Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-04-23 ,// . . '. SEf' BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENO~ C,ty Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach. California " '\ 2'he Seal Beach Planning Commission meets in session every first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. If you wish to address the Commission on any particular .public hearing item, the Chairman will call for public testimony first for those in favor of the project, and second, for those who are not in favor. ffhen you see that the speaker's position in the center of the room is unoccupied, step up to the microphone and when recognized by the Chairman, speak directly into the microphone by first stating your name and address clearly and distinctly for the records. State your business as clearly and succinctly as possible and then wait a moment to see if the Commissioners have any questions in regard to your COllllllellts or questions. If there are no other questions or COlIIlIIents, return to your seat so that the next person may address the Commission. If you wish to address the Commission on matters other than public hearings, the agenda provides for that time when the Chairman asks for cOllllllents from the public. Address ,the Commission in the same manner as stated for public hearings, always statin,g your name and address first. April 23. 1986 NEXT RESOLUTION #1424 (Continued from April 16. 19861 1. f!!~g!_2f_!!!!g1~nQ! 2 . !!2!Lf~!! 3. !!!~2r!_fr2m_~!Qr!!~rI 4. f2n!!n!_~~!!n~~r 5. fYQ!1Q_E!~r1ng! A. ~2n~1!12n~!_Y!!_f!r!1!_11=!~ Y!!.1~nQLj!=H 148 7th Street (Donnelsonl Resolution 1422 & 1423 A request for minor structural alterations and enlargement to a non-conforming four-plex without providing the required parking and with less than the required interior. streetside and rear setbacks. Code Sections: 28-2407IAI3. 28-801(21. 28-802(2) Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review [California Government Code Section 153011e1121. Applicant: Dennis Donnelson/Zember Construction Owner: Dennis Donnelson 6. ~Qh!~Y!!~_~!!!!r! A. Study Session on Alcohol Provisions 7. ~2mm1!!12n_!!!gy!!!! 8. Qr~!_~2!!Yn1Q~!12n!_fr2!_!h!_!Y~1!nQ! 9. ~2mm1!!!2n_~2!mYn!Q~!!2n! / / , . - . .-/ 0,\ Planning Commission Agenda April 23. 1986 Page 2 10. AgjQyrnm!n! Agenda Forecast: ~!Ll..._!U~ : -Plan Review 14-86 - 223 10th St. (Houtaril -Plan Review 15-86 - 1617 Seal Way /Parquel -Variance 1-86 - 1500 Pacific Coast Hwy. (Kyle) (continued from April 16. 1986 meetingl -Variance 7-86 - 211 15th Street (Cox-Henry) -Variance 5-86 Conditional Use Permit 8-86 & 9-86 - Corky Gill & Corky Corp. - 909 Ocean Ave. I continued from April 16. 1986 meeting) . .e e -, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 23, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular adjourned session at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Jessner calling the meeting to order. Commissioner perrin led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL present: Chairman Jessner Commission Members Hunt, perrin, Ripperdan Absent: Commission Member Covington Commissioner Covington arrived at 7:33 p.m. Also present: Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mrs. yeo, City Clerk REPORT FROM SECRETARY The Director stated there were no items to report at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items on the Consent Calendar for consideration. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11-86/VARIANCE 6-86 _ DONNELSON - 148 - 7th STREET The Director presented the staff report relating to the request of Mr. Donne1son and Zember Construction for reconstruction of a property located at 148 - 7th Street, and reviewed the facts of the original application for plan review of structural improvements and enlargements at the subject location, a legal non-conforming property containing four units, plan Review 3-85 being approved by the Commission on January 2, 1986. Mr. Baucke reported that subsequent to the issuance of building permits, Zember Construction contacted the Building Department reporting that termites had infested the property's front unit, at which time the Department issued a "stop notice" on the project, and the contractor was informed that no further action should take place pending further Planning Commission review, however on March 31st it was found that the complete building had been removed, only the foundation remaining. He reported an application for Variance and Conditional Use Permit was then requested for major structural alterations and enlargement without bringing the property into Municipal Code compliance, bringing into question the intent of the newly adopted Zoning Text Amendment 2-84. Mr. Baucke reviewed four alternatives for Commission consideration, the staff recommending Alternative 3, approval of CUP 11-86 and variance 6-86 in part, allowing . e e Page Two - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 the rear building to remain, without setback deviation correction, a finding of undue hardship possible to be made, with removal of the ground floor living unit for conversion into two parking spaces, bringing the property into conformance with the required parking, six spaces for three units. Mr. Baucke stated that upon discussing this matter with the City Attorney, some concern does exist as to whether or not a finding could be made that would allow the reconstruction as proposed by the applicant without providing the required parking; the City Attorney concurred with Mr. Baucke's comments. Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing open. Mr. Donnelson, applicant and ten year owner of the subject property, stated he wished to address Alternative 3, recommended by staff. Mr. Donnelson reported discussing upgrading of the property with the Planning Department on several occasions, in each instance the parking posing a problem. Mr. Donnelson stated that the loan for improvements to the property was subject to the income from the property, that removal of one unit would pose a loss of income and financial hardship, the additional expense for conversion estimated at $15,000, as well as eviction of a tenant. Mr. Donnelson stated that allowing the remodel would not increase density, his family and tenants would continue to reside at the location, that the complex has never generated more than five vehicles, noted the original construction of the dwelling in 1910, therefore cited .the need for upgrading the plumbing and electrical, and replacement of the roofing. He noted the plan provides two additional parking spaces, and if tandem parking were allowed a total of seven spaces could be provided, one short of that required. Also that there would be a five foot side setback with the remodeled structure, the floor plan being the same as previously approved by the Commission. Mr. Donnelson again cited the financial burden in making payments on the first as well as the improvement loan, stating that removal of the substandard walls was not done intentionally, where, in fact the remaining walls would have required extensive improvements to meet Building Code requirements. In response to the Commission, Mr. Donnelson stated his belief that the units to the rear of the property were built approximately twenty-five to thirty years ago, the house about seventy-six years, and confirmed that none of the structures have been termited although he felt there was infestation. with regard to parking he stated the property had two covered parking spaces, as well as space for two vehicles in tandem on the sideyard. Mr. William stevenson, Zember Construction, Los Alamitos, stated the construction permits were obtained pursuant to the recently adopted Ordinance, noting that in adopting those provisions the Commission had not provided for a means of dealing with walls that are to remain that are found to be substandard, infested walls as in this case, explaining that it was not . e e Page Three - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 the intent to do anything improper, the intent being to replace those walls where they existed. Mr. stevenson referred to a report by staff as to a telephone conversation relating to the infested walls, expressing his disagreement with same. He stated he had made a call to the Building Inspector, reported the problem with the walls, the Inspector in turn spoke to Mr. Ogdon who stated he could not authorize removal of the walls. Mr. stevenson stated that during the conversation, the Inspector inquired if the walls were termited, dry rotted and not structurally sound, to which Mr. stevenson stated he confirmed, and at which time the Inspector authorized that the walls be torn down. Commission members pointed out to Mr. stevenson that during the process of plan reviews it is assumed that the portion of the structure remaining will meet Code requirements, a determination to be made by the owner and contractor. The Chairman stated he recalled that at a previous meeting different testimony was given to the effect that the problem was discovered on a weekend when the City