HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1983-06-09
..
. ....-
'e
. MINUTES OF THE SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMHISSION OF JUNE 9, ,1983
The Planning Commission met in a special meeting on
Thursday, June 9, 1983 in t~e City Council Chambers
of the City Ad~intstrationBuilding. The meeting was
called to order at 1:05 p.m. by Chairman Covington and
the pledge to the flag was led by Vice Chairman Gold~nberg.
PRESENT:
EXCUSED
, ABSENCE:
STAFF:
- ,
Covington, Jessner, Goldenberg, Smith (arrived a~ 7:30p.m.)
Perrin
Charles 'Antos, Principal Planner
Ail'en Parker,Clty Manager
Greg Stepanicic~, City Attorney
Chairman Covington stated that this meeting was called to conduct a public
hearing to consider ,the application'of Walt's Wharf Restaurant, 201 Main
Street, CUP-7-8l, requesting modification of the condition that all operations
.at Walt's Wharf cease at midnight, and to take any action that may be,' '
deemed necessary. '
It
Staff report presented by Mr. Antos. He gave the b?ckground on Walt's
Wharf from the initial i~suance of the conditional use permit for alcohol
license to the request for clarification of closing condition on that
,CUP on May 18, 1983. Mr. Antos stated that the applicants are requesting
that the midnight, closing condition be deleted by the Commission per their
May 27, 1983 letter.
Mr. Antos mentioned documents received regarding Walt's, Wharf:
1) Letter from Howard Brief, representative of Walt's Wharf~
2). Letter from Walt's Wharf referring to sound proofing.
3) Letter to Walt's, Wharf from Paul Penardi, acoustical engineer.
4) Letter from Cox Construction detailing the work performed in sound
attenuation on Walt's Wharf. ,
5) Memo from Police Chief indicating no problems with restaurant at that
time.
6) Financial statement submitted by \valt's Wharf indicating investment
'in the business as well as informatton on the number of meals served
from 1979 to 1983, indicating a drop off in business, and monies derived from
J entertainment.
7) Letter from Ross McGuire opposing request.
8) Letter from James Funk opposing request.
9)' Petition filed by 19 people opposing request.
10) Five police reports covering activities from 4/18/83 to 5/29/83
relating to Walt's. _ '
11) Letter to City Manager from Terry Terrell opposing request.
12) Letter from John Euhlberg opposing request.
13) Information dated 6/8/83 from Concerned Citizens of Seal Beach opposing
request.
14) Letter from Bud Turchin opposing request.
e
-2-
--
Mr. Stepanicich explained the rules of the hearing,.i.e., this hearing was
specifically called to hear r~quest of owner "of Walt~s Wharf to modify '~ '
the midnight closing condition on 'hts conditional use permit." The Commission
should deal only with evidence or testimony relating to what impacts would
be if the condition were to be modified. Revocation of the CUP or, entertainment
license should not be a considerati~:)ll tonight.
Mr. Goldenberg pointed out, that by requesting a mod~fication to the clqsing
condition of midnight to Walt's CUP "they were, in effec't asking, for deletion
of that condition.
Mr. Parker read a statement (attached) in which he asked the Commission
to deny Walt's Wharf's request~
Mr. Parker also indicated that he would like to transfer the responsibility
for issuance of entertainment licenses to theCommis'sion and the City
Council. That policy change would take at least 90 days to accomplish.
A member of audience asked if any permits can be revoked in the 90 day
period. Mr. Parker stated that it was within his authority but that the
City Attorney asked that he not address thi's during the hearing. It would
change the focus of this meeting.
Public hearing opened. Covington indicated Walt's Wharf would have 10
minutes initially, and 2' minutes for each speaker thereafter. 'The opponents
would then be allowed 10 minutes with 2 minutes for each speaker following.
,-
1. Howard Brief, 221 Main Street, representing Walt's Wharf. Will rebut
testimony.
.
2. Steve Freidman, 142 Main Street, 13 year resident of Seal Beach, indicated
his support of \valt' s, \vharf. His statement: "I do not drink alcohol,
but respect the rights of others to do so. As a Main Street merchant
for 8 years, I initiated our successful sidewalk sale and reactivated
the Merchant's Association. Last year I was a candidate for City Council.
I only mention the above to qualify me to continue. I am amazed that
any City goverment office or official would consider anything else than supporting
the needs and requests of an anchor business tenant of Main Street. For '
every resident in this City, quaint Main Street is the core of that wonderful
ambient feeling that we get out of living in this City. Smaller businesses
rely on the success of the two or three large tenants and the traffic
they bring so that they can survive. Most barely do. We must encourage
and work with these anchor tenants and do all that we can to attract others .
like them to keep our shopping dollars competitive with the'other nea~by community
~nd to assure the tax base for the ,future of our town. The original issue
of sound noise has been resolved. No one knows better than me because
my windows are directly across from Walt's. So now, lets not witch hunt
other new problems and attempt to epforce restrictions that would make
Main Street's only large fine dinner and entertainment lounge noncompetitive
with the surrounding out-of-town establishments thereby dealins a death
blow that would cut revenues in half and force the sale or closure. ,20
large restaurants with entertainment have opened within the last 5 years.
