach resident I am concerned about the proposed amendment
to Hennessey's Tavern's CUP that would allow live entertainment 7 days a week.
Main Street, although a commercial area, is nessled within the residential area
of old town Seal Beach. Any event occurring_ at an establishment on Main
Street, including Hennessey's Tavern effects all nearby residents. I
certainly understand that I, as well as many town residents, have chosen to
live close to Main Street; however, I do not believe that this should
mean that we must be subjected to whatever disturbance Main Street business's
choose to create. I beleive that the town as well as Hennessey's Tavern,
and other local establishments. do and will definitely benefit financially from
live entertainment. I do not propose to have the city ban all such events. I
do ask the city to regulate the days and times permitting live entertainment in
Main Street establishments. Seven days a week is excessive and will detrimentally
effect nearby residents.
I have personally been effected by live entertainment at O'Malley's on several
occasions. I have had to leave home to complete work and even to sleep on
some occassions. I understand that on weekends and certain holidays such
events are to be expected, and I do not have a problem with any inconvenience
that these limited events might cause. I do have a problem with the
reduction in quiet use and enjoymnet of my property that would undoubtedly
result from live entertainment seven days a week occurring at Hennessy's Tavern.
I urge the city not to approve the proposed ammendment allowing Hennessy's Tavern
to have live entertainment seven days a week, and to adopt a more regulated
permit.
One other issue regarding the city's decisions to allow live entertainment at
Main Street establishment is the city's own unevenness in granting permits for
such use. The city has in the past, allowed certain establishment to benefit
from either permitted uses of live entertainment and/or functions outside the
course of regular business while denying other establishments the same rights.
This has occurred in effect by turning a blind eye to such events even when
they occurred outside of permitted use in quite an unequal way, or granting
permits only to particular "favorites". I ask the city to rewiew, these
practices, and in the future practice a more evenhanded approach to allowing
special events to occur at Main Street establishments. All businesses should
be allowed to profit from live entertainment/functions/events, etc.. evenly.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
T J. Robson
Seal Beach resident
John•* Mdrket
October 30, 2000
Mr. Mac Cummins
City of Sea] Beach
Sea] Beach, CA 90740
Dear Mac,
Please find the complete file on the parking issues that we are having with
our business neighbor, Hennessey's Tavern.
Enclosed is the following documentation:
*Copy of Lease pages applicable
*Chronology of events
*Letter from landlord approving signage on our behalf in the lot
*A recap of minimal tickets given
*Various letters sent in an attempt to amicably settle the problem.
There are nine(9) copies enclosed, which should cover the staff and Planning
Commission members.
Your help would be greatly appreciated
Sincerely,
Kim Shearer
Julie Konnoow'itz - Owners
John's Food (cine Market
148 Main Street • Seal Beach, CA 90740 • Store (562) 430-4588 • Fax (562) 493-2072
April 24, 2000
Mac Cummins
Associate Planner - City of Seal Beach
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Subject: John's Market - Parking Lot
Enclosed you will find a copy of the following:
* Lease - Page 2 & 3 - RE: Lease information on parking lot
* Basic Chronology of the problems encountered since early 1999 and our
attempts to amicably resolve the issue.
* A list of some dates when tickets were given. Tickets were always given as a last
resort, meaning the lot is full and there are no John's customer's in the lot.
People pay no attention to the parking signs, and we have angry customers
because they can not park. These days represent a good share of the days
that tickets were issued. Out of 365 days since the Hennessey Restaurant
opened, if we initiated tickets on as many as 10 days, we would be
surprised.
As information, the problem with the parking lot is that we both have the same peak
periods (lunch and the evening) and the same busy holidays. Our evening business is down
from a year ago because our customers know that the lot will be full with Hennessey
customers and they go elsewhere. Another side of the problem is the difference in the tum
of each of our Customers. Hennessey's customers are in the lot for an average of a least
one hour versus our customers that use the lot for approximately 10 - 20 minutes.
Obviously, the sooner we can resolve this problem the better.
We appreciate your help in this matter. Please advise us on the entire C.U.P. process so
that we can better understand what rights and responsibilities we can exercise in the eyes of
the city.
Julie Konowitz Kim Shearer
cc: Lee Whittenberg
TENANT shall use said 148 Main Street premises to conduct a
grocery store business and the 145 Main Street premises as a
vehicle parking lot incidental thereto, and for no other uses or
Purposes without the prior written consent of LESSOR. LESSOR
consents to TENANTS' use of the business name "JOHN -S FOOD KING
MARKET" in said business.
19 DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES
The real property and premises herein leased and let by LESSOR
to TENANTS consists of: Cl) a one-story, commercial building, 75'
X 114-, situated at 148 Main Street, Seal Beach, California,
comprising the real property situated in Orange County and
particularly 'described as:
Lots 44, 46 and 48, Block 9, Bay City Tract,
as per map recorded i Book 3, Page 19, of
Miscellaneous Maps, official records of said
Orange County, California
and (2) an undivided possessory interest in and to the 501 X 114
lot paved with asphaltic concrete and improved with striping,
bumpers and wrought iron fence as a motor vehicle parking lot
situated at 145 Main Street, Seal Beach, California, comprising the
real property situated in Orange County, and particularly described
as:
Lots 45 and 47, Block 0. Bay City Tract as per
map recorded in Book 3, Page 19, of
Miscellaneous Maps, official records of said
Orange County, California
LESSOR has leased the remaining undivided interest in said
Parking lot to the existing TENANT of LESSOR'S 143 Main Street
store building for the purpose and with the intention that said
parking lot will be used for customer parking only for both
businesses in such reason so that the customers of both
tenants' businesses shall have the beneficial use of all of the
vehicle parking spaces thereat. Neither TENANTS r the 143 Main
Street TENANTS shall, however, be entitled to segregate, mark or
otherwise designate any particular parking stalls for the exclusive
use of customers of their respective businesses. Any incidental
revenue from the parking lot and the repair, maintenance and tax
2
costs thereof shall be divided two-thirds to TENANTS and one-third I
to the TENANT of the 143 Main Street business.