could be contacted, so the walls were torn down. Other members of the Commission confirmed their recollection of that statement. Mr. Charles Feenstra, 721 Bayside, City Building Inspector, was duly sworn by the Clerk, and prefaced his testimony by stating Mr. Donnelson to be a personal friend. Mr. Feenstra stated that on March 27th he had noticed the roof being removed from the building and had walked to the site around noon, and reported he noticed the building was infested with termites and dryrot, of which he notified Mr. stevenson, also that given those problems, the building would most likely have to come down as they could not build upon that situation, also noting that the studs were not to Code. He stated he inspected the location on March 28th and it was observed that the floor joists were damaged, again noting he had advised Mr. stevenson on the 27th of the problems that had been observed. Mr. Feenstra stated he discussed the matter with Mr. Ogdon who advised that they would have to go back before the Planning Commission. In response to the Commission, Mr. Feenstra confirmed that at no time did he give approval to any representative of Zember Construction to tear down on the basis of his or the City's authorization, that he had talked to Mr. Ogdon while Mr. stevenson was on the telephone, at which time Mr. Ogdon directed that Mr. stevenson be told to come back to the City, reapply and not to proceed. Mr. Feenstra stated he has been an employee of the City for ten years. He also stated that in his experience, he is not unaware of a contractor investigating the quality of the walls before, or even after, bidding on a job, explaining that the usual procedure where damaged wood exists is to remove same even if it is a bearing wall; noting however that most of those improvement situations do not fall under a variance condition. Mr. Feenstra reiterated that he had observed wet rot, dry rot, termite damage, as well as indications that the . e e Page Four - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 roof had been leaking, citing the subject location as one ~f the worst he has seen. In response to Mr. perrin, the Director stated that had the contractor come back to the City at the time of becoming aware of the existing conditions, the standard procedure would have been to bring the matter back to the Commission for a determination of whether or not modifications could be made beyond what had been previously approved. Mr. James Funk, 215-1/2 - loth street, spoke in support of the applicant's request, and cited the unknown conditions when such remodeling projects are initiated. Mr. Funk also spoke to the Zoning Text Amendment recently adopted which allowed remodeling of non-conforming properties, recalling the staff's recommendation that a structural investigation of properties be a provision of that Ordinance, and subsequent to discussions that provision was removed due to the $175 fee proposed, to be paid by the applicant, suggesting that it may be advisable to amend the Ordinance to include the investigation provision to cover such situations in the future. Mr. Bruce Stark, 204 Ocean, also referred to the ZTA discussions, stating it's intent was to allow improvements while not increasing use, questioning the retention of exterior walls while interior walls can be replaced. He stated density was the goal of the ZTA, not the economic aspect of the property. He cited this situation as unusual and spoke in favor of the applicant's request. Discussion followed regarding the compromise established by the ZTA, taking into account a partially increased economic life of a property while allowing a limited amount of improvements. Mr. Olin pate, 137 - 12th Street, expressed his feeling that making improvements to a property would, of course, extend the economic life considerably, also pointed out the need to address catastrophic losses. Mr. LeRoy Brown, 705 Ocean, referred to his 'own experience while remodeling where he would have fallen under Coastal Commission jurisdiction and would have lost more than six hundred square feet of living area in order to tear down a one car garage, also termite infested. He stated his situation was resolved by leaving the damaged studs in place, adding new, larger studs next to them, therefore solving the problem while making the building structurally sound. Mr. Brown expressed his feeling that upon allowing this request, any building in the City could be torn down completely and rebuilt new without compliance. In response to the Commission, Mr. Baucke confirmed that the foundation has been inspected, and determined that there are several areas where foundation will be required to be replaced or added, also that two units would be the conforming number for this 50 by 100 foot lot. Mr. Bill Lower, 140 _ 6th Street, spoke regarding compliance with the number of allowable units, reported his observation of'no vehicles parked on~site the question being whether or not the on-site parking would be utilized if the request is approved. Mr. Lower stated his support for Alternative 3 proposed by staff, allowing three . e - Page Five - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 units and six parking spaces. Mr. Al Belanger, 137 - 13th street, spoke for the applicant's request, noting no increase of density while parking spaces will be added. Mr. Christopher Marra, 1009-1/2 Seal Way, spoke of building violations and illegal units throughout the area, and noted his support for the applicant's request. There were no other communications; Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. The Director presented an alternate plan to the Commission and the applicant, stating this alternative would allow for eight parking spaces, therefore placing the property in conformance with parking requirements, noting that the City Attorney has advised that findings may not be able to be made as far as hardship with regard to parking since parking could be physically accommodated on the property. He confirmed that this option would not eliminate the third unit, the stairway then leading to the deck area over the open car port, yet not interfering with the light and ventilation of the third unit. With regard to whether or not granting of the variance and CUP would be precedent setting, the City Attorney advised that that each variance is judged on it's own particular facts, that the manner in which the non-conforming Ordinance is worded, the present situation falls into the major modification category, the only non-conformity allowed to continue under the Code is the density deviation, which therefore requires the parking variance. with regard to the parking issue, Mr. Stepanicich pointed out that the standards provided by Code for granting a variance are very stringent, requiring special circumstances with regard to the particular property, its size, shape, etc., making that property different from other properties that are required to comply with the parking requirements. Mr. Stepanicich noted that to the extent that adequate parking could be provided on the site, even though it may cause some additional expense, there appears to be no basis, and it would be inappropriate to grant a variance as proposed by the applicant. The City Attorney suggested that the applicant review the alternative provided by Mr. Baucke to determine if the alternative would be satisfactory to him, which would solve the parking problem. He stated that if satisfactory, the Commission would then be in a position to grant the major modification CUP, there would then be no need to grant the parking variance, only to grant a variance for tandem parking, which would serve to resolve the legal problem. Mr. Stepanicich clarified he was not speaking to the equity problem as discussed this evening with regard to hardship. In response to the Commission, the City Attorney acknowledged that the Code could be amended to include a provision addressing replacement of decomposed wood as in this case, however the Code, as presently worded, being very straight forward in addressing major and minor modifications. . . . Page Six - Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1986 The Commission, by unanimous consent, declared a recess at 8:55 p.m.; reconvened at 9:17 p.m. with Chairman Jessner calling the meeting to order. As to the feasibility of the alternate plan with regard to the curb cut at its present location, Mr. Baucke noted that there may have to be some modification to expand the curb cut, noting that an exact measurement would have to be made to determine the affect on street parking, and clarified that the Code requires that parking spaces on residential properties be covered, whether by garage or car port. In response to a question with regard to making a finding of hardship based upon economics, the City Attorney explained that hardship is often a factor, however the basic standard for granting of variances, as set forth in the City Code and state law, deals with the physical nature and development of property, not the economics thereof. Mr. Donnelson stated he