Half of those are fish speci~lty houses that make it no longer feasible
~3-
It
to operate as just a fish restaurant like in the, old days of Walt's Wharf.
The sound problem again has been remedied. A few citations that were
the outburst of a young man trying single handedly to protect his business
should not be held against the issue at hand. All of these people who
are residents, not businessmen, support Walt's-. Show of hands of people
supporting Walt's Wharf. Here are ~etitions signed by 436 S.B. residents
and property owners allover 21 years of age. Here ~re another 521 petition
signatures of nonresident current ~1ain Street customers all supporting
Walt's. Over 90% of business on Main Street have signed a petition supporting
the extended hours. 9 out of 10 residents that I have spoken with f~vor
the extended hours. As public record indicates the Police Dept~ and the
Police Chief did not oppose the issuance of alcoholic beverage license
to Walt's in 1982 and again in March of this year when they stated that
they have a clean record of no complaints. ' The owners have and will do
all that they can to assure compatibility with the surrounding community'
and offer to pay the cost of a marked security car and uniformed guard
to monitor the area from 1 to 2 a.m. Now let's work'with Walt's management
to build business so that a competitive 'and vital business climate prevails
on Main Street, which will encourage other business to come 'into Seal Beach
to provide a sound base of successful business and incre'ase tax dollars _
to maintain this wonderful ambience of Seal Beach. Here are some letters
of support: -
6/4/83 support of Walt's Wharf operating hours, John Baker, 22 year resident
of Seal Beach.
e,
6/9/83 support, of Walt's extension, former L.B~city councilman, Wes
Carroll."
Paul Pena,rdi,' acoustical engineer. "Not here as advocate, but as a fact
finder 'to relate some of the results of measurements I have made in the
area of Walt's. In February, Hr. LaCas~o contacted me indicat'inghe had
a'prob1em of noise emanating into alley behind. On 2/11 I made measurements
and I found that the noise level was not dete~table over the ambient which,'
'ran ~bout 53' dBA a~ the time due to refrigeration ~achinery of the restaurant.
However, I did, observe that I could hear the music in the alley. I prepared
a report indicating that I could not see a disagreement Qr violation of
the Seal Beach noise ordinance in that the sound of music-emanating from
the alley did not exceed the ambient. I did suggest for ,the sake of contributing
to the community rapport that he might ,be interested in quieting some
of the sound'by making some modifications-to the windows in the lounge
areii" Two windows ,on the north side of the lounge which are in direct
line of site with a residence with bedroom windows bepind the Mexican
restaurant; Mr. LeCasto added 'fiberglass insulation on the ,inside of these
_.windows and added :l,l/8" of plywoo'd ,over inside and outside the windows
'which ~ut down, noi~e substantially'. He also had windows over Main Street,
but I was not-asked to mak~ noise measurements in, that area since it:~as
no~ deemed ~hat there were noi$e receptors in that area. 'However~ it
was fel,t that there were, sounds coming onto Main Street., ~fr. La Casto
,removed-the'operable windows and had installed thick glass consisting
of 2i" gla~ingseparating by about ~n inch and then the windows along
Central Avenue were removed and'again 1 1/8" thick plywood were applied
.
-4-
..
to inside and outside wlth fiberglass in between to reduce this sound
down. I returned on the second of this month. and repeated measurements
in the alley and 1. found that again the music emanating from the lounge
above was not 'measurable abqve'the ambient. I did notice ,a conslderable
reduction in the subjective sound of .the music coming from the lounge.
We ran an experient and shut all the circuit breakers to the machinery.
The am6ient level ran about 45 dBA, disregarding street traffic'; When
the band played, , the level increased to about 47 dBA. This shows that
the actual sound level from the mu~ic is less than the 52 dBA set by the
refrigeration equipment. As might be typical of this kind of music, I
found an :average of about 98 dBA during particularly loud tunes. A measurement
of 47 in the alley shows quite a reduction in sound coming from interior ,
walls of the restaurant. "
e
Com. Jessner asked Mr. Penardi if he made tests within the entertainment
area ,to de-termiri'e- if.:\souil'd: .was..over, 90dBA.:Nr: ,Pen,ardi '>said "ye's, on:' a _loud
tune.' Thls ~as done on -June 2, 1983." Mr. J~ssner asked" if'this was
a special test or was this in the normal course of entertainment. Mr.
Penardi stated he made the measurements out of scientific curiousity to
see what the actual noise level was while the band was playing during
normal routine. Mr. Jessner asked if he was requested by Walt's to assist
in lowering the sound level within the entertainment area to a level below
90 dBA or less. Mr. Penardi stated Mr. LaCasto asked if there was some
way to treat the walls of the lounge area to reduce the inside noise level
so the outside noise levels would not be so high. Mr. Jessner clarifed
that he wanted to know if Mr. Penardi was ever asked to adjust the sound
level so that the level in the entertainment area would be 90 dBA or less;
Mr. Penardi stated "No."
...
/
?