LESSOR covenants that she has good and markatablo titlo of
said real property and premises, Intl that she has the right to
grant this Lease to TENANTS.
THREE RENT
TENANTS shall pay, without notice, offset or demand, in lawful
money of the United States of America, to LESSOR monthly rent for
use and occupancy of said store and parking lot premises, on the .,
first day of each calendar month during the Lease term as follows:
A. AMOunt f Ugnthly R During the term of this Lease, the
amount of monthly rental shall be fixed and adjusted from a Base
Period Rent [equal to the amount of rent TENANTS were paying LESSOR
during the month of December 2000 under the terms of an earlier
Lease originally executed September 19861 each year in
proportion to any increase in the INDEX (as defined in sub-
paragraph B below), between the Base Period and the first month of
each of the leased years (i.e. December of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
and 2010) as follows.
Rent during the months of December 2001 through November
2002 inclusive shall be increased from the Base Period
rent in proportion to any increase in the INDE% between
December 2D00 and December 2001.
Rent during the months of December 2002 through November
2003 inclusive shall be increased from the Base Period
rent in proportion to any increase in the INDEX between
December 2000 and December 2002.
Rent during the months of December 2003 through November
2004 'inclusive shall be increased from the Base Period
rent in proportion to any increase in the INDEX between
December 2000 and December 2003.
Rent during the months of December 2004 through November
2005 inclusive shall be increased from the Base Period
rent in proportion to any increase in the INDEX between
December 2000 and December 2004.
Rentduring the months of December 2005 through November
2006 inclusive shall be increased from the Base Period
rent in proportion to any increase in the INDEX between
December 2000 and December 2005. '
B.N % Mid` d Ma"MUMAnnual A'
The INDEX
to make the calculations and adjustments set forth in paragraph
THREE sub -paragraph A above ALL ITEMS ALL URBAN CONSUMERS, LOS I
I
3
S
JIM tlENTSON
Q&.7
July 1, 1999
Julie Konowitz
Kim Shearer
Johns Food King Market
148 Main Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Paul Hennessey
Hennessey's Tavern Inc.
1845 South Elena, Suite 300
Redondo Beach, Ca 90277
SUBJECT: 145 and 147 Main Street Parking Lot
Dear Ladies and Mr. Hennessey:
NeB Aro Cale 543
) »Ic — uc
2L 0. BOw BBB
SGL DCACM. CALIr...1A DO>20-0668
)CLGnONC3 O�OI VI.26D ryul BSB -Tp
rAx I]IOI 434-177
46818
This letter is to correct a mistaken statement I made to Mr. Hennessey last week. I did tell
him that the respective leases of both the market and the restaurant prohibited any
designation or identification of individual parking stalls for the exclusive use of either
business.
Mrs. Nescher did tell me this week that as long as all of you agree, she does not have any
objection to sonic parking stalls being designated and marked for the exclusive use of the
market customers.
Please do be careful to check with each other beforehand so that you are in fact in agreement
of any such exclusive designations that are done in the future. Thank you very much.
cc: Dorothy M. Nescher
JB:gw
Very truly yours,
JIM BENTSON
V, sti G
<;;. �� e� � // V" -~`y
Z-Fn,2�µ�e
May 15, 2000
Mr. Brian Brown
Planning Commissioner
City of Seal Beach
Dear Brian,
During the last few days we have been playing phone tag and we appreciate
your attempts to connect with us. Maybe it would be easier to recap our
concern in these notes and if you have questions, you could contact us at your
convenience.
The following sequences problems that we are having with our parking lot in
a shared situation with the Hennessey Corp.
'Our lease divides the lot 13 spots to the Market, 6 spots to the restaurant.
The Hennessey CUP validates those numbers. The remainder of the
Hennessey spots are secured through both "in lieu" and spots gained
elsewhere.
*Our lease states that there can be no designated parking, however that both
parties must share in the lot in a reasonable manner and for the beneficial
use of both businesses. In July, 1999, Mr. James Bentson, our landlords
attorney forwarded a note to ourselves and Mr. Hennessey advising that
some spots could be marked for the market and at that time Mr. Hennessey
purchased signs as a good neighbor. We requested their help to
monitoring the situation and Mr. Hennessey advised that they would do
what they could and boldly said "if people can't read, have them towed".
To date we have never towed anyone, however we have given tickets
on important days, when we had absolutely no parking and our customers
were expected to walk blocks with Turkeys, Roasts, etc. Out of the
ten(] 0) month period if we have given tickets on 10 different days I would
be surprised. And again these are on spots that are clearly marked.
• In early January, the Hennessey managers took down the signs on Mr.
Hennessey's direction. Subsequently, our landlord discussed the matter
with him and the signs went back up.
*With St. Patty's day coming we went over to pre-empt any possible hassles
and advised that if we could protect just a couple spots for that day, it would
be a positive for both. In a few words, they basically told us "to get lost".