wished to explore the financial impact of the alternate plan proposed by staff before making a final decision. Discussion continued regarding the stairway location, light to the downstairs unit, alternative roof/decking materials, use of sky lights, and railings. The City Attorney advised that the Commission could approve the alternate plan at this meeting and provide a variance for tandem parking pending a determination by the applicant that the plan is economically feasible to him, and if not, the applicant could appeal the matter to the City Council. with regard to consideration of Alternative #1, the Variance and CUP as proposed by the applicant, the City Attorney again advised that findings must be made with regard to special circumstances pertaining to the property. with regard to the parking, a finding would have to be made, for instance, that parking could not be provided pursuant to Code due to the physical nature of the property, making that property unique, a finding as to the financial hardship on the property owner being secondary. The City Attorney pointed out that should the Commission determine to approve Alternative One, that decision would be valid unless attacked in the judicial proceeding, reiterating the need to provide findings that would be upheld by a court, again stating that a finding based upon economic hardship to the applicant would only be considered as an additional factor. With regard to loss of street parking should the curb cut be expanded, the staff pointed out it is only a presumption at this point that street parking would be lost. Covington moved, second by Ripperdan, that Variance 6-86 be granted pursuant to the revised plan, providing eight parking spaces in compliance with Code, as proposed by the staff. Mr. Covington noted that should the applicant not accept the revised plan, there remains the appeal procedure to the City Council. Mr. Perrin stated he was opposed to the motion as stated, expressed his feeling that matters such as this should be handled at a staff level, and that the Zoning Text . - e Page Seven - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23', 1986 Amendment should be amended to allow same. Mr. Jessner stated he did not feel the action proposed would resolve this type of problem, in fact would create more, and Mr. Hunt stated he would vote against the motion based on correspondence from Mr. Donnelson. AYES: NOES: Covington, Ripperdan Hunt, Jessner, perrin Motion failed perrin moved, second by Hunt, to approve Variance 6-86 as proposed by the applicant and set forth as Alternative One of the staff report. Mr. Covington stated he would oppose the motion as it is in opposition to provisions of the City Code and. the advice of the City Attorney, and sets an on-going precedent. Mr. Ripperdan concurred. Mr. Perrin expressed his feeling that a finding could be made based upon the chronological order of the events in this case, as well as economic hardship, since the physical damage to the structure was unknown until after plans had been approved and construction commenced, a special circumstance requiring a greater financial impact on the applicant. The City Attorney noted that problems could arise for the property owner if this matter were challenged in court and it were determined that the findings were 'not adequate for granting of a variance, that action would render the building permits invalid and in turn requiring the improvements to be removed or a variance granted that would be legally testifiable, a risk that the property owner must be made aware of. Additionally, he stated that a problem could arise if other property owners request similar variances, the City would then be required to show specific facts for denial, unless the Code is amended setting forth specific rules governing this type of situation. Mr. Donnelson stated he would be willing to assume that risk, that he felt he could substantiate the parking situation at this particular location. Mr. Jessner asked that the possible loss of street parking should be a factor. Mr. Stepanicich advised that should the Commission take action to approve the variance, customary procedure should be followed to prepare findings, set forth in the form of a Resolution, for consideration at next meeting, cautioning the Commission that he questioned whether or not findings in this case would be sustained by a court of law if challenged. With regard to financial risk should a challenge be initiated, the City Attorney advised that the City could assume defense if it chose to do so, or the property owner, the real party of interest, could be required to assume defense of the matter, noting however that if a challenge were successful, a court could award attorney fees which would be against the City. Also, if such a case were lost and the structure required to be removed, the applicant could file suit against the City, however where the application was made to the City, the applicant having been made aware of the risk in granting the variance, Mr. Stepanicich stated he did not feel there would be case for potential financial loss to the City. . . . Page Eight - Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1986 vote on the motion to approve variance 6-86 as set forth in Alternative One of the staff report: AYES: NOES: Hunt, Jessner, Perrin Covington, Ripperdan Motion carried Ripperdan moved, second by Covington, to direct the City Attorney to also prepare findings pursuant to the original motion, to approve variance 6-86 as set forth in the revised plan proposed by staff. AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Motion carried The City Attorney noted that when considering this item again, no action will be taken on the second set of findings, the revised plan proposed by staff, unless the first motion of approval fails. Perrin moved, second by Hunt, to approve CUP 11-86. AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Motion carried STUDY SESSION - ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PROVISIONS Chairman Jessner advised he would set 11:00 o'clock as a time limit on this discussion, the discussion continued to another date if necessary. The Director of Development Services presented a summary background report leading to this study session, noted the presence of Captain Garrett, Police Department, a representative of the State Alcoholic Beveral Control, and the City Attorney who has conducted research as to the City's ability to limit alcohol sales. Capt. Garrett referred to the memorandum from the Police Chief dated April 17th, responding to how the number of alcoholic dispensing establishments impact the crime rate, and the Police Department's ability to protest the issuance and/or transfer of liquor licenses. Capt. Garrett reported that the Police Department tracks offenses on a regular basis, major crime statistics to compare crime in Seal Beach with other jurisdictions within the County, State and the nation. He stated the Department could not make a correlation between alcoholic dispensing establishments and the impact on crime, citing as an example statistics from RD 4, an Old Town area adjacent to Main Street, RD 7, where twenty-five percent of the major offenses occurred in 1985 and having no alcoholic dispensing establishments, RD 7 having sixty-four percent of the license holders with a crime rate of fourteen percent of the total Part I offenses. Capt. Garrett defined a Part I offense as set forth in the memorandum, stating that in the experience of law enforcement, there has never been a strong correlation between alcohol dispensing establishments and Part I crimes, that law enforcement can make a correlation between drugs and those offenses, but not for alcohol offenses. with regard to the Police Department's roll in examining alcohol . . . Page Nine - Planaing Commission Meeting - April 23, 1986 applications and the grounds on which protest of the issuance of those licenses is made to the ABC, he stated there are three methods from a law enforcement perspective, 1) the over- concentration as it relates to area size, number of existing licenses and the crime rate, 2) any enhancement of law related problems that may be foreseen, and 3) the criminal background of the license applicant. Capt. Garrett stated that the Department would feel confident in making a protest based upon the background of the applicant if it can be established that there are significant and relevant criminal activity relating thereto, where there could be a potential threat to the community, and where there would be no potential liability to the City with regard to that protest. with regard to over-concentration as it relates to, area size and crime rate, Capt. Garrett reported this to be difficult to articulate a tie between the establishments and the Part I offenses, and as far as enhancement of law enforcement related problems, it is felt there may be grounds to mount a protest on law enforcement conditions that could be exasperated by these establishments, however it would be extremely difficult to track such information. Capt. Garrett