Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC AG PKT 2009-05-11 #Q
AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 11, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: David Carmany, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING DE NOVO -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.09-3, 210 MAIN STREET (WAKI SUSHI) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: After receiving all public testimony, the City Council has the following options: 1) Direct staff to draft a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit 09-3, or 2) Direct staff to draft a resolution conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit 09-3 with appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND: On April 8, 2009 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and denied, without prejudice, the subject request to establish a new restaurant use with a Type 41 (Beer & Wine -Eating Place) ABC License within the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone on a 4-0-1 vote (Commissioner Bello was absent). Please refer to Attachment 2 to review Planning Commission Resolution No. 09- 16 for the findings and determination of the Planning Commission regarding the conditional use permit denial. Please refer to Attachment 3 to review the Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2009 and to Attachment 4 to review the Planning Commission Staff Report of April 8, 2009. The Applicant timely appealed the Planning Commission's decision and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a de novo public hearing. FACTS: ^ The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2009 to consider Conditional Use Permit 09-3, a request to establish a new restaurant use with a Type 41 (Beer & Wine -Eating Place) ABC License within the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone. Both written and oral evidence was submitted for the project. After receiving all public testimony the Planning Agenda Item Q Page 2 Commission closed the public hearing and after discussion, the Commission determined to deny the request to establish a new restaurant use with a Type 41 (Beer & Wine -Eating Place) ABC License within the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone. The Commission adopted Resolution 09-i 6 denying the subject application that evening. ^ On April 13, 2009 an appeal was filed (See Attachment 1). The matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a de novo public hearing. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Conditional Use Permit: The Main Street Specific Plan allows for restaurants, as well as on-premise and off-premise alcohol sales businesses, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The use must be found consistent with the following findings, as specified in the Zoning Ordinance: ^ The use is consistent with the provisions of the City's General Plan, and is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. ^ The use is compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general, and is not detrimental to the neighborhood. ^ The subject property is adequate in size, shape, topography and location to meet the needs of the use of the properly. ^ Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensures there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the use. ^ The proposed use is consistent with the intent and purpose and vision established for the Main Street Specific Plan. ^ The proposed use does not conflict with the Specific Plan's goal to establish and maintain a balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non-local populations. ^ The use will contribute to the unique character of Main Street and the qualities that provide Main Street a sense of identity. ^ The proposed use complies with all applicable City Council Policies, such as the policies the Council has adopted concerning alcohol uses. The above findings direct the determinations of the City Council regarding consideration of either denial or approval of the subject Conditional Use Permit request. The City Council would need to make affirmative findings to support each of the above criteria if it determines to grant the subject request. Page 3 APPELLANTS REASONS AS TO WHY THEY FEEL THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION WAS IN ERROR: Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the written "Applicant's Statement to Appeal Application to City Council". The appellant/applicant is requesting that the City Council approve the requested conditional use permit and allow the establishment of a new restaurant use with a Type 41 (Beer & Wine -Eating Place) ABC License within the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone. DISCUSSION RELATING TO THE "STANDARDS OF REVIEW" FOR CUP APPROVALS: The subject application is a conditionally allowable project, and the City Council is required to make the findings specified in Municipal Code Sections 28-1251.E, 28- 2503 and 28-2504 in order to approve the application. Those findings are set forth above on page 2. In sum, the issue is whether, based upon the evidence presented tonight, the proposed project can be found consistent with the intent, purpose and vision of the General Plan, and Main Street Specific Plan zone and the implementing zoning ordinance provisions of the City as discussed above. As shown in the record, the Planning Commission is concerned about compatibly and parking impacts upon surrounding properties. After reviewing the evidence presented tonight, the City Council must consider whether the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding community. CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS re: APPEAL: After receiving all public testimony and the record of the public hearing, the City Council has the following options: 1) Direct staff to draft a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit 09-3, or 2) Direct staff to draft a resolution conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit 09-3 with appropriate conditions, as may be specified by the City Council upon receipt of all public testimony and completion of City Council deliberations. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST TO CONSIDER WAIVER OF APPEAL FEE: The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council waive the appeal fee (see Section 7 of Planning Commission Resolution 09-16). The waiver of the appeal fee is a matter of discretion by the City Council. Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT: Minor impacts to city receipt of property tax and sales tax revenues if business operation does not open within the City. Any possible impact could potentially be off-set by revenues from an alternate land use at the subject location. SUBMITTED BY: i~V , e Whittenberg Director of Development Servi s NOTED AND APPROVED: David Carmany City Manager Attachments: (5) Attachment 1: Appeal of Yong and Jane Park, received April 13, 2009 Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution 09-16, adopted April 8, 2009 Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes: April 8, 2009 Attachment 4: Conditional Use Permit 09-3, Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 8, 2009 Attachment 5: Project Development Plans ATTACHMENT APPEAL OF YONG AND JANE PARK, RECEIVED APRIL 13, 2009 APPEAL APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL Planriirig Commisson~D~~ Date :Appeal z o~y=~; 1. Property Address: ~- ~ ~ ~`~ R~ 2. Applicant' Address: APR 1~ 3 2009 CITY CLERIC CITY OF SEAL BEACH ~~o~~ o Work Phone: (~- ~~-) ~3T=3~~_ Mobile: ~ 3 '~V ~ ~~~~- Home Phone: ~~ ~~ - ~~ ~~ Fes' ~~~ ~~~ rtvs~ ~ v ~~~ ~~ ~~e~' 3. Property Owner's Name: ~~~ 33 ' ~ \~ ~ ~"2-~ Address: 2-LC'~YZ LN ~~~ S` Home Phone: ( ) ~z~.'c-~3t~'`t~~.5 C~~ . °1~.~'i ~ ` (1.1-~-t ~2- 4. The undersigned hereby appeals the following described action of the Seal Beach Planning Commission concerning Public Hearing No. _Attach a statement that explains in detail why the decision of the Planning Commission is being appealed, the specific conditions of approval being appealed, and include your statements indicating where the Planning Commission may be in error. , - 9 (Signatu .of Applicant) ( ature f Owner) (Pri t Na e) (Pri t Name) ~~~ Zi ~ ~ (Date) _~~._o~ (Date) Page 33 Rev. s~os April 15~', 2009 City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Attn: Seal Beach City Council SUBJECT: Reason for Appeal 4n Alrril $, 2009, the Chairman and Planning Commissioners decided to deny ottr application for Waki Sushi CUP 09-3. As the applicants for this restaurant, we request that you reconsider the decision made by the Commissioners. Ia reference to the -R4ain Street Specific Plan, thiszestaurant will- add -diversity and - encourage more people to visit Old Town. Recently, there was an addition of two new establishments that offered Asian dining. We believe that the addition of a Japanese restaurant would benefit the city in creating a culturally diverse atmosphere. It is unfair that the .two restaurants. were recently approved; yet this appli.catioa 3s fiPing. denied shortly after. We acknowledge that there is a concern with pazking within the City. However, if it is such a significant issue then it should have been addressed and actions should have been taken before. We have inquired about the possibility of opening up a restaurant in other cities but we were told from the start that their rules and concerns regazding pazking did n.©t allow it. Ifi this current sit~xati©Ei, we Piave closed EscFQw aad. aFe ntiw respci~ible f©i making payments within- the store: There is- a significant fi~cial btrrdea upon the- applicants and we believe that this application should not be jeopazdized in order to address an overall parking issue. If parking was the biggest concern, then we believe that the -City should initialiy~ have informed the applicants. Also, given the size of the restaurant, we acknowledge that space is limited. However, due to the small space available we believe that this establishment will provide an atmosphere of camaraderie rather than big social gatherings, We acknowledge that alcohol is a general concern within the City. However, the sale of beer and sake within the restaurant is an essential part of the Japanese dining experience. Furthermore, it is not a beverage that will encourage belligerent drinking or loud parties. We request that the City CQUncil take these issues into cansideration~ If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at janepazkl5(a~,gmail.com of yongpark99(a,amail.com, or at (714 349 - 3328. Sincerely, ~ i e Paz ,App 'cant ~~F SEAI B . wRaogq~F9~,~ .~ V Zti ~E ¢: c~~UN1Y CQ~ Received From: Address: 2! ;~.ra=gam>~rc;~: ~~ ;;ww:..__~_.. .r.~.s, +,` ~~.~ ~`•~s`."y?