At 9:OOAM March 17 the lot was totally full and we phoned the parking
enforcement patrol to get some assistance. We physically went into the
restaurant, and politely requested that the specific guests in 2 - 3 spots
move their vehicles. The came out and arrogantly told the police officer
that they would not move. We gave a couple tickets and by 1:OOPM the
signs were once again pulled down. We did not act upon the issue anymore
that day, however the signs went back up on the weekend and again were
removed around March 19 or 20.
*Since that time we have been trying to resolve it through our landlord's
attorney, however Mr. Hennessey continues to use the lease entry of
"no designated spots" to fall back upon. We have since advised the
SBPD, the Director of Planning, Mr. Lee Whittenberg, and our
councilperson, Mr. Shawn Boyd. The Planning Dept. has a complete file.
*At this moment, we are usually out of parking between 11:OOAM-1:30PM
and from 5:OOPM - 8:OOPM daily and the weekends are a joke.
*Mr. Hennessey has made an offer to "allow" us 6 marked spots, if we do not
ticket. There is no benefit to that, nor is he in any position to be making
offers to us when we have generously let him use more spots than he is
entitled to use. We have always only asked for a few marked spots and the
freedom to control them. We have also suggested a shared parking
attendant which would also protect his business, but it is easier for them to
dominate the scene via "squatter's rights" and we lose out.
It is neither our desire nor our intention to go after their CUP infractions,
however we would like someone to assist us in putting enough pressure on
this business to ensure that we have parking and that may be the only avenue.
We are not sure if the CUP parking limitations supersede the lease or
vice -a versa.
Any feedback that you can offer us would be most helpful. It is a "sticky"
situation, as our customers are upset and going elsewhere. And our common
customers are upset if we enforce our parking rights. Any good ideas???
Thank -You Julie Konowitz Kim Shearer
Record of Tickets Given
10/17/99
12/18/99
12/13/99
12/24/99
3/11/00
3/17/00
As noted in the the letter, these dates represent most of the ticket
days. There could have been many more, however we let it slide
trying to be good neighbors and also we do not want to be a pest to
the Seal Beach Parking Enforcement.
At this point there is rarely a lunchperiod(11:30AM to 1:30PM)
nor a dinner period(5:OOPM to 8:OOPM) when the lot is not
full with customers who are going somewhere other than our
market.
Johns Market
March 17, 2000
Mrs. Dorothy Nescher
620 Fresno Ave.
Morro Bay, CA 93443
Mr. Jim Bentson
711 Electric Ave.
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Dorothy and Mr. Bentson,
Once again we are dealing with the issue of parking fairness in our lot. At
10:00AM tlris morning, our lot was 90% full, none of which were customers
of John's and we were forced to give a couple parking tickets. Our issue is if
we do not give tickets, no one, including Hennesseys pays attention to the
signs and we end up with no parking. We alerted the Hennessey's guests that
we needed the spots and they arrogantly advised us to give the tickets.
Evidently Mr. Hennessey was advised and once again instructed his staff to
take the signs down, which completely blows any chance we might have to
allow our customers parking. Signs, we might add, that were purchased by
Mr. Hennessey, on our behalf, when he opened the restaurant
We understand that tlris is a "special" day for an establishment like
Hennessey's, which is why we took the step yesterday to go over and discuss
what would be the impending problems that we are experiencing today. They
were not interested. Mr. Hennessey conveniently goes back to the lease and
his interpretation of "designated" spots. We have also gone back to it and it
specifically says "both tenants' businesses shall have the beneficial use of all
of the parking spaces thereat." It does not say "fust come first served". In
our interpretation beneficial use means "fair share".
Rather than dealing with this inevitable problem on the front end, Mr.
Hennessey would rather "bully" his staff and us into getting his way. There
John's Food King Market
148 Main Street • Seal Beach, CA 90740 • Store (562) 430-4588 • Fax (562) 493.2072
are viable solutions. It is just easier for him to quote the lease notes on
spaces.
While we wish we did not have to bother either of you with such problems,
we need some help expressing to Mr. Hennessey what "beneficial use'
implies. It does not imply that he has the right to impact a whole days
business in our store. If he wants to be totally technical the lease reads that
the tenant at 145 has 1/3 of the lot, not 1/2, and as good neighbors and
realistic people we have only marked 7 out of the 19 spots. To his discredit
he is also using a couple spots for a Beer Trailer from Harbor Distributing to
hold the extra inventory that he needs to accommodate his "special day". So
who is really creating the issue? Mr. Hennessey can put his staff up to his
"dirty work" versus dealing with it like a reasonable business person,
however in the forum of public opinion he is not winning any contests.
Please kindly interpret the language of the lease or advise us if we need to get
our attorney, Mr. Alban involved. To be quite frank there must be some city
code that can be enforced, as we cannot be a business with no parking and
Hennessey's obviously should not be able to infringe on others' parking.
(i.e. Walt's, O'Malley's) How would this differ? We do not want to waste
the valuable time of the Sea] Beach PD either. If we could please receive
something in writing that would be greatly appreciated. We try to solve our
own problems and we do not want to bother you with this problem, but we
are two people just trying to succeed in our business, and it would be no
different for anyone in this situation regarding the shared lot.
Thank -you very much for your assistance
Sincerely,
YI Vj. kVA
Julonowitz /Ki Shearer
cc. S. Boyd - Councilperson K. Till - City Manager
P.Yost - Mayor L. Whittenberg - Du. Dev Serv.
Off. S. Staley - SBPD Capt. J. Schaefer - SBPD
K. Masoner - Pres. SB CotComm. M. Fisher - The Sun
Johns Markcl
4' e'rS
June 18, 1999
Mr. Paul Hennessey
Hennessey's Grill
143 Main Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Paul,
Congratulations on the opening of your Hennessey's Grill in Seal Beach. The building looks
great, and we are sure the business will be a great addition to the street.