reported the Department reviews the applications on an individual basis, and if findings can be made within the three areas reported, that would lead to a protest to the ABC, concluding that it would be difficult to correlate law enforcement problems and crime rate with the establishments that presently exist. Mr. Richard Cottingham, Deputy Division Chief, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, was introduced, and responded to various questions posed by the Commission as follows: Question - Have any applications for license through the state, that had been previously approved and granted by the City, been denied in the last five years? Response - I do not have a direct knowledge of that, I have all of Southern California, I didn't really know, other than to be a resource person and try to respond to any.general questions, I could certainly find out, but I was not prepared to answer that, no, I do not have independent knowledge of that. Question - Have any applications for liquor licenses in the last five years that did not require CUP City approval, that you have subsequently denied? Response - No, I am not prepared to answer that. However, in general terms, we are precluded by statute contained in the Business and Professions Code from issuing a license to any location that is not properly zoned, we check with Planning on each and everyone of those, as a matter of fact, it is built into our preapplication package that we give all applicants. Each applicant is charged with contacting the local jurisdiction and indicating to us the date and party contacted, as to whether or not a determination was made if a CUP is required. We require that in all instances. . . . Page Ten - Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1986 Comment - That would be consistent with the staff report that states a reasonable number of cities initially accounted for, where liquor licenses are issued by zoning requirements, you automatically check every city since you do not know whether they may have changed their procedures. Response - Absolutely, we let them make that determination and then we react to that. Question - Reference a report by a Dr. Whitman, mentioning cities of Oakland, Oceanside, San Francisco, Stockton and Los Angeles, using local zoning ordinances to regulate issuance of licenses, in what way did they do that? Response - The City of Los Angeles, after a number of years finally decided they were a victim of great congestion of license premises, a thousand or more within a few miles, encouraged for many years to enact some type of controlling legislation or ordinance, which they have done now. The City of Garden Grove has been doing it for many years in this County, Newport Beach and others, the City of Irvine, the planned community concept, attempted to control from the beginning so that they would not get into that position of an excess numb~r of on or off-sale license premises in their community. We at the ABC encourage communities to participate in their destiny and do it this way. I would mention to the audience, we are asked the question regularly, why does not the Department exercise a moratorium have a cessation of issuance in any given area, we can't, there is no authority either under Section 22 of the State Constitution from which we draw our authority nor in any of the statues that govern us to just arbitrarily say..no more. We are by law charged with taking an application, and when the appropriate fee is filed we have to investigate it and either approve or deny it for cause, and they have the right to be heard, go to a hearing before the ABC appeals board, take it to the Appellate Courts, they are entitled to due process. We cannot be arbitrary and capricious. The one way that we can work together, the Police Department, Planning Commission, City Council and ABC is through local zoning ordinances; Conditional Use Permits or Zoning Variance requirements, we can not issue a license if that location is not proper~y zoned. Comment - On a non-statute but professional basis, your Department has then supported this. concept and the trend going on in the State that this is becoming more acceptable. Response - Absolutely, we participated directly with the City of Los Angeles in their ordinance with input and staff work, I have a copy of a letter from our Director pledging support in that effort. Question - You mentioned zoning but you did not mention population density, are you also suggesting population density, like so many licenses per thousand population? Response - No sir. . e e Page Eleven - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 Question - Has that ever been attempted in any city? Response - It is only done, and it is done statutorily, with respect to on-sale general licenses, those with cocktails, that is the formula when you hear about the legal lottery, the new issuance of licenses annually by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, that is all predicated upon the increase of countywide population from the preceding year not to exceed twenty-five new licenses of anyone type, so there is a population increase formula in tact in the Business and professions Code now, and for beer or beer and wine locations there is no such law, foreseeably it has been attempted, but I don't know that it has been done successfully. Question - There are some areas that restaurants seem to consolidate in, would these be a matter of concern where you had a very high number of restaurants with an alcohol license in a very small area? Response - Most of the data that has come to our attention in our figures show that we have need to be more concerned with off-sale premises, with on-sale there is some control of who receives the alcoholic beverages, we have laws in place about non-service to inebrients, to minors, etc., and you have controlled consumption at that location as opposed to buying it off-sale and no control where it goes, on the beach, onto someone's front lawn and so on. That seems to be most of the Police Department's high crime, increase of crime, gang activities, this would indicate that it is from the off-sale outlets more than the on-sale. Question - Would you be able, or could recall, if that was the basis for significant delay in approving a permit for off- sale 7-11 store on Pacific Coast Highway here a few years ago, the permit taking over a year and a half after it had been approved at the Council level before your Department approved it. Response - I am not aware of that one, it may have been a protested application. Response - (Staff) It was protested and went through the appeals process. Question - you mentioned a population increase, would that be a population increase by County and then randomly allocated to the cities in that county, you could have a city where the population had declined and still get a new license because of the County increase? Response - By State law licenses of the beer and wine and general type are transferrable between parties within the County and there is no tie to municipal boundaries. Additionally, in addition to your Conditional Use permit conditions that may be placed on it, our Department more often than not issues . e e Page Twelve - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 conditional licenses, we do that on our own, we have statutes and rules in place to do so, where if there are nearby resident concerns, law enforcement concerns, the Police Department, for instance, to conditionally protest the issuance of a license at a given location, could either withdraw their protest or not formalize the protest if certain cqnditions were met to operate as a bona fide public eating place if they agree to a condition not to exchange that license for a public premises that would convert it into a cocktail lounge at some future date, limiting the hours of operation, opening a little later than the 6:00 a.m. that the law allows, closing a little sooner than the 2:00 a.m. that the law allows, etc., any reasonable condition can be placed against a license depending upon the circumstances that prevail, we try to work as closely as we can with the Police Department to address their concerns, and certainly where residences are within on~ hundred feet under one rule and five hundred feet under a statute. Question - Notice in the report prepared by staff, our City, I guess like all others, have the one hundred foot requirement from churches and other public assemblages, that some cities have an additional requirement that licenses can not be issued to sites within three hundred or more feet of a residential structure, is that one of the basis of judgment or evaluation by the Department in the case of appeal? Response - Based upon the local requirements, not beyond our initial contact with city planning to see if it were properly zoned, their battle would be with you at that point. Comment - DO you look to the zoning to be a way of identifying those properties that have eliminated their contiguous relationship to properties that would be or could have a problem with the