Steve Brept, 210B 8th Street, right ~cross the street. "My bedroom window
is the one that Hr. Penardi referred to. In the months that they have
had live entertainment at Walt's Wharf, I have never had a time when I
was so disturbed that I could not sleep. There was more noise from traffic
conditions and such."
Brian Sweeney, 140 7th Street. '~ might have missed the point~rnyself,
but at what p'oint does the City consider sound to be a violation in dBA? "
Mr. Parker stated that in the entertainment permit that he issued, it
stipulates no more than',90 dBA inside. Mr. Antos stated that the City's
noise ordinahce states that the decibel level at night is not supposed
to be above 55: A listener should not be able to receive at a level above
55. Mr. Jessnerstated that under the CUP the Commission stipulated a
condition that decibel level not to exceed 90 dba in the room where the
band is located. This condition is m~de per provision of Health 'and Safety
to protect customers in the building.~'
Nancy Charles, 1510 Marine #6. "I am in favor or Walt's Wharf as a music
lover, lover,of the arts and also of dancing. I think it is also nice
to have a place I can walk to, not have to drive."
.
Chris Fredericks, 925 Central Avenue. "Our bedroo~ window overlooks the
parking lot of Bank of America. We have in the past faintly been able
to he~r the music. Since the sound proofing, we have not been able to
,hear the 'music at all.", '
~5-
.
Gerard Hoffletter, 613 Beachcomber Drive. "I am also a music lover, but
of theNat King Cole era rather than Walt's. I think Walt's is very well
run. I stop frequently after work to have a cocktail. It's the only
place on Main Street that I wo~ld stop t6 have a drink. The other bar~:on~
Main Street, I have to keep my eyes open when I pass the door to make sure
nothing comes flying out. I think it's' wrong to unilaterally impose de
facto amendment of the ord:LnanGe~to force a quasi residential hush over
a_commercial enterprise. It is a commercial center. It should be used for
commercial purposes. Walt's is using it properly for commercial purposes.
I think that people who live in that area, it might not be much consolation
for them. If we encourage development of commercial activity on Main Street,
Main Street is not going to stay the same. There are going to be more
noises, more inconveniences. I think if you live in this area, you have
to expect to put up with inconvenience in lieu of losing your commercial
center. I think if Walt's is operating such a fine establishment, it
ought to be given the latitude to at least on a temporary basis to stay
open later. 'Failure will be the scenario._to:follow if you allow operating
time to be curtailed."
e
Corky Gill, resident of Seal Beach and proprietor of restaurant, residence
of 241 17th Street. Many of my clientele that come into my establishment
mention to me that they are unfortuantely not able to attend Walt's gathering
after they have had dinner at my establishment because of this midnight
closing situation. I think'with the type of clientele that I have personally
observed that frequent that establishment are of high esteem, local people,
professional people from outside the area. Many of my clientele do in
fact walk down Main Street and do in fact walk down Main Street and look
at everybody's business. My restaurant closing hours are between 9 and
10 p.m.
Howard Brief, talking about the 90 DBA. All of the information that I
have relates to the entertainment permit and I don't think that is before
the Commission. My understanding is that the City Manager asked that
the condition of the 90 dBA inside be deleted from the consideration of
the Planning Commission at the last go around and that he was going to
deal with it as part of the entertainment permit. Mr. Parker stated that
that was correct, but the Commission chose to deal with it any way and
put in in the conditional use permit.
Fred Estrada, 312 7th Street. "Host of the people that go into Walt's
go for the entertainment, go to listen to the music and they are not worried
about the 90 dBA. They like to hear the music. TO'put this safet~~requite~ent~.
towards is saying "Save me from myself". When they go they, they want
to hear that music."
Mr. Covington pointed out that the comment did not pertain to the issue
here tonight and that the sound level doesn't ~erit pertaining to the
closing hour of Walt's Wharf.
e
Joe Martinez, Sunset Beach. "I am a sales rep and bring many of my clients
to Walt's. Clients of varying ages who enjoy the music and the ,food,
and walking on Main Street. I think its a benefit for the whole area.
I arrive around happy hour and depe4nqing on the client, may leave early
or late. ,People will walk on Main Street if they are waiting for dinner
or afterward. Most clients like it so come back oh Saturday or S~ndays."
>.., ,
-6-':
I.
Margie Sterling, 333 1st Stree,t, asked why is Walt's being singled out? Mr.
Covingtori stated that the original applica'tion for the liquor license
"was made by the specific condition ~md understood, by the applicant that
the busi~ess would close down operations at midnight;
Sara Breskin,' L. B. resid~nt. "When I go out,' I don't like to drive" several
'pla:ces' in the night. When I hear a place is g9ing to close, at midnight,
I avoid that. I think if Walt's stayed open later, it would avoid ~ lot
of ,trafficking."
Michael Good, 127 5th. "'~e heard some earlier comments in comparison
between'Irisher and Clancy's. They' do the same as Walt's \"harf. Those
other bars have fighting, loud juk~ boxes. Walt's treats people like
gentlemen and ladies. I am saying there are other bars that are already
open at the time Walt's wants to stay open."