Paul, as I am sure you know, we have great concerns about the parking lot. During the
construction period, the lot was out of control. We spent far too much time trying to
maintain just a few spots, let alone our entire allotment.
Our weekday business, during the construction period. was down by $14,700. Our weekend
business was steady, and in many cases climbing. Therefore, we have nothing to attribute
that drastic of a change in our weekday business to anything but our customers problems
with parking. The monetary change and the frustrated voices of our customers tell us that
we need to come to some understanding about the lot. Our employees do not park in the
lot.
The last thing we want to do is ticket one of your customers while they are eating in your
restaurant because they are in one of our spots. Therefore, we would like to meet with you
or a decision making representative of your company to discuss this issue.
The signage needs to be specific, but we do not think that will be enough. We have a few
suggestions, and they are listed below. Please let us know when it would be convenient for
you to meet.
- Employees do not park in the lot. There is plenty of parking in town, and neither of us
wants to lose patronage to an employee that ties up a spot in the lot for 8 hours.
Think of the number of turns that means to you.
- A sign at your front door saying "Please, if you have parked in a John's Market spot, you
need to move your car, or take the risk of getting a ticket", or some other factual
verbiage.
- We would be willing to discuss a financial agreement regarding Henessey's having
additional usage, however, that would need specific guidelines.
John's Food Kine Market
148 Main Street • Seal Beach, CA 90740 • Store (562) 430.4588 • Fax (562) 493-2072
Example: We mark 4 spots John's Market 9 a.m.-5 p.m.. The rest of our spots are
marked John's Market 9 a.m.-8 p.m. Your people, however, would have to help
monitor those spots. Our busiest parking lot time is 4 p.m. - 8 p.m., but of late, the
spots are full of your customers.
Let's please get together as soon as possible, so we can eliminate unnecessary stress
between our two companies.
Sincerely
r
tm Shearer glie Konowitz
s Tavern
Dear Julie and Kim,
7&-ei1161( -or-AS�oo
I am sorry to hear from my managers that the parking
situation has not improved but in fact has become worse. I was
informed that parking tickets were issued Christmas week,
which in turn created major problems for my staff.
We have tried to manage the parking lot while also
managing the business. I am afraid that I have no other
alternative but to strictly abide by the lease agreement and the
landlord's wishes, and remove the signs and go back to
SHARED PARKING. I have reconfirmed with my managers
and staff that there is NO EMPLOYEE PARKING allowed in
the lot in order to ensure it is saved for customer use.
I am sorry that our efforts were not good enough, but you
must understand that I must protect my customers from
receiving costly tickets while trying to support our business.
incerely,
c.c. Jim Benson
HENNESSEY'S TAVERNS, INCORPORATED
CORPORATE OFFICE: 1 B45 S. ELENA STREET, SURE 300, REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277 - (310) 540.2274
.til w� 'RY
January 7, 2000
Paul Hennessey
Hennessey's Tavern
1845 S. Elena Street Suite 300
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Dear Paul,
We are in receipt of your letter, and are very confused, disappointed and
frustrated.. We did only what we all agreed to and what you encouraged us
to do. In fact, there were times you told us to have people towed if they did
not adhere to the parking signs.
If you remember, you were the one that had three "John's Market Only"
signs printed.
Regarding it being Christmas week, yes we did ticket and it probably
amounted to eight tickets over the three days in question. The rest of the
time, we let it slide when a few people are in the seven spots marked John's
Market, but the Saturday (12/18) before Christmas, and the two days prior
to Christmas are our biggest days of the year and we had no parking. The
lot was full of, I assume, Hennessey customers. They were not our
customers, because we checked with customers in the store if they were
parked in the lot before we ticketed.
I can understand the frustration of having irate customers. We had people
coming in to pick up their Christmas Meats and Groceries, and they could
not park in the lot, and trust us, they know the reason why, and they are no
happier with Hennessey's than they are with us.
John's Food Kine Market
148 Main Street • Seal Beach, CA 90740 • Store (562) 430-4588 • Fax (562) 493-2072
For us not to have assigned parking places would be absolute murder to our
business, a business that struggles, and there is no way the parking would
be fair shared. Our busy times of the day are the same as yours.. the
evening, weekends and holidays. If you stop to consider this is the first
problem we have had since you opened, we think we have worked well
together.
We see that the signs have already been removed, and would have
appreciated it, in all fairness, if you could have discussed this with us prior
to your action and reinstall the signs.
Please, let us try to continue to be good neighbors, and discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Kim Shearer Julie Konowitz
c.c.: D. Nescher
J. Bentson
CUP 98-18 (Indefinite Extension), Planning Commission Staff Report
143 Main Street- Hennerry's Tavem
November 8, 2000
Attachment 7
In Lieu Parking Agreement with City
98-I8 Staff Report - Hennesseys 143 Main Street - Indefinite Extension
89-594844
' fff GORGED W diCWL RECOPDS
NhenrdRiecorded Mail W: and
oEowuIaD=IQIIM
EXEMPT � DEC 221989
City Clerk C11
City of seal seat .o Q e� KDDMM
211 Eighth street Kra
Seel Baas,, CA 90940
n eTi 1LIlLQ18Q
c 1989, by and
This Agreement Sc entered into on bIX__5o al #lewder,
between the City of seal Beach ('los eI1- parties cgrea
Owner.). And Becht Tshvildari, ('
.e fmllowr:
I. A citall-
follwing facts:
A.