issuance of that license. Response - We used to have at state level some twenty years ago, what was commonly known as the two hundred foot rule, where you could not have a license within two hundred feet of another one, that went by the boards about twenty years ago and now they are on top of each other, behind each other, etc, lacking local restrictions, we are precluded from arbitrarily doing that, we either have to approve it or deny it. Question - For a general comment from you, here in Seal Beach we have 26,000 people, six liquor stores and six markets that sell liquor, do you think we are facing a problem? Response - You have to be the judge of that, certainly there is far more high density, go down by the airport on restaurant row, go out on Lacienega Boulevard in Los Angeles on restaurant row, and tourist spots where you have great increases of population to be serviced by these outlets, is that in and of itself a problem, that must be determined by you folks. That is why . e e Page Thirteen - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 we encourage enactment of some kind of zoning for that very reason, if you percieve it to be a problem, and if you do get ahold of it and do something about it, as opposed to those cities, and I am sure the City of Los Angeles would be happy to talk to you if you had your staff contact them, they were amazed at the problem that they finally found themselves in the midst of and looked around for other people to solve it for them...moratoriums...they tried for twenty years to have moratoriums on the issuance of licenses, they couldn't do it, why did we get to this condition they asked Alcoholic Beverage Control and the L. A. Police Department and the L. A. County Sheriff's Department, because there were no rules against it, was the answer, nothing precluded it from happening. Now they have the ordinance and I can tell you that the number of applications in the south central LOS Angeles area where it started and is now citywide, has dramatically dropped off. They have a very substantial filing fee, understand non-refundable, or a great portion of it non-refundable to the Planning Commission with no guarantee that a CUP will be issued, and that culls out some of the weeds right there, and some other building requirements that they have, public places requiring two restrooms where years ago they didn't and now they do, that is a great expense and precludes a number of people from applying. So, for many reasons we have seen in the City of L. A., applications drop off. Question - Have you had many complaints from citizen customers regarding the lack of all these new licenses? Response - We rarely hear from the consuming public. Comment - They are not complaining that not as many licenses are being issued? Response - The great retorical question that we fence with all the time is "how can one truly justify the public necessity and convenience", when you look at the kinds of numbers that we do with the outlets, we have roughly 76,000 licensed premises in the State of California, what constitutes public necessity and convenience as opposed to economic convenience for the operator. Question - with respect to protecting the public against problems caused by liquor, do you see a differentiation between licenses for hard liquor and beer and wine license? Response - Just my feeling, for having been in this field for twenty-one years, working as an investigator and up through the ranks, generally the ones with the biggest overall problems are those with the lesser licenses, beer and beer and wine, and it goes to the economics, you can get into the beer or beer and wine business for under $600 generally, that's easier to walk away from, they rent the property, they rent the furniture . . . Page Fourteen - Planning Commiss~on Meeting - April 23, 1986 and fixtures, they bought the booze on credit, and maybe very little of that, and the license itself has no particular face value other than transferring with an on-going business, the license can be gotten originally for $600 or less. They will do stranger things generally than somebody with an investment ranging anywhere from $6,000 to $60,000 for a license plus the more costly investment for that kind of operation, be it a liquor store with a half million inventory or an on-sale general eating place, or a large chain type restaurant, they have more to risk. Question - You are also saying then that the larger the investment the higher the probability that there will be an absence of problems. Response - It appears to be that way. We have no correlation that a large, to use a name in vain, a Liquor Barn like premises, there is no correlation of higher crime or higher instances of violations in or about those as opposed to a mom and pop operation down the street and possibly less. There are many problems here that are really hard to deal with, there is no citizenship or residency requirement to become a licensee, there is no requirement to read, write and speak the English language, it's not a defense if they violate, but it is not a prerequisite to get a license, that leads to many problems, obviously, if one has difficulty calculating, reading or identification or understanding all the rules and regulations, or maybe not accepting readily our, to them foreign, rules and regulations, all of those things lead to problems. Question - Do you compile any kind of a statistical compulation on an annual basis as to the number of infractions by city that you have either discovered by your staff or brought to your attention for staff investigation, or just simple complaints that your staff never has a chance to investigate? Response - We have total figures on accusations by type, minors, drunks, after hours, etc., I suppose we could draw out of the computer by city, although that has not been a statistic that we have needed, we have not been asked for that necessarily, locals will generally track that themselves, they are more interested in overall arrests as opposed to crime problems as opposed to accusations filed by our Department which is generally secondary to what they have done. There are two bodies of law here involved, a clerk sells to a minor for instance, or a bartender sells to a drunk, or a licensee runs after hours, that is cited in the criminal court and handled one way, and totally independent from that that the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control files on an action against the license privilege, and that is administrative law, thus we have two independent avenues here that are independently pursued, and the local police departments are generally more concerned about their . . . Page Fifteen - Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1986 call for police services than are our accusations, so we don't get a call for that particular statistic. We come up with how many we have filed and of what type but I guess we could go fishing for how many in Seal Beach for instance. Question - The two bodies interact but you do not necessarily correlate all your activities. Response - Not all of the activities, we are independent, we do try to work together but for instance, they can make a case that will fail in criminal court and we will still do it administratively if we feel we have the testimony and the evidence, it has no bearing on what occurred at the criminal level. Commissioner Hunt suggested that the public may have questions of the ABC representative. The City Attorney noted that the issue of City zoning had been addressed, the City having the power to zone liquor establishments under State statute, also that the California Supreme Court has held that a City may require a Conditional Use Permit for a liquor establishment, the law being very clear. with regard to one day permits and City input with regard to same, Mr. Stepanicich stated that those permits requested by organizations for special occasions, under State statute the normal referral or notification that takes place between the ABC and the local authority does not take place, the statute specifically excluding the notification requirement for City input. with respect to a question regarding the hours of operation, he reported it had been indicated that several of the cities surveyed did place limitation on hours of operation, and pointed out that there would be question as to whether or not cities do have the power to control the hours of operation based upon a 1949 Supreme Court case that held that regulations such as controlling the hours of operation were within the control of the State and not the local governmental agency, and noted that to his knowledge there have been no more recent cases at the Supreme or Appellate Court level. Mr. Stepanicich reported a recent Trial Court decision involving a City of Long Beach requirement for a Conditional Use Permit, which also limited the hours of operation more stringently than set forth in State law, the Trial Court sustained the City's power to require a CUP, however struck down the condition that limited the hours of operation. In response