*~#• 3:' `•• ~i;•{;'~'$''~i~• t _ . z t ..: : v. w:)~TF.. i v~v _ , a '. ~ 4 ' Appeal to City Council /Non-Public Hearing Matter ~ $ 100 Appeal to City Council /Public Hearing Matter $ 750 Concept Approval (Coastal) $ 100 Conditional use Permit (CUP) $ 750 Environmental Impact Report $ 15,000 General Plan Amendment $ 2,000 Height Variation $ 750 Major Environmental Assessment (Initial Study $ 500 Major Site Plan Review $ 750 Maps ($2.50 per sheet $ Microfilming pages @ $.75 per age/Larger $1.50 $ Minor Environmental Assessment (Determination) $ 50 .Minor Plan Review $ 150 Negative Declaration . $ 2,500 Planned Sign Program $ 750 Planned Unit Development (PUD) $ 2,000 Planning Commission Inte retation $ 200 Pre-Application Conference $ 100 Property Profile $ 75 Sign Application $ 50 Sober Living Investigation Fee $ 500 Special Event Permit $ Specific Plan $ 10,000 Temporary Banner $ 5 Tentative /Final Parcel Map $.750 Tentative /Final Tract Map $ 2,000 Unclassified Use Permit (UUP) $ 750 Variance $ 750 Waste Diversion Administrative Fee $ Waste Diversion Deposit Fee $ Xeroxing 8 %: x 11 ° $.25 per page. Larger $.50 per page. $ Zone Change $ 2,000 Account # Vv c ~ J u 1°~ ~-~/ 001-30825 Building Plan Check 001-30855 Microfilming 001-30820 Planning Fees City of Seal Beach Department of Development•Services 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 Telephone: (562) 431-2527 RECEIPT Amount to Be Paid $ ~S~- `-~ 001-30945 Sale of Printed Material 001-30961 Waste Diversion Admin Fee 001-20269 Waste Diversion Deposit ("PAID" Stamp) ~ APR 1 3 2~~~.~ Rev. 9/16/08 ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 09-16, ADOPTED APRIL 8, 2009 RESOLUTION NUMBER 09-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-3 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW RESTAURANT AND THE ON-PREMISE SALE' OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT AT 210 MAIN STREET, SEAL BEACH. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. On March 5, 2009, Yong & Jane Park (the "Applicants") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 09-3 requesting approvals of the following requests: ^ To establish a new restaurant; and ^ To allow the new restaurant to operate with a Type 41 (Beer & Wine -Eating Place) ABC license. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15301 staff has deternuned as follows: The application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-3 for the requested land use entitlements for a new restaurant and to allow the new restaurant to operate with a Type 41 (Beer & Wine -Eating Place) ABC license is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because the proposal involves a minor alteration in land use limitation and does not involve either a property in excess of 20% slope or a change in land use or density. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on April 8, 2009, to consider the application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-3. At the public hearing the applicant was in attendance, with persons appearing in favor of the request. Additional written communications in favor of and in opposition to the subject application were received into the record by the Planning Commission Section 4. The record of the hearing of Apri18, 2009 indicates the following: (a) On March 5, 2009, Yong & Jane Park (the "Applicants") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 09-3. 1 of 5 Planning Commission Resolution 09-16 Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street (Waki Sushi) Apri18, 2009 (b) Specifically, the applicant is requesting approvals of the following requests: ^ To establish a new restaurant; and ^ To allow the new restaurant to operate with a Type 41 (Beer & Wine -Eating Place) ABC license. (c) The subject property is described as Orange County assessor's parcel # 199-043-12. (d) The proposed restaurant is approximately 1,087 square feet in size and the proposed floor plan shows approximately 14 seats at tables and an additional 8 seats at a bar area located along the southern interior portion of the restaurant. (e) The subject property is a rectangular shaped property that is 25'-0" feet wide by 117'-6" feet deep. The proposed lease space for the restaurant shows an approximately 21'-11" by 55'-9" area. The property is developed with an existing single-story retail building fronting Main Street, as well as a two-story residential property with a single car garage at the rear of the building. (f) There is no record of the property receiving any previous discretionary approvals or use permits from the City. The most recent business that was located on the property was "Sweet Berry Bliss", a frozen yogurt shop. ~ This previous business was "grandfathered" as a permitted use within the Main Street Specific Plan zone, and was also known as "Grandma's Cookies" prior to the establishment of the frozen yogurt shop. (g) Aside from the residential unit on the premises, the nearest residential properties are located to the rear of the subject premises, east of the alley to the rear of the property, approximately 75 feet from the proposed business. (h) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, SOUTH, and WEST Retail businesses in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone. EAST Residential uses in the Residential High Density (RHD) Zone (i) At the public hearing the Planning Commission received all evidence and testimony presented into the record of the hearing. Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 18-1250, 28-2503 and 28-2504 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: (a) Conditional Use Permit 09-3, as proposed, is inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a Main 2 of 5 Planning Commission Resolution 09-16 Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street (Waki Sushi) Apri18, 2009 Street Specific Plan zoning designation for the subject property. The use is also inconsistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is inconsistent with the General Plan based on the following: (1) The proposed project would result in an adverse addition to the commercial character of Main Street by providing for anover-concentration of restaurant businesses within the Main Street area, which impacts parking availability for both residents of the community and visitors to the City. (2) The proposed restaurant use cannot provide any on- site parking, resulting in adverse impacts to pazking availability for both residents of the community and visitors to the City within the Main Street Specific Plan area and the adjoining residential areas of the City. (3) The proposed use of the subject premises as a restaurant with alcohol sales is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood given the existing overconcentration of restaurant uses, and in particular, restaurant uses with alcohol licenses within the "Old Town" azea of the City, as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report. There are currently 17 restaurants operating within the Main Street Specific Plan area that have on-premise alcohol licenses. In addition there are 2 bars located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. (b) The proposed use, as proposed by the project applicant, is inconsistent with the intent and purpose and vision established for the Main Street Specific Plan based on the following: (1) The proposed restaurant is located within a Census Tract, 995.11, that has been identified by the State Department of Alcoholic beverage Control as being over-concentrated. Issuance of an additional alcohol sales license would be incompatible with the goals and policies of the Main Street Specific Plan, based on the alcohol and drug related incident and arrest information entered into the record of the public hearing. (2) The record of alcohol and drug related incidents and arrests presented by the Police Department, and included within the Planning Commission Staff Report, regarding the Main Street Specific Plan Area indicate a direct correlation with alcohol sales and these types of incidents and arrests, and further indicate that restaurants with an alcohol license generate more such incidents that establishments without alcohol sales licenses. (3) The proposed use of the subject premises as a restaurant with alcohol sales is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood given the existing overconcentration of alcohol licenses within the "Old Town" area of the City, as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report and also would result in adverse impacts to pazking availability for both residents of the community and visitors to the City within the Main Street Specific Plan azea and the adjoining residential areas of the City (c) The building and property at 210 Main St. are inadequate in size, shape, topography and location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property, based on the following: (1) The subject property is a rectangular shaped property that is 25'-0" feet wide by 117'-6" feet deep. The proposed lease space for the 3 of 5 Planning Commission Resolution 09-16 Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street (Waki Sushi) Apri18, 2009 restaurant shows an approximately 21'-11" by 55'-9" area. The property is developed with an existing single-story retail building fronting Mairi Street, as well as a two-story residential property with a single car garage at the rear of the building. (2) Based on the configuration of the proposed restaurant's floor plan, the use would encompass a floor area of 1,087 squaze feet. The required parking ratio for restaurants is 1:100. Thus, the proposed restaurant would need 11 parking spaces. The proposed restaurant use would be `grandfathered' for three (3) pazking spaces, based on the MSSP pazking requirements for general retail uses (1:500). Thus, the Municipal Code requires 8 more spaces. As noted above, the applicant cannot provide any on-site parking, resulting in adverse impacts to parking availability for both residents of the community and visitors to the City within the Main Street Specific Plan area and the adjoining residential azeas of the City. (d) The proposed use does result in a conflict with the Specific Plan's goal to establish and maintain a balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non-local populations based on the following: (1) The proposed restaurant with on-premise alcohol sales would result in an adverse addition to the commercial character of Main Street by providing for anover-concentration of restaurant businesses within the Main Street area, which impacts pazking availability for both residents of the community and visitors to the City. There are currently 17 restaurants operating within the Main Street Specific Plan area that have on- premise alcohol licenses. In addition there are 2 bars located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. (2) The proposed restaurant is located within a Census Tract, 995.11, that has been identified by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as being over-concentrated. (3) The record of alcohol and drug related incidents and arrests