The, Owner is the
property lout certain at rea
l 3
property, (' cA " more particularly
Nein street, Seel Beeth attached hereto.
aeacriDea in Bxnibit A.
B end operates thebusinesslout of the subthereon property
C. On Apr11 5, 0ftV, e
variance go. 2-B9 wa grantedby oe CitY for subject r rty.
of Variance No. 2-09 1s the Owner and Lasses mine
into an agreement with the City providing
payment of certain fees in lieu proving property
off-street parking Spaces on subject
u bj < 1 Beech
required by the
CA.
D. The parties desire to enter into this
Airegreement
for the purpose of fulfilling the requ
Of
as
Variance N 2-89 until such ties
anent in -lieu parking progrm.a City
adopts s perm
2. Ten- The temand f�nells Agreement
for hall lo Tocommence con
the
1919, -as required by the code Of
tote number of off-street parking Spa
it its
1 beach, CA are not provided on the subject
the
erpersan or until in -lieu such
t ash aprogr a by the seal resolutioach n ornordinance.
the foregoing, this Agreement shall terminate
Notwithstanding upon the clocore of the business operated by between
O subject
property and the termination of s lepra between Owner and
ess oer
Lessee forteritten operanotiction
of such the Cit basin' aucnwbusinided ees has cat the lo ed
And much lease has terminated.
1. r,,. The owner or Leasee -bell pay the sum of one
as an in -
hundred dollars per apace (5100) per year to oof Variance
lieu perking fee in accordance with the requirementsLess" shall
No. 2-89. Any off-site parking spaces provided by ou holt
he ememptea from the requirements o1 Variance mo. 2-09 thr 9
their tem. such fee shall be due and PeYJulySortionof aof
calendar year during oe tem of this Agreement.^t this reement
Such fee shall be refundable in the me'
which each
terminates prior LOrha dnLeased of ehenell calsbeai intly and severally
fee was paid. e liable for the Payment of the fee required.
on to
4. Use Tee. T'he City anall 1ha2e1 o�anne[cr1[1 dress
use the fee paid bereunder in mY
under
appropriate. Owner and Lessee a Ow And agree oeth
or their
of the fee required does not entitle Owner or Lessee any Pe of r,i"ler City
sublessees, invitees, or guests to the use ccs.
or other publicly -owned or operated off -curet parkin spa
This Agreement is Predicated upon the
elAl -7-9 Y5141
Page 2 of 1
Interim In-Liw Parking Pee Wtesmant
Ds: 343 Dain street, Nal Desch, G
y, A�eeaaDt• In the went this Agreement should
terminate due to gOwner"M LCwner end lessee hereby egreethe required ntto enter
ber of
off-street parkins spm
into a re in-lieu pat a [t agreement
ea in athat +ce with
equ the
City's reWizements et ing spaces thereafter that the requSuch
ired
number o1 off-street parking apices are no longer provanyided• parking
nev agreement shall be entered into prior to the the wart this
spec., ars removed from subject property
Agreesant should rarminata due to oe rtYa�� the eby agrees
cparated by Lasses on the subject D W
to enter into a nw in lieu parking fee agraesent in aewrdance
with the City's requirements prior to the commencement oich will
f a naw'
business on subject property by ovnar or • nw required for such
not provide the total number of parking spaces required
business by the
S h it t s 1 8< h. G. In no went
shell owner, Lessee, or any subsequent
ce lessee Provide less n
the number of off-street parokvia ds offesite Withirequirmi n a�dlst
89_, unless physically pr
meeting the requirements of the lit i C tel >rtth • parer
the City
and lessee also agree to enter the Seel beech City agCounel3 of Sa perm*nnent
upon the adoption by � agrsemant shall satisfy the
in-lieu parking program
requirements of such program.
6. Dindi thio SDOCeis=. This Agreement shall run with
the land and shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding
upon, all successors and assigns of the ouner, the leasee and the
a
City
•e tees. In any action brought for breach of
T• rt shall W entitled to recover
this ostsesent, the able Hing Party
its costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
This Agreement say be amended or
s'
terminated only by the mutual Kitten agreement of the parties
hereto.
The parties have executed this Agreement in dupllcaG on the date
and year first written above.
Dated: — .2 % _1989 DY OWM
., _ _ /r `:, �1LO.f•/.
(sure) ^
DDROTKY N. l
Dated•1989
SYD
tADARul.,D'RI
Dated: 1989 Dy CITY OP orpo ation of the
municipal corpora
atef California
(81 tura of City Manager)
DOB DIQSOM
ty Clerk
Attacbsant: f:xhibit A
Walter R.Babcock
Walt's Wharf Restaurant I )
201 Main St.
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Phone (562) 598-4433 • Fax: (562)597-6745
February 2. 2001
City of Seal Beach
Members of the City Council
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
RE: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-18 (6 MONTH EXTENSION
INTERIOR REMODEL AND OUTDOOR DINING AREA
143 Main Street
In drawing from a lesson from the past, we need to remember the problems that occurred when
Walt's Wharf was sold in 1979. The new owners tried to substitute increased alcohol and live
entertainment for good food, good service and a friendly atmosphere. The result was disastrous.
The outrage of area residents led to the ban of live music permits in restaurants and bars.
While I have no objection to live music in Main Street businesses on special occasions, such as an
anniversary, reception, etc., I would not be in favor of businesses having live music on a daily
basis. How could a request for live music could be granted to one business and not to all others
that may have similar requests?