to a question previously raised as to limiting the number of CUP's issued by the City, he noted that there are State regulations that govern the number of general licenses that can be issued on a countywide basis. Mr. Stepanicich stated they would have concern with the City arbitrarily limiting the number of Conditional Use Permits with regard to anti-trust implications in terms of new businesses that may want to come into the City. He stated a much preferable . . . Page Sixteen - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 method'of dealing with this issue would be the approach that the City has taken in requiring a Conditional Use Permit, reviewing each on a case by case basis, a method that is legally sustainable, eliminating any anti-trust implication, while having the control over the establishment of liquor businesses. Mr. Stepanicich noted that there are a number of conditions that could be attached to a CUP to the extent that they relate to land use questions, such as compatibility with surrounding properties and proximity to residential properties, which would be legally sustainable. The City Attorney referred to existing Code provisions for issuance of a CUP, whether or not the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area, however noted that upon appeal of the denial of a CUP on the basis that it is not compatible with a surrounding area, there must be substantial evidence to support that decision. He pointed out that there also presently exists in the City Code a provision requiring a CUP if the location is to be within one hundred feet from a residential area, church or school, and confirmed that it would be permissible for the City to expand that distance, also acknowledging that the distance requirement could be deleted, thereby requiring all such requests under a CUP. with regard to establishing a criteria for a specific distance of one establishment to another, a provision deleted from State law several years past, the City Attorney advised that would be a policy decision to be made by the Commission and Council, pointing out however that such provision would take away flexibility that could have undesirable results in the future, again explaining that the CUP procedure allows the greatest control over proliferation in a particular area. Chairman_Jessner invited members of the audience to pose their questions to the representative from the ABC or to staff. Juliana McCants, 421 Jade Cove Way. Question - What does it take to revoke an alcoholic license, and what justifies an alcohol license being reinstated after it has officially declared itself closed, referencing Senor Corky's having a continued alcohol license after being closed for four to six months and the license which they presently have is during a time when there is an official moratorium on liquor licenses. Ms. McCants made reference to a news article announcing the establishment's reopening. Response - Director of Development Services. That would be false advertising, the hearing to take place on that evening, the decision on Corky's being unknown at this time, and suggested Mr. Cottingham and the City Attorney may wish to respond to the revocation procedures. Response - City Attorney. Clarification, talking about two different types of approvals, one being the license by the . . . Page Seventeen - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 ABC, the other being the Conditional Use Permit issued by the City, the question requiring a two-part answer. Response - ABC. Answer in reverse, to deal with the premises that was licensed and in business, and then ceases to be in business for a period of time. First of all we have the Constitution, we have the Business and professions Code that has a statute that says "and the Department can implement those rules necessary to perform their tasks." One of those rules is Departmental Rule 65 that says that if a licensed premises is closed for more than fourteen consecutive days they must surrender their license back to the Department for safe keeping, it is an inactive viable license at that point and can remain active for one year as long as the renewal fee is paid, and if, for cause their place burned down or they lost their lease or they became ill but did not want to sell it, they could request that we even extend that year. In other words, this place is licensed, closed for whatever reason, surrendered their license to us under Rule 65, and all they need to do to reactivate it is, roughly ten days prior to going back into business is notify the Department by signing a particular form, that they want the return of their license. Fees are paid, it has been issued, it is not increasing the license count in the County or the City, it is already accounted for. Question - McCants. Does the public notice have to be restated? Response - ABC. No, because it is not relicensing anything, it is an accounted for license that may have gone dark at that location for some reason but it still is valid, and until that license is transferred to somebody else or to another location or both or cancelled on its own for non-renewal, it is a viable license and it is just a matter of paper management to get it back into effect. As far as our revocation policy, the more severe the problem or the crime, the more easily revoked. The lesser the activity, loud noise, what we call a mini-disorderly, just kind of negatively impacting on the community, not a lot of anyone thing, a couple of drunks, some noise, some abusive language, between the Police Department and my Department we have to build that package, and that can take typically six months to a year to build it significantly to where we can sustain an accusation before the Office of Administrative Hearings and convince an Administrative Law Judge that that is a problem premises. An outright revocation is generally for the more severe kinds of things, gang activity concentrated there with all of the attendant things that are relevant to gang activity, and tie them in to the licensed premises. By the way, that is key for everybody here, you don't have to be a mind reader to be in the liquor business, they are not automatically guilty of anything simply because they exist, the Police and ABC tie in knowledge on the part of the licensee to the activity they either knew or should have"known, and did nothing about it, . - e Page Eighteen. - Planning Commission Minutes - April 26, 1986 and we can convince an Administrative Law Judge of their ability to cope in order to get that license back. Question - McCants. Who can take the initiative to start that process, can it be a citizen who simply calls you and says "I have A, Band C proof" that those things have occurred? Response - ABC. That is the best way as a matter of fact for that kind of thing, is that a citizen who is in a position, as an example, it is like living next to a boulevard stop sign, you are going to see a lot more people who blow by, a lot more than the Police Officers who get by occasionally. If one can keep a log and document what's going on, the late and unusual hours, the fights, the call for police service, and correlate that and coordinate it with the local Police Department, at some point they, the PO, will bring us aboard to start looking at those reports to say which ones are usable for our purposes and which ones aren't, and then between the three of us, the citizenry, police and ABC, we can focus down on what we call a disorderly premises and attempt to take some action against that license, it may not be revocation, but between revocation, suspension or fine, something may be able' to be done about it. We need to work together. Response - City Attorney. To address the City's power with respect to the issuance of the Conditional Use permit, it is a land use permit therefore is granted to the property, it is not a personal permit, a permit pertaining to a piece of property to which it was granted therefore runs with the land, therefore even with a change of ownership with regards to the CUP, it would continue to remain in effect for that particular piece of property, and likewise if there were a closing of the business for a short period of time, that CUP would remain in effect. However there are certain restrictions on abandonment of the use, and this takes us into the revocation proceedings for a CUP, and the Planning Commission does have several grounds on which a Conditional Use Permit can be revoked, one of those being if the permit has ceased to exist for a period of a year or more, therefore if the business is closed for a year or more the Commission could take action to revoke that particular CUP, similarly, if the permit is being exercised contrary to the conditions imposed by the Commission for issuance of the CUP, or if the permit is being exercised in a way that is harmful to the public's health and welfare, in other words if a lot of nuisance problems arise from that particular use, you would have the power to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. The power to revoke is given to the