presented by the Police Department, and included within the Planning Commission Staff Report, regazding the Main Street Specific Plan Area indicate a direct correlation with alcohol sales and these types of incidents and arrests, and further indicate that restaurants with an alcohol license generate more such incidents that establishments without alcohol sales licenses. (4) The proposed use of the subject premises as a restaurant with alcohol sales is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood given the existing overconcentration of alcohol licenses within the "Old Town" area of the City, as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report, and the utilization of the In-Lieu parking program does not result in the creation of additional pazking spaces within the Main Street Specific Plan area, resulting in additional adverse impacts to parking availability for both residents of the community and visitors to the City within the Main Street Specific Plan area and the adjoining residential areas of the City. (e) The use will not contribute to the unique chazacter of Main Street and the qualities that provide Main Street a sense of identity based on the following: (1) The proposed restaurant with on-premise alcohol sales would result in an adverse addition to the commercial chazacter of Main Street by 4of5 Planning Commission Resolution 09-16 Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street (Waki Sushi) Apri18, 2009 providing for anover-concentration of restaurant businesses within the Main Street area, which impacts parking availability for both residents of the community and visitors to the City. (2) The record of alcohol and drug related incidents and arrests presented by the Police Department, and included within the Planning Commission Staff Report, regarding the Main Street Specific Plan Area indicate a direct correlation with alcohol sales and these types of incidents and arrests, and further indicate that restaurants with an alcohol license generate more such incidents that establishments without alcohol sales licenses. (3) The proposed use of the subject premises as a restaurant with alcohol sales is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood given the existing overconcentration of alcohol licenses within the "Old Town" area of the City, as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies Conditional Use Permit 09-3 without prejudice. Section 7. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council waive the appeal fee if this decision is appealed to the City Council by the project applicant. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of Apri12009 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Deaton, Eagar, Larson, and Massa-Lavitt NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners Bello ABSTAIN: Cormissioners None Ellery Deaton Chairperson, Planning Commission L e 'ttenberg Secretary, Planning Commission ***** 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 8, 2009 2 15. Conditional Use Permit 09-3 3 210 Main Street (Waki Sushi) 4 5 Applicant/Owner: Yong & Jane Park /Gary Putnam & Yvette Jacobson 6 Request: Establish a new restaurant use with a Type 41 (Beer & Wine - Eating Place) ABC license within the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone. ' Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 09-16. Staff Report 16 Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 17 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item noting 18 that the facility proposed for this restaurant use is in the 200 block of Main Street and 19 was the previous location for "Sweet Berry Bliss," a frozen yogurt shop, and for many 20 years before that was "Grandma's Cookies," and is located just north of the Bank of 21 America. The previous uses of the building are classified a dessert shop/coffee house 22 under the standards of the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) and that type of use has a 23 different parking requirement than a restaurant use, as indicated in the Staff Report 24 discussion on the requirements for "in-lieu parking" based on that difference in parking 25 standards. On the rear of the property there is a two-story structure, which is a single- 26 car garage with a living unit above it, and the front building for the proposed restaurant 27 use itself is single-story. Both the buildings are old enough that Staff could not find 28 building permit records for the initial construction of either of these structures. The 29 general position of Staff is that these uses are nonconforming and when new 30 applications come before the Planning Commission (PC) they must be made as 31 conforming as possible. Within the MSSP there are a number of findings that must be 32 made in order to approve requests for Conditional Use Permits (CUP), as shown on 33 Page 3 of the Staff Report: 34 35 ^ The use is consistent with the provisions of the City's General Plan, and is also 36 consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan. 37 ^ The use is compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general, and 38 not detrimental to the neighborhood. 39 ^ The subject property is adequate in size, shape, topography, and location to meet 40 the needs of the use of the property. 41 ^ The use is consistent with the intent and purpose and vision established for the 42 MSSP. 43 ^ The use does not conflict with the Specific Plan's goal to establish and maintain a 44 balanced mix of uses that serve. the needs of both local and non-local populations. 