It is always important for downtown Seal Beach business owners to consider how our businesses
affect the quality of life of our surrounding neighbors. The residential area was here long before
most of the current businesses. It is unfair to expect residents to welcome late hours and the
sounds of nightly live music from Main Street wafting through the evening air.
On any given evening, we are fortunate to have well behaved, enthusiastic crowds of people, both
local and out -of -[owners, enjoying the restaurants and stores on Main Street. I would not like to
see the atmosphere of a safe, enjoyable, family-oriented town change.
Sincerely,
+/ _ �
A-Ia
Walt Babcock
Owner, Walt's Wharf
Grace
Community
' Church
ofsealBeach
"A vibrant church with a biblical message"
February 7, 2000
Joanne Yeo
City Clerk
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Re: CUP 98-18
Dear Ms. Yeo:
In regard to the application by Hennessey's Tavern to extend and amend CUP 98-18,
which application is to be considered at the February 12 meeting of the City Council,
Grace Community Church expresses its opinions as follows:
(1) We DO NOT OPPOSE the indefinite extension of the previously approved
CUP.
(2) We DO OPPOSE the introduction of live music at this establishment. This is
contrary to the voluntary agreement in CUP 98-18, Section 8, Number 3,
which specified that there would be no live entertainment on the property and
all rights to such entertainment were surrendered. Also, Section 8, Number 18
forbids live entertainment, amplified music or dancing.
It should be noted that the property of Grace Community Church is immediately behind
this establishment and would be most affected by any increase in noise or late-night
patronage. Of specific concern:
(1) Our evening activities, especially on Thursdays and Sundays, could be
negatively impacted by live musical entertainment adjacent to us. The church
building closest to the restaurant is used in the evenings for counseling, music
rehearsals, weddings and receptions, community AA groups, and youth and
children's activities.
138 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 • Phone: (562) 596-1605 Fax: (562) 430-8]]0 • www.Grece-SealBeach.org
Joanne Yeo
City Clerk
City of Seal Beach
Page 2
(2) Our property is so situated that foot traffic naturally transgresses our property
from the 8" Street parking lot and from street parking west of Main Street.
An increase of late-night patronage will increase this traffic and, with it,
attendant problems such as littering and loitering. There is no opportunityfor
the church to adequately mitigate this problem between the late-night closure
of this business on Saturdays and the early -morning opening of church
activities on Sundays.
(3) We have been negatively impacted on occasion by the taverns on Main Street.
There was considerable negative impact to church property on last year's St.
Patrick's Day, including extensive littering and urination. It has been our
consistent policy, therefore, to oppose any significant increases in the
activities of nearby late-night establishments that serve alcohol or draw a large
number of patrons.
For these reasons, we respectfully ask the City Council not to approve live entertainment
at this establishment. While Hennessey's has been a good neighbor to the church and has
responded adequately to any issues we have raised, the introduction of live music would
create a chronically undesirable situation, in our opinion.
Sincerely,
GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH OF SEAL BEACH
Donald P. Shoemaker
Senior Pastor & CEO
Cc: Shawn Boyd
PUBLIC HEARING
** THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR
EXPANDED OPERATING HOURS AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT AN EXISTING
RESTAURANT AT 143 MAIN STREET (HENNESSEY's TAVERN).
** MS. YEO, HAVE NOTICES BEEN POSTED AND/OR ADVERTISED OR
MAILED AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY
COMMUNICATIONS EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS MATTER ?
** CITY MANAGER, IS THERE A STAFF REPORT ?
** WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO THE PUBLIC
HEARING WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. ANY PERSON
ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL MAY TESTIFY UNDER OATH, IF DESIRED, WHEN
OFFERING FACTUAL TESTIMONY OR AN EXPERT OPINION, OTHER TESTIMONY
MAY BE OFFERED UNDER OATH IF THE PERSON ADDRESSING THE COUNTIL
REQUESTS TO BE SWORN. SWORN TESTIMONY OFFERED AS EVIDENCE MAY
HAVE MORE WEIGHT IN DELIBERATIONS BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAN
UNSWORN TESTIMONY.
** ARE THERE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR
OF THIS ITEM ? IF SO, PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE
YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
** ARE THERE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM ? IF SO, PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE
AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
** I HEREBY DECLARE THE PUBLIC HEARING RELATING TO THE
HENNESSEY's APPEAL TO BE CLOSED.
(Council deliberation)
(Official Council action)
N O T I C E O F C O N T I N U E D
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of
Seal Beach did, at the regular meeting of January 22nd,
2001, continued the public hearing to consider the appeal of
the Planning Commission actions relating to Conditional Use
Permit 98-18 for Hennessey's Tavern, 143 Main Street,
specifically to the issues of the six month extension and
request to add live music, until the regular meeting of
February 12th 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers, 211 - 8th Street, Seal Beach.
DATED THIS 23rd day of January, 2001.
Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk
City of Seal Beach
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Seal Beach will
hold a public hearing on Monday, January 22, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California, to consider the following item:
APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-18 (6 MONTH EXTENSION)
INTERIOR REMODEL AND OUTDOOR DINING AREA
143 Main Street
Applicants
Request: To continue to operate in a remodeled structure with an outdoor
patio. The City Council originally approved CUP 98-18 in January,
1999. At the end of the review period the applicant applied for an
indefinite extension. The Planning Commission granted a six
month extension. That approval, its conditions, and the applicant's
request to add live music (which was denied by the Planning
Commission) are the subject of this appeal.
Environmental
Review: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA review for the
interior remodel proposals and Negative Declaration 96-1
adequately discusses the environmental impacts of partially
enclosed and covered outdoor dining areas on Main Street.