Commission with the right of appeal to the City Council. If a citizen had complaints about a particular establishment, they could make those complaints to the City which would bring those to the attention of the Planning Commission who would then decide whether or not to initiate proceedings to revoke a particular Conditional Use permit for that type of use. . e e Page Nineteen - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 Response - ABC. with regard to one day licenses, and for those that aren't aware that in addition to the permanent licenses that are issued by my Department to persons who odo business at certain locations, for non-profit bonafide organizations, we do have in place what is called a one day license for fund raising for fraternal and civic organizations that would qualify for one day beer, one day beer and wine, or one day general licenses, which are beer, wine and hard liquor. yeu are right, that the same kind of notification process that statutorily is required, there is a statute that says every application that my Department takes must be notified to certain articulated government bodies, City Council, we elect to also notify City planning, police Department, and so on, every application taken in our Santa Ana District Office for Orange County, they are mailed out every day to certain persons. On one day licenses, just by pOlicy, a reciprocal agreement, and again being in charge of the Orange County office for seven and a half years, I know the policy is alive and well, my Department chooses to call certain designated contact persons within the Police Department on everyone day application and give them the basic information, the organization, date, time, location, expected number of people in attendance, kind of license and what the activity is, and a name, address and phone number for a contact person. The Police Department representative will tell us yeah or nay and only then will we issue that one day license, if there is any problem with the Police Department we will generally rebut the issuance at that point and say go to the Police Department, contact so and so, and bring back something in writing saying they are now happy, and at that point we will issue the one day license. Question - IS this issue to a specific address and does that address have to be within a specific zoning? Response - ABC. yes and no. It is issued to the organization at a specific address, that is what the call is all about, zoning doesn't come into playas much because we are talking about a one day activity as opposed to a resale business on- going, it can be in a home, it can be anywhere they wish so long as the Police Department doesn't object, you don't want a negative impact with traffic flow, crime suppression, as with street dances, you may not want one, we don't care, if you agree we will issue the license. Question - That is non-profit organizations, but do you issue one day permits to individuals or to entities that are structured for profit, sole proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, or with a non-profit number? Response - ABC. Well, they can be non-profit corporations, but it has to be a non-profit or philanthropic purpose, either by charter or articles of incorporation or by some instrument, if they can demonstrate to us their bona fide status then they would be eligible for a license. . . . Page Twenty - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 Robert Cook, 441 Central. Comment/Question - I don't feel much more comfortable regarding the issuance of liquor licenses or consumption of alcohol from what I have heard here tonight. Want to direct your attention to something different, you had before you and subsequently taken away recently, a request for public hearing that would have permitted uses at a business in my area, the Seal Beach Motel, would have permitted them a business use that would have allowed consumption alcohol on the premises without any kind of a license. The owner was proposing to have patron hosted events, something close to what the gentleman was referring to, only something that doesn't require a license, nothing more than what you would have at your own home, inviting some people over, the difference is that this is a business, located in the center of a residential area in which the owners absolve themselves of responsiblity by turning it over to some patron, someone who stays overnight, and that person can now host an event of maybe a hundred people and we provide them with alcohol, and there is no control whatsoever. I am not asking for an opinion, I am telling you something that is in the air. You are concerned about control of licenses, I am giving you something else that could have even greater impact upon our community if you permit, or think of permitting, alcoholic consumption at businesses under the auspices of somebody that is not an owner of a business. What is indicated here by the gentleman that with an on-site or on-sale license there is some kind of control, someone is there that can control inebriates, control who serves minors, what are you going to do with a patron, you don't even know who the patron is, they can dispense to whomever they want. Is there any kind of control for something like this? Response - ABC. Certainly I would draw the City Attorney's attention to a statute that is commonly known as "bottle club", illegal to do in the State of California what is legal in some other states, and that is to maintain a premises that, for a consideration, alcoholic beverages are permitted to be brought to for consumption and that premises for that consideration is providing what is called "set ups", glass, ice, mix, etc., that is an illegal bottle club and a complaint can be filed with either the Attorney General's office or the District Attorney's office and it is an abatement proceedings. I would want to look at that kind of operation very closely if it is the way you suggest. Comment - Cook. I am talking about something that is a variety of social activities, where the patron, or someone involved in a wedding party is required to stay overnight, by staying overnight they can now host a party, and the party could involve a hundred people. Response - Capt. Garrett. Is anyone charging for the alcohol in this situation? . . -. Page Twenty-One - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 Comment - Cook. It is being dispensed by the patron. This is what they are proposing to do. Response - ABC. At this one location. I would encourage a local look at Section 25604 of the Business and Professions Code and its applicability. If it were the business operated there, there is a 1985 Attorney General's opinion that we requested and received, that a retail operator of any kind of business, specifically bed and breakfast inns, limousine services, fun buses and charter airlines is what we went after offering "complimentary alcoholic beverages" without a license, and the A.G. opinion concurs with what we felt all along is that somebody conducting a retail business for which they charge for their goods or services and then offer "complimentary" beverages, constitutes a sale and requires a license, so, if the motel operator was doing this we would go to Section 23300 of the Business and Professions Code, sale without a license and supported by the A.G. opinion. If it is a patron, we look at "bottle club." The Police Department and ABC lives by creative endeavors, have to put out fires, can't take care of a problem we don't know exists, so notify you local Police Department regarding those kinds of things, and they know who to call if they want some specific advice. Mark Griffin 3301 Yellowtail, Rossmoor. Comment/Question - Just purchased a business in the Rossmoor Center, basically, want to ask some questions, I know there has been an extension of 120 days, have spent lot of money on business, applied for the beer and wine license, this will be fast food place with a patio, understand what got this started was the Christmas Parade, question is, are there certain areas of Seal Beach that would be exempt from the 120 day moratorium. Response - City Attorney. At present time moratorium is applied citywide. Comment - Griffin. It would seem that a problem of people drinking on the street would be more of an enforcement issue rather than penalizing all the merchants. I am running out of funds, I would request there be some kind of exemption, this could put me out of business. I was led to believe by former City employee that it would be up in 45 days and was more or less an election issue. Rossmoor Center is not a high crime area, other similar establishments, seems to be a restriction of trade. 