Debbie Beeble, lived'in Seal Beach for 20 years. 111 j\lst want everybody
to know that if Walt's doesn't stay open until later, they are planning
on closing the upstairs lounge. After 20 years, I am just appreciating
having something happening 'on Main ,Street."
Linda Matt , 218 14th Street, waitress at Walt's for two years'. ,"When I
arrive at work at night, I can't tell if the band is playing or not.
When, I get off work at 2, I am not afraid o'f walking"there are people
around, security. Closing after m~dnighf would 'not hr-ing any increased
danger to person or property." '
e
Jack Haley, 404 Ocean Avenue. "I have been in business for 20 years.
~, believe that Mr. L,aCasto has a valid ppint 'of view. Many restauran~s
in So..Caiif. fail~. I don'i,agr~e with the no~se ,level~t ~ali'~ but- , ,
I do agree'that if he can'thayeopportuni~tyto~t~ay open: later, his business
will fail. The bottom linei~ ~t'isverj difficalt'to'stay in b~~iness '
with restriCted hours. The money is in cocktails: Money is, not made
on dinners. I would hope that what 'l1appens "ton~ght qoes?' t put a mark
against anyone else who is going to' open a restaurant'on Main Street. '
Every dollar.that is spent is 6% sales tax, 1% which goes to the City."
Opposition ,
~ V t.
.
John Euhlberg; 208 8th Street. "I too am a business man onJ:vlain Street,
and have been past president of Businessmen's Assoc. I don't believe
that we ,ne~d to have this sori of late night entertainment on Main Street.
I know too many other restaurants that are successful without entertainment
'~o believe that. I am:sure Walt's will find a way to be successful if
they are not allowed !O ~tay open past midnight.
The original CUP was issued' on 2/17/82 and at the'time' I endorsed it.
I, \vas told at the time that he didn't intend to have entertainment', all he
,wi'shed to do was become a more ,complete restaurant. The, Glider In and' ,
RtiinRunne:rs have a bar and he should ,have opportunity to competewithfhem.
The Glider 'In still does' not have' entertainment and they' a're a fish re$taurant
and are successf ul' ~ In 'my own letter to the' Planning Comnhssion dated - '
2/12/82, I said I am not concerned with the effects of a 1iquorli~etis~
because the track record shows upgrading, improvement in atmosphere'of
Walt's. I believe that their addition to the downstairs and 'everythi'ng
looks real nice. I also said tl1ai as a resident, I do'not feel that the
-8-
.
liquor license will affect my quality of ' life. La, ~asto indicated that
he did not intend to change operating hours. In the Commi~sion minutes,
Mr. LaCasto stated 'an increase in both people and business results in
greaterbusines~ not just for Walt's but for surrounding busin~sses.'
I question that. La Casto also stated 'Walt's is trying to become a more
complete restaurant, family oriented. ,We will not deviate from present
policy of no disruptive element particularly at the,risk of offending
our restaurant patrons.' Mr. LaCasto indicated hours would essentially
be the same. He would n~t object to condition' regarding hours of operation~
When the CUP was issued, one of, the findings was that the proposal not
involve large expansion, also the condition of midnight closing. The
cUP was issued subject to that condition. I don't believe it would have
been issued had Mr. LaCasto indicated tnat he would have had entertainment.
e
Live, entertainment was started in the fall. I was concerned about it.
'L.have::a'"stote::'located nearby; :';1 live nearby. I have a considerable _
investment in the 'area that I would like to proteQt. I feel that this
may possibly affect my'property values.' Would certainly affect the number
of peopl~who might want to buy my home. At the time he put in his entertainment,
I discussed it with him and he assured me that no noise would leak out
of the building,and every effort would be made to alleviate traffic.
That was not to be the case. There was immediate escalation of hours
of operation, very, very noisy at times and management appeared unable
to oi unwilling to manage customers during egress time at late evening.
I tried over and over again to solve this problem without bringing it
before a public forum. I talked to my City Councilman who apparently talked
to Mr. La Casto. I discussed this with the City Manager and City staff
and with LaCi~tos themselves.
I'would like to digress for a second and go to Penardi study done on 2/11.
First of all the letter starts out, 'Dear Mr. LaCasto, as you requested.'
Mr. LaCasto had prior knowledge as to when testing was done and it was
strangely quiet at that time. The following night, 2/12, my notes indicate
that the noise was horrendous and there were a number of instances in
the alley behind my house which disturbed me. The noise can,vqry according
to what is done inside the restaurant. I might add that the sound attentuation
has been installed do in fact attentuate the sound if in fact the volume
is turned down inside the restaurant. I have no reason to believe that
will be done all the time. 99% of the, customers are probably nice and
conduct themselves prdperly, how~ver ~e have had a number of instances
of commotion in 'and around our homes, using various things that we own
as toilets and litter and other items left in the a~ea that we never had
before the entertainment. I might add that I had no difficulty when there
was no entertainment but Walt's did have ,its liquor license. In the police
records, it was witnessed that ~ customer of Walt's left and walked up
the street;, and punched in my ,pla te glass. A number of merchants got
together and the result was an agreement in which the City Manager asked
the following items of Walt's; (letter attached). '
e
-9-
.