Code
Sections: 28-1250; 28-2503;28-2504
Applicant: Hennessey's Tavern Inc.
Owner: Dorothy Nescher
At the above time and place all interested persons may be heard if so desired. If you
challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Seal Beach at, or prior to, the public hearing.
DATED this 4's day of January, 2001
Joanne Yeo
City Clerk
January 5 2001
(Date)
Seal Beach Sun Newspaper
Attention: Legal Advertising
216 Main street
Seal Beach, California 90740
Submitted this date is NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL
CUP 98-18 - (6 month extension) - HENNESSEY'S TAVERN
for publication on January 11 2001 - pursuant to
agreement dated May 15, 1989.
Please provide one (1) galley proof prior to publication and
one (1) proof of publication to the attention of the City
Clerk of the City of Seal Beach.
Submit invoices to the City of Seal Beach, attention of the
City Clerk. Thank you.
City of Seal Beach
PETITION IZ,
Mayor 1
Members of City Council
City of Seal Beach
211 E 19" Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
We, the undersigned residents, and business patrons of Seal Beach, hereby Support Hennessey,s Tavern
Located at 143 Main Street, Seal Beach.
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
We believe that this is a viable business establishment. This business has always been a good neighbor
and has never created a problem, or been a nuisance in recent memory. We believe that this owner/tenant
should have the tight to change their hours of operation to 7:OOam til 1:00am, Monday through Saturday,
and 7:OOam til 11:OOpm on Sunday, in order to be able to serve breakfast and provide live entertainment
on weekend nights from 9:OOpm on Friday and Saturday evenings and special holidays. We feel that they
should be allowed an indefinite extension of their Conditional Use Permit for this purpose.
Name(tmnt and sign)
Address
Telephone Number (optional,]
We, the above signed indMdual(s), declare under penalty of the State of California, that l/we am (are) of
Voting age and reside, or conduct business, at the address provided above. .
Mayor
Members of City Council
City of Seal Beach
211 E 10 Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
PE=ON
We, the undersigned residents, and business patrons of Seal Beach, hereby Support Hennessey's Tavern
Located at 143 Main Street, Seal Beach.
We believe that this is a viable business establishment. This business has always been a good neighbor
and has never created a problem, or been a nuisance in recent memory. We believe that this owner/tenant
should have the right to change their hours of operation to 7:OOam til 1:OOam, Monday through Saturday,
and 7:OOam til 11:OOpm on Sunday, in order to be able to serve breakfast and provide live entertainment
on weekend nights from 9:OOpm on Friday and Saturday evenings and special holidays. We feel that they
should be allowed an indefinite extension of their Conditional Use Permit for this purpose.
We, the above signed individual(s), declare under penalty of the State of California, that 1/we am (are) of
Voting age and reside, or conduct business, at the address provided above. .
Mayor
Members of City Council
City of Seal Beach
211 E 19P Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
16.
18.
19.
20.
PE=ON
We, the undersigned residents, and business patrons of Seal Beach, hereby Support Hennessey's Tavern
Located at 143 Main Street, Seal Beach.
We believe that this is a viable business establishment. This business has always been a good neighbor
and has never created a problem, or been a nuisance in recent memory. We believe that this owner/tenant
should have the right to change their hours of operation to 7:OOam til 1:OOam, Monday through Saturday,
and 7:OOam til 11:OOpm on Sunday, in order to be able to serve breakfast and provide live entertainment
on weekend nights from 9:OOpm on Friday and Saturday evenings and special holidays. We feel that they
should be allowed an indefinite extension of their Conditional Use Pemtit for this purpose.
We, the above signed individual(s), declare under penalty of the State of California, that Uwe am (are) of
Voting age and reside, or conduct business, at the address provided above.
¢033
Mayor
Members of City Council
City of Seal Beach
211 E 10 Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
PETMON
We, the undersigned residents, and business patrons of Seal Beach, hereby Support Hennessey's Tavern
Located at 143 Main Street, Seal Beach.
We believe that this is a viable business establishment. This business has always been a good neighbor
and has never created a problem, or been a nuisance in recent memory. We believe that this owner/tenant
should have the right to change their hoots of operation to 7:OOam til 1:OOam, Monday through Saturday,
and 7:OOam til 11:OOpm on Sunday, in order to be able to serve breakfast and provide live entertainment
on weekend nights from 9:OOpm on Friday and Saturday evenings and special holidays. We feel that they
should be allowed an indefinite extension of their Conditional Use Pemtit for this purpose.
Name(orint and sim) Address
iLI
We, the above signed individual(sh declare under penalty of the State of California, that I/we am (are) of
Voting age and reside, or conduct business, at the address provided above.
PETITION
Mayor
Members of City Council
City of Seal Beach
211 E 19" Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
We, the undersigned residents, and business patrons of Seal Beach, hereby Support Hennessey's Tavern
Located at 143 Main Street, Seal Beach.
We believe that this is a viable business establishment. This business has always been a good neighbor
and has never created a problem, or been a nuisance in recent memory. We believe that this owner/tenant
should have the right to change their hours of operation to 7:OOam ti11:00am, Monday through Saturday,
and 7:OOam til 11:OOpm on Sunday, in order to be able to serve breakfast and provide live entertainment
on weekend nights from 9:OOpm on Friday and Saturday evenings and special holidays. We feel that they
should be allowed an indefinite extension of their Conditional Use Permit for this purpose.
Name ' t and Address Telephone Number (optional)
We, the above signed individual(s), declare under penalty of the State of California, that I/we am (are) of
Voting age and reside, or conduct business, at the address provided above.