'I I Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th Street. Question - I would like to ask the ABC representative, confusing, in your manual it says the Department will not license a new location within one hundred feet of a residence unless the applicant can establish that the operation of the proposed premises will net interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the e e e )~ \ Page Twenty-Two - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 property residence. My concern is that on Main street in Old Town backs right up to the residence and yet all these licenses have been issued, so what is the purpose of having these rules if no one uses them. Also, in the population formula that they gave me and according to the census tract books, and they take this population and figure out what is allowed and how many we have, then what is the purpose of that if no one uses it, same with the crime formula, if no one is using any of these things, nothing makes sense any more, and if our cities can't control anything, and the citizens can't, and if you are going to have alcoholic beverages right next door to a residence then what protection is there for the residence. Response - ABC. First of all you said nobody is using the rules, they are used every day and we deny applications allover the state based upon those rules. The one hundred foot rule is 61.4 and says the Department shall deny an application unless there is no negative impact on the residences and the applicant is charged with contacting ever body within 500 feet and certifying to that, plus our investigators may contact, either in person or by leaving a letter that the nearby resident can return back to the Department either protesting or raising some objection. Lacking that, that is what places the rule into effect, lacking complaints, objections or protests, why deny, isn't that arbitrary and capricious on the part of the state to decide what is and isn't going to go in this community if the community itself doesn't object. Zoning ordinances can help regulate that, Conditonal Use permits, also when one is contacted you are then participating in your own destiny, if ABC knocks on your door and says do you object, object, and we won't have to address that, because the Rule forces us to do so. you can call ABC, and first of all, you see the big notice that goes up at every location, notice of intention to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages, that has to go up immediately upon applying, and must stay up for thirty consecutive days, and anybody can protest during that thirty day period, you don't have to be within fifty feet, you don't even have to live in the neighborhood, read the sign, the address to protest is stamped on face of the sign. Rule 61.4 is the proximity to residences, and if there is no articulated negative impact we are going to approve the license, can you imagine as going to a Law Judge and saying we are denying, he says what is the problem, and we say we don't know, but we are denying, nobody complained, but we are denying. Rule 61.3 is the high crime and I would address that to the Captain, Seal Beach is one of only three communities of the twenty-six in Orange County that subscribe to Rule 61.3, the other Police Departments, for whatever reason, choose not to maintain those kinds of statistics, your Department does, and there are certain things that can be done through contact with the Police Department. . . . Page Twenty-Three - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 Comment - Morton. Register article, selecting certain things from our crime reports, this week for a seven day period we had nine related alcoholic crimes, times fifty-two, we total of nearly five hundred for this area, therefore I'm wondering if we should have better statistics from the Police Department. Response - Capt. Garrett. with regard to the alcoholic related statistics, we know from an experience level, like in the case of drunk arrests, the majority of those occurring in the Main Street area, that is the highest concentration of those types of establishments and it is going to net those kinds of arrests. As far as the driving under the influence, that is a far different problem to correlate, we are surrounded by other jurisdictions that also sell alcohol and when people start driving around it becomes a problem to determine where they are doing their drinking. The reason why statistics are not kept in that fashion, it is an enormous job to track those incidents and tie them to specific locations over a long enough period of time for them to be significant. We have times during the year when the arrests on Main Street or any place else in the community are going to fluctuate widely from very active to dormant. There are tools that we are attempting to obtain for the Department that will make that a feasible job, right now on a hand count situation it is not feasible, the time will come for us when we will be able to track all of that and be far more responsive as far as that kind of particular information. Barbara Antoci, 1502 Ocean Avenue. Comment - Comment to Capt. Garrett, who stated there were no alcohol places in my area, Area 4, there is the Dolphin Market selling beer and wine, Hanshaws, Dave's Other Place and the 7-11, agree however that the crime is mostly drug related but unfortunately in my area the drugs and alcohol tie in together. Response - Capt. Garrett. The reporting districts get quite confusing, Dave's on P.C.H. is not in Area 4 it is in 7, Dolphin Market is in Area 3, they are all in close proximity and may have an impact on your Area. Comment - Antosi. This weekend, don't have enough pOlice, drunks carrying cases of beer, girls in bikinis off the beach to join riot on Main Street,...if considering more alcohol, just want to remind you we don't have an insurance policy and each one of you would be individually held responsible to each one of us if you keep allowing more alcohol and fewer cops, how can two cops in town handle all the problems when there is a robbery in the north of Seal Beach. I have a scanner, and by the way, the Mayor called in a complaint for Hennessey's having their window screen out and passing drinks over the sidewalk, you should buy a scanner. Response - Capt. Garrett. Don't want you to think that because you do not have alcohol outlets in your area there is no impact, it is just difficult to tie into a neat package. Page Twenty-Four - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 ~ Christopher Marra, 1009-1/2 Seal Way. Question - If person has a license for an establishment and he closes that establishment, 7 months, and has sold his lease to a partner, does he not have to come forward for a new license under the partnership or is the license still valid? Response - ABC. He can't add or subtract anybody on that license without the approval of our Department. The license as it was issued exists as it is, but again that does not necessarily mean he is going to reactivate that license at that location, he can transfer it to himself anywhere in the County and the new people, if there are new people, get their own licenses. Comment - Marra. Senor Corky's did sell his lease to Mr. Gill, and it has become Corky/Gill Corp. and they to reopen but they are caught in the moratorium also. are also numerous complaints, also within one hundred of a residence. Response - ABC. You make a note then to call Ken Kelly at the ABC in Santa Ana, who is in charge of this area and he would be happy to investigate that problem. We would be interested in it, it is what is called a false ownership, or undisclosed ownership. If the license is already issued, that is not the issue, other name would be the issue. an attorney, are trying There feet . Mr. Cottingham expressed his appreciation for being invited to attend the meeting, stated he would commit to being whatever resource he could be to the City, favoring having the public informed, noting he had provided several documents to Capt. Garrett for information. The Commission determined that additional discussion of this subject matter would be in order, and by consensus, agreed to continue the discussion to a regular adjourned meeting on May 14th. Members of the Commission commended the staff and City Attorney for the extensive background materials contained in the Commission packet and encouraged interested public to obtain that information. e COMMISSION REQUESTS Commissioner Perrin requested that the staff and City Attorney prepare proposed amendments to the Zoning Text Amendment relating to minor alterations where decisions relating to the standard construction of buildings would be allowed to be dealt with by staff. Noting the extensive workload of the staff and the numerous requests and studies that have been requested for review by the Commission, Chairman Jessner suggested that the staff prepare a list of the items requested, allowing the Commission to establish priorities on those items. Mr. Covington added that this may assist the new City Manager in determining that additional staff is necessary, also suggested that amendments be prepared dealing with non-conforming commercial property. e e e Page Twenty-Five - Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent of the Commission members, the meeting adjourned at 11:33 p.m. THESE ARE TENTATIVE MINUTES ONLY, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION. Planning Commission Minutes Approved: ~021-~~