Brent Mathews, 218 8th Street. "I am against eliminating midnight closing
hour which would in fact give 'Walt's the opportunity to run their business
until 2 'p.m. every day of the week. This is a very simple issue. The
operator is in violation of the existing CUP. Further, we feel the' citizens
of Seal Beach nave been misled by this particular operator as referenced
by Mr. John Euhlberg is his history. Further, in your packets you received
tonight, there are some documents provided by the attorney and to the
best of my knowledge used to solicit names on petition; Specifically
the documents are from City police chief and its dated 3/9/83 and is in
fact blatantly untru~ at the time it was submitted and at the current
time as evidenced by the police report of 4/10, 5/23, 5/26 an4 5/29/83.
Further you have in your posession staff reports clearly iridicating the
interior noise l~vel of that establishment on 6 different occasions.
Based upon this evidence I am forced to ask that you deny this reques~
to delete the midnight closing ,language that the applicant requested.
Further, after reading the police reports, I am particularly offended
that the establishment reop.eIied on two occasions after they were cited
and closed by the City police. It is unacceptable to me as a citizen of
Seal Beach. I feel we have been continually misled in the 'nat~r~of his
business and his feeling toward the community. Based upon the violations
an~ the public testimony you have received, I hope that you will agree
with me and not grant the request. I also ask that a motion be made tonight
and carried that you will exercise Section 28-2800 of the S.B. City code
and call for a public hearing and revoke the conditiona~ use permit."
-
Olin Pate, 137 12th St. "I am a 20 year resident in Seal Beach and a
local businessman. I enjoy going to Walt's. I go there for happy hour
and for the entertainment. I am also unalterably opposed to their being
open until 2 a.m. I represent a newly formed group of concerned citizens
of Seal Beach who have been formed for several reasons, one of which is
the issue of, the 2 a .m.closing. I have liere,ape,ti;ti.on that ;h-as-bee~"-- ,:"
siSt:led by our members and many interested residents. This o~gani:ta-ti~n
would like the Commission to consider supporting our request. The petition
reads: 'We the undersigned, residents of Seal Beach, wish to go on record
to objecting to any business operating past 11 p.m. if such a business
~s engaged with alcoholic beverage combined with entertainment. We also
object to any business which tends to createlaj:e.nigl1J:.9Learly morning
traffic or 'other nuisances on our street. '~Wfiat we ,~o not wEint-~to- Eav.e -
in this town is a carnival atmosphere at 2 a.m; I don't think anybody
here is opposed to business on Main Street. The issue at hand is whether
they need to be open until 2 a.m." '
Mr. Covington asked if Mr. Pate was prepared to offer the petition. Mr.
Pate indicated that he would need to make copies'first.
II
Marina Peters, 160 12th Street. "I am in fact one of the people who signed
that petition. I do agree 100% that Walt's is a restaurant and it can,
be a very fine restaurant. I feel that if they put in the time and energy
that they have into making it a nite club back into being a restaurant
that maybe they wouldn't have any problems in surviving as a restaurant
instead of a nite club. I would like to see, them go back to focusing
on serving the residents as being a good fine eating establishments."
-10-
r.
Wayne Hansen, 9 year resident,' property owners. "I have a family of two
teenaoe children and a wife. Prior to the entertainment !icense, my family
'and Ibfrequented Walt's. We ao~~now~since 12j$3-when--my,wi-re an~:I-were
walking down Main Street and were confronted with four belligerent males
coming out of Walt's, got into Texas license plate cars and caused a sign-
ificant disturbance. I no longer walk on Walt's side of the streets when
taking my evening walks. I am opposed to this ma~ getting an extension
of the operating hours."
Mr. Covington asked for a show of hands in opposition to extension of
operating hours of Walt's Wharf.
Dave Henderson, 213 Ocean Aveneue~ "I purposely did not raise my hand
in accordance with your question. I am not here for or against. I'll
just give you the facts. I lived at 218 8th Street for a year and a half.
I moved two weeks ago because of the noise in Walt's. One of the previous
speakers was my landlord, and I told him that was the reason I was moving.
I can tell you there is quite a bit of noise in the alley, plus the traffic
is something around 1 or 2 a.m. "
e
Jim Gilkerson, 1011 Electric Avenue. "It seems real strange. Supposedly
we have to have entertainment in order to make money. However, there
are two restaurants, the Sea Food Broiler, the Fish Cookery, both of them
are existing very well, serving good food and beer and wine. It would
seem to me that with the number of people here and with the number of
people that signed Walt's petitions, if they all eat at Walt's, Walt's
would not have to have any entertainment. What we are working on tonight
is not do we allow a restaurant to star open until 2 a.m., but do we want,
a nite club to stay open until 2 a.m. '
Robert Shaft, 220 8th Street. "Our house backs up to the alleyway behind
Walt's; Two nights ago my son came in at 12:30 a.m. crying because it
was too noisy to sleep. I woke up and listened and the music was horrendous
and the traffic, going up the alleyway was too much. I called the Police
and they came out and the music was turned down. Two minutes later, about
10 car horns went on. The music went up twice as loud. About 1:05 a.m.,
I rec~lled the Police and they came back out and it was shut off again.