PETITION
Mayor
Members of City Council
City of Seal Beach
211 E 19'h Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
We, the undersigned residents, and business patrons of Seal Beach, hereby Support Hennessey's Tavern
Located at 143 Main Street, Seal Beach.
We believe that this is a viable business establishment This business has always been a good neighbor
and has never created a problem, or been a nuisance in recent memory. We believe that this owner/tenant
should have the tight to change their hours of operation to 7:OOam til 1:OOam, Monday through Saturday,
and 7:OOam til 11:00pm on Sunday, in order to be able to serve breakfast and provide live entertainment
on weekend nights from 9:OOpm on Friday and Saturday evenings and special holidays. We feel that they
should be allowed an indefinite extension of their Conditional Use Permit for this purpose.
...ur Y91RWl .u_ 4.t../
�A .1�9P11�C'�1�A1I.
We, the above signed individual(s), declare under penalty of the State of Califonria, that I/we am (are) of
Voting age and reside, or conduct business, at the address provided above. .
• - • • • •
n4Q(i�sI�T1Flf7
I
�1�,
//�%�/��'�/y/�/►//fes//�/�1�/�////�/Ol.
i l/,�I������i�
/i�/�lJ
����/i
•//L/L/IL�S�I_q/��%'111%.
ffd/Lfalti'Gl
11 // I l /(/ /
I � ll. " �s
.l i��..'
gut/ �Iii/v�
/.�.. ./• : m �.`
_. st
...ur Y91RWl .u_ 4.t../
�A .1�9P11�C'�1�A1I.
We, the above signed individual(s), declare under penalty of the State of Califonria, that I/we am (are) of
Voting age and reside, or conduct business, at the address provided above. .
PETMON
Mayor
Members of City Council
City of Seal Beach
211 E 19" Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
We, the undersigned residents, and business patrons of Seal Beach, hereby Support Hennessey's Tavern
Located at 143 Main Street, Seal Beach.
We believe that this is a viable business establishment. This business has always been a good neighbor
and has never created a problem, or been a nuisance in recent memory. We believe that this owner/tenant
should have the right to change their hours of operation to 7:OOam til 1:OOam, Monday through Saturday,
and 7:OOam til 11:00pm on Sunday, in order to be able to serve breakfast and provide live entertainment
on weekend nights from 9:OOpm on Friday and Saturday evenings and special holidays. We feel that they
should be allowed an indefinite extension of their Conditional Use Permit for this purpose.
Name(mint and sib
Address
Telephone Number (optionall
We, the above signed individual(s), declare under penalty of the State of California, that I/we am (are) of
Voting age and reside, or conduct business, at the address provided above.
PETITION
Mayor
Members of City Council
City of Seat Beach
211 E 196 Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
We, the undersigned residents, and business patrons of Seal Beach, hereby Support Hennessey's Tavern
Located at 143 Main Street, Seal Beach.
We believe that this is a viable business establishment This business has always been a good neighbor
and has never created a problem, or been a nuisance in recent memory. We believe that this owner/tenant
should have the right to change their hours of operation to 7:OOam til 1:OOam, Monday through Saturday,
and 7:OOam til 11:00pm on Sunday, in order to be able to serve breakfast and provide live entertainment
on weekend nights from 9:OOpm on Friday and Saturday even W and special holidays. We feel that they
should be allowed an indefinite extension of their Conditional Use Permit for this purpose.
Nametorint and sign Address
We, the above signed individual(s), declare under penalty of the State of California, that Uwe am (are) of
Voting age and reside, or conduct business, at the address provided above.
ENN- 6c9 k
Mayor
Members of City Council
City of Seal Beach
211 E 19' Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
We, the undersigned reaidentyaand business patrons of Seal Beards, hereby Support flemeasey's Tavern
Located at 143 Main Sbeed,.Seal Beach.
We believe that thisisa viable business establishment This business has always been a good neighbor
and has never created a problem, or been a nuisance in recent memory. We believe that this owneg/tenant
should have the right to change their hours of operation In 7:00arn til 1:00am, Monday through Saturday,
and 7:00am til 11:00pm on Sunday, in order to be able to serve breakfast and provide five cntcrtainment
on weekend nights from 90)pm on Friday and Saturday eventogs and special holidays. We fM tlud they
should be allowed an tudefni4 zMensiort ofthw Conftonai Use loon for this purpose.
Name(print and sign) Addrm Telephone (rmtit .4l
16.
17.
19.
20.
We, the above signedmdividual(s), declare ander penahy of the State of Caffimua,:that 1/we am (are) of
Voting age and reside, or conduct business,at the address provided above.
PETMON
Mayor
Members of City Council
City of Seal Beach
211 E 191 Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
We, the undersigned residents, and business patrons of Seal Beach, hereby Support Hennessey,s Tavern
Located at 143 Main Street, Seal Beach.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
We believe that this is a viable business establishment. This business has always been a good neighbor
and has never created a problem, or been a nuisance in recent memory. We believe that this owner tenant
should have the tight to change their hours of operation to 7:OOam til 1:OOam, Monday through Saturday,
and 7:OOam td 11:OOpm on Sunday, in order to be able to serve breakfast and provide live entertainment
on weekend nights from 9:00pnt on Friday and Saturday evenings and special holidays. We feel that they
should be allowed an indefinite extension of their Conditional Use Permit for this purpose.
Name ' t and ' Address Telephone Number (optional
We, the above signed mdividual(s), declare under penalty of the State of California, that Uwe am (are) of
Voting age and reside, or conduct business, at the address provided above.