It happened three times and I feel that it is not fair to us the residents
that we have to put up with this. I think 12 midnight is late enough
for us to put up with this."
Robert ,Coo~k,~6f.:'~~:),A4l Central Avenue. "I really appreciated the City Manager's
opening remarks-. I think they were very incisive, I believe that he really
saw the issue as it is. It is much larger than Walt's Wharf. Walt's
Wharf has not divided the community. It is the implication of what Walt's
Wharf is asking for that:divides the community. One of the speakers
in favor of granting this request spoke of a scenario of business losses.
There is another scenario that goes with business and that is business
success. Business success breeds competition. You already have evidence
expressed by one of the speakers here this evening of a desire to have
e
-11-.
,-
a duplicate of Walt's Wharf. That will not be the only one. There are
going to be many more requests to have similar kinds of establishments
associated with the development of our new pier. There are probably others
who are waiting in the background to see also whether or not there is
an opportunity to make a very good income duplicating something like Walt's
Wharf. In fact, I believe you already had a request which has been subsequently
withdrawn ~egarding taping studio. I served on the Planning Commission
for 61 years and I listen~dC to innumerable business people coming before
the co~nunity and asking for giant billboards, flags and sound embellishments,
and anything you can imagine because they were going to die if they didn't
get it. They did not die. You can go through community after community
and find where restrictions are 10 times what we are talking about and
businesses flourish. They flourish because businessmen are very astute
at,reading what is out there and they make the right accommodations to ,
what is there. I started by saying the issue that is before the Commission
is not Walt's Wharf. It is really about the survival of this community.
We have a 3 block business area serving a multitude of purposes but basically
it is a service commercial area of people who live in Old Town. You are
listening tonight to people who have problems who live relatively adjacent
to Walt's Wharf. Where are the next ones going to come from? Are they
going to come from the 300 block of Main Street, are they going to be
along Ocean Avenue, because of the traffic impacts. You have ~o give
this a great deal of thought. I sincerely hope that you agree to withhold
approval of any further extenuation of their entertainment permit."
.
e
Kathleen Kyle, property owner. "I like Walt's Wharf. I think 12 midn~ght
is late enough. There have been problems with noise and trying to study,
etc. is difficult."
Linda Cadillac, 228 8th Street. "One evening we had a knock on our door
and we were told my van had been hit. We were parked at the end of 8th
Street and Central and it is on police record. A gentlemen who had no
lights on his car was going about 50 miles around the corner. I can't
prove he was in Wait's Wharf but I didn't appreicate the fact that we
had all this damage. Extended business hours might increa~e additional
traffic hazards and I oppose the request. "
Bobbie Hawes, 201 7th Street. "I 'am married and have two teenage children.
I love Seal Beach, but if Walt's is allowed to extend their hours until
2 a.m., it won't be the last to do so. It will change the total atmosphere
of our town. Seal Beach is an unique town. We go to the merchants because
we enjoy being able to walk on the streets at any hour of the night because
we feel comfortable. If you think that by allowing time extenuation that
this will continue, you are mistaken. We will turn into another city
like Belmont Shore." '
Craig Hoffenstein, merchant here on Main Street. "I would like to say
that as a merchant I have found that the Main Street area is not self
sufficient town., I would like to commend \valt' s for the outside business.
It has increased my business."
fit
-12-"':'
.
Mr. Covington-asked if speaker was speakinG on behalf of Walt's. Indicated
that he had just sot off work. Mr.' Covington pointed out that we are
now listening to those speaking against request.
Mitzi Morton, resident of Old Town for 12 years. "I am very pleased with
City Manager said in the opening. I am very proud of him. I am appreciative
of Mr. Antos taking his time to police Walt's. 'The violations and not
closing on time after being cited should be enough to revoke his licepse.
~t mal~es a mocke~y out of our police and officials. Are we going to continue
having our police and good officials sit outside and watch this establishment
to make him comply with hours he has agreed to initially. They already
have enough to do."
Tom Bamberg, 234 8th Street. "I object to the continuation.of the hours
past 12 midnight. Recently I filed an appeal to the Planning
to issue a cup for beer and wine license at 231 Main Street.
has subsequently withdrawn his request to the CUP. It is his
to opposition to residents. He indicated he was tired of the
Mr. Chairman, I submit, so are we;"
Commission
That applicant
reaction
hassle.
Nancy Kredell, 1615 Seal Way. "I was here in 2/82 when Walt's was crying
hard times then. I asked at the ,time if this place int~nded to be like
Legends in Belmont Shore. Economic hardship is not a reason for extending
operating hours."
-'
Howard Brief, representative for Walt's. "We are back at it again I
have spent 13 years in this town and every year we do the same thing.
Every year we have the same problem, same dialogue. Every 3 years we
co~e up with a master plan that we are going to redevelop Main Street.
Every 3 years we come up with thesarne dialogue with the same people who
have never supported business on Main Street. Th~ fOrmer planning commission~~
eLand: Mr. Gilkerson apparently don't walk up the street. Apparently
they do not see the number of businesses that are going in and out of
Main Street. We have about 16 beauty shops out of a total of 97 frontal
stores. The point is we are not or,have never been able to attract the
type of people who go to the malls to shop; Our own merchants, 90% of
them, have asked this Commission for anchor tenants. What do you give
us, a master plan of how you are going to develop Main Street 3 or 4 times
- none of which is going to occur. None of which will ever bring anything
into the City. One of the councilpersons told me the other day that everybody
who doesn't make it on Main Street is a bad businessperson. I took objection
to that. Every person on this street does what they can, under the existing
circumstances, with the existing traffic, with the existing City rules,
with the existing neighbor, all of which have a right to their opinion,
but I wonder why only two merchants have chosen tonight to speak against
this particular, establishment. One is a jewelry shop, which is a specialty
shop, and I submit to you and I don't know for a fact, whether or not
she is m~kirig money but I bet the majoiity of her clients aie out 6f town.
Now John's store is another 'unique store, probably the best gift shop
in the whole area. She has quality goods and is a quality manager. Why
can't we get those people inhere. We can't get them in here because
e
.
e
e
-13-
this town is a loser. It has always been a loser to the business person
coming into the town to invest in it. Host people don't support Main
Street. I bet most shop at'Safeway than at John's Food King. You have
got to get businesses down here that are going to operate and bring some
people in this town who will support the merchants that the people who
1" h t"
are lVlng ere are no now.
Public Hearing Closed.
Mr. Jessner requested Mr. Antos to check with the Red Onion and City of
Huntington Beach with regard to similar problems that they have had.
Staff replied there was a similar problem at the Red Onion dealing with
patrons leaving the Red Onion staying around, loitering and apparently
disturbing the residents nearby. The Planning Dept. called together the
'operators of Red Onion, owners of Peters Landing, and residents and they
instituted valet parking, and in addition to that, they hired security guards.
What the uniformed security guards did at the time patrons were leaving,
told them the place was closed; they should leave so they would not disturb
residents. Since that time there have been no problems. This was done
outside the City's purview, handled by owners of Red Onion and owners
of the center. The City acted as mediator and brought all the people
together. The problem was corrected before it escalated into a situation
such as this.
City attorney pointed out to Mr. Jessner that no~newtestimony could be
taken, therefore no questions could be asked of Mr. LaCasto except to
clarify testimony.
Mr.'Goldenberg stated that tonight he has "heard the whole gamut' from history
of the beginning and everything that had been said through the latest information
that we received from our City Manager. I don't think it is necessary
to repeat all the details. I do feel there are people here who would like
very much to have a good time until the early hours of the morning., I
also feel there are people here who live in the community who have their
side of the story to tell. I also feel that when people apply for a CUP
and accept the conditions of that CUP, they will honorably live up to
that and we will not find a report from the Police De~artment of violations.
This is not to their credit. I also recognize that tonight the issue
is whether we are to delete the condition dealing with closure of the
entire establishment at midnight. At this moment I personally feel ~hat
I,would be opposed tb doing away with our condition. I feel, and I hope
especially with the proposal made by the City Manager of handling public
hearings regarding entertainment, ~nd I hope that in th~ very near future
we in the Planning Commission would not be put in the position of having
to revoke our CUP, because I recognize that without liquor that the initial
request for liquor license would hurt them. I have to vote against Walt's
request.
Mr. Covins'ton stated "I would like to compliment every person here tonight
for their attendance and more importantly for the dignity in which they'
comported themselves. I have attended many meetings where the others
rights have not been respected as they have here ,tonight.
e,
e
_1
-14-
I would like to state first that such things as late hours for a commercial
enterprise are not a right, they are a privilege. They are a privilege
that is based on many variables, as nature of clientele, location of commercial
enterprise vs. surrounding residential, degree of local people vs. vistors
coming by vehicles. Each case before this Commission is decided on its
own specific merits. I would like to point out that there is a balance
necessary where commercial zoned property is directly contiguous with
residential property. When the two come into direct' conflict, unless
the commercial enterprise is prepared to spend restitution to offset those
nuisances, then they must give way. As a basis of general principle,
you can never allow extension of any type of uses if the applicant is
not presently complying with the limitations that they are already operating
under. In this particular case, it is quite clear the applicant is not
presently and has not been complying with the conditions of the original
CUP. I have known the LaCastos for a long time and I know they are people
of good will and are doing their best in the way they see most appropriate
to respond to economic challenges they face. I have to point out I cannot
agree with their request to solve a problem that stems from noncompliance
of their CUP that this Commission in good faith gave them in response
to answers received from applicant; from a philosophical standpoint that
is not the basis of making extensions. You make extensio'ns on the basis
of first demonstrating total willingness and ability to comply to restric-
tioris that you yourself agreed to, and having done so, you then at a later
day have a better right to modify those conditions. That has not been
the case. On the basis of all of these statements and others, I am going
to support a motion if it is made to deny the application of extension
of the hours past midnight."
Mr. J~ssner stated "I agree with what'you said. One of the questions
that I did ask Mr. Penardi was in reference to the sound level inside.
This has to do with a condition we put on for Mr. LaCasto. From the time
we voted this coridition in, until now, this has not been complied with.
I want business to succeed on Main Street~ but we have to have some demon-
stration of complying with th~ agreement. In this case there has not
been any compliance with what we invoked. I am in favor of denying the
request."
Mr. Covington s~ated that staff had prepared material that would allow
the Commission to respond either for or against. City attorney read the
resolution that had been prepared denying the request with a minor modifi-
cation made by Com. Covington. '
Res. #1294
Commissioner Jessner moved ,to adopt resolution denying Walt's Wharf's
request for modification of midnight closing condition. Mr. Smith seconded
the motion and.motion passed with following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Covington, Smith, Jessner, Goldenberg
None
Perrin
-
'ie
:e'
-15-
Mr. Antos stated that the action of, the Planning Commission can be app~aled
to the City Council providing a appeal is filed in 10 days.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
4/~
Recording
\
"
:'j
i,
tit' June 9, 1983
TO:
Planning Commission
RE:
City Manager
Request from Walt's Wharf to Waive Midnight Closing
Condition
FROM:
In that my office has been involved with this issue since
its inception, I feel that it is appropriate for me to
share my feelings and recommendations concerning this matter.
In April of 1982, Walt's Wharf applied, for and was granted
an ABC license to serve alcoholic beverages. My office
supported that application for the following reasons:
1) Most people acknowledge that anchor restaurants
such as Walt's are important to the economic
success of Main Street;
e
2) Quality restaurants serve alcoholic beverages;
and
3) The additional income from the sale of alcoholic
beverages was necessary for the restaurant's
economic survival.
The ABC license did help the restaurant's cash flow, but
apparently not enough. Accordingly, in November of 1982,
Walt's applied for and received an entertainment license.
It was my understanding that entertainment was to be of
the listening variety, not necessarily dancing and loud
rock. But in all fairness to the LaCostas, the type of
entertainment was not an issue at that time.
Shortly after issuance of the entertainment permit, some
complaints were received from two primary sources: 1) noise
was bothering residents; and 2) patrons of Walt's were
utilizing John's Food King Market's parking lot while the
store was still open. I contacted Walt's owners, apprised
them of the complaints and asked them to work out the
problems with the complainants. It was my feeling that
the problems could be resolved among themselves. However,
time proved me wrong. The sound was not, turned down.
The parking lot continued to be a problem.
.~
Page Two.....
e~
I then advised Walt's to hire a sound attenuation engineer
and begin taking steps to abate the noise. I also directed
them to reach agreement with John's Food King. On April
19, 1983, I informed them that their entertainment permit
WQuld be revoked if these conditions were not met.
In-April, the Planning Commission renewed Walt's Conditional
Use Permi t, which 'stipulated that the restaurant was to
close at midnight. While the restaurant was, in fact,
closing .t midnight, the entertainment was going well beyond.
I then asked the Planning Commission to interpret their
midnight closing qondition. The Commission responded by
stating that the midnight closing applied to all business
operations. I then directed the Police Department to issue
misdemeanor citations against Walt's whenever the midnight
closing was exceeded. Two such citations were issued.
Through further negotiations, Walt's finally agreed to
abide by the midnight closing conditions and made application
to the Planning Commission to waive the closing requirement,
which is the issue before the Commission this evening.
--
It is clear to me that I have bent over backwards with
Walt's to ensure their financial success. At the same
time, I have attempted to work with all concerned parties
to negotiate a compatible settlement. As late as yesterday,
I met for 90 minutes with all parties to try to reach an
acceptable position. It is now clear to me that no
settlement can be reached, that the sides are deeply divided.
Several other issues are clear to me, issues that are also
at stake tonight.
What started out as a business trying to survive and to
work out neighborQood problems with surrounding property
users and owners has escalated into a community issue.
And it is dividing the town. I have worked for two years
to bring the downtown merchants together, and they are
now at odds with one another over this issue. Equally
tragic, the residents of Old Town and their neighboring
merchants are no longer at peace with one another. Old
wounds have been opened, and dormant resident groups have
begun to enter the battle.' Boycotts of the merchants are
threatened; recalls are talked about. I simply cannot
allow this to happen.
Seal Beach has more important issues to deal with, issues
such as fiscal solvency, fixing streets, keeping those
streets safe. Therefore, I feel compelled to make the
following conclusions:
.
1) The problems caused by the entertainment
operation at Walt's could have been mitigated
'e
'e
A('
~
Page Three.~..
before this evening. The fact is they were
not. To extend the hours of operation beyond
the current midnight closing requirement would,
in my opinion, only worsen the situation.
Therefore, I would ask the Planning Commission
to deny Walt's Wharf's request this evening.
2)
I will be requesting the Planning Commission
and the City Council to amend the zoning
ordinance to require a Conditional Use Permit
for all entertainment permits. This would
force all entertainment permits to be considered
in a public hearing process.
Respectfully submitted,
#J:~/ ~J
Al ~;r:;-::r, City Manager
C ty of Seal Beach