45 ^ The use will contribute to the unique character of Main Street and the qualities that 46 provide Main Street a sense of identity. 2 Those are findings that the PC must make to approve both the conversion to a 3 restaurant use and to approve the requested alcohol use on this property. 4 5 Also in-lieu parking issues arise in this type of use because of the change in parking 6 requirements. For a dessert shop/coffee house use the parking standard is 1 parking 7 space per 500 sq. ft. of building area; for a restaurant it is 1 parking space per 100 sq. 8 ft. In this case 11 spaces total are required, with 3 spaces grandfathered based on the 9 size of the current building as a dessert shop use, leaving a net deficiency of 8 spaces. 10 The City's in-lieu parking fee is $3,500 per space, so the total required fee to allow the 11 conversion to a restaurant is $28,000. The PC has given Staff some direction on a fairly 12 recent application on Main Street to spread that payment schedule out as far as 13 realistically possible with a 7-year time period the longest time allowed for the payment 14 of fees, but the actual terms and conditions are something that would be negotiated 15 between the business operator and City Staff. 16 17 The discussion on the proposed alcohol use as opposed to the restaurant use itself is 18 found in the Staff Report beginning on Page 5. Alcohol uses on Main Street have 19 always been a concern to the community and in 1996 there was a major revision to the 20 MSSP that set in place the in-lieu fee of $3,500, the requirement for a CUP, and when 21 the MSSP was going through the revision process, there was extensive discussion 22 about the City trying to establish a numerical cap on alcohol licenses allowed on Main 23 Street. That discussion between PC, City Council (CC), and the public went on for 24 approximately one and one-half years. The end result was that the City determined not 25 to impose any numerical caps on alcohol licenses permitted on Main Street, and would 26 leave this to the discretion of the City through the CUP process. Information from the 27 Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) as to how many licenses could 28 occur within the Main Street/Old Town area appears on Page 5 of the Staff Report. 29 Those numbers are determined by ABC on what is called a census tract basis. There 30 are two census tracts that comprise Old Town, with the tract numbers of 995.11 and 31 995.12. They basically split Old Town down Central Avenue; one tract is Central 32 Avenue to the ocean and the other tract is Central Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway 33 (PCH). ABC has a ratio that is determined on a statewide basis for what puts a 34 particular census tract into an over concentrated situation, and this number is 35 determined on a yearly basis by state ABC based upon population estimates provided 36 by the state. Based upon the current population in those areas, the total on-sale 37 licenses would be 7 in both census tracts in order to not have an over concentration of 38 licenses. Those two census tracts include the south side of PCH and whatever 39 restaurant uses might be along PCH in addition to Main Street. Currently the City 40 has 29 licensed locations in these two census tracts, and on Pages 5 and 6 of the Staff 41 Report a detailed listing of each of those licensed locations is shown with the name of 42 the business, the address, and the census tract. In 1995, as a result of consideration of 43 an application for a proposed restaurant in the 300 block of Main Street, the PC 44 determination was to approve the restaurant use and deny the alcohol sales, and when 45 the matter eventually went before CC they asked for some overview of these issues. In 46 December 2005, CC gave specific direction to Staff to not make recommendations on 1 an alcohol license application in the Main Street area, so tonight's Staff Report does not 2 make a recommendation on the alcohol sales, but presents the information that is 3 consistently provided on all application in the Main Street area. Staff is recommending 4 approval of the restaurant use, but does not make a recommendation for the alcohol 5 sales. The standard conditions for an alcohol license are included in the Staff Report, 6 should the PC determine to approve this. Staff has also provided the information on 7 Page 12 showing which conditions would need to be removed, should the PC consider 8 approving the matter without alcohol sales. For the record Staff received a letter from 9 the Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce in support of CUP 09-3 and also a letter from 10 Warren and Mitzi Morton indicating their opposition to approval CUP 09-3 and 11 requesting that the matter be denied. 12 13 Commissioner Questions 14 15 Commissioner Larson asked if Condition No. 4 on Page 9 should read "...indicating 16 the availability of beer and wine ..." Mr. Whittenberg indicated that that would be 17 corrected. 18 19 Commissioner Eagar asked if the proposed restaurant is to be located in Census Tract 20 995.12. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner Eagar noted 21 that this census tract has 14 alcohol licenses. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there are 14; 22 however, 3 would be the number indicated by ABC to not be over concentrated. He 23 noted that Staff has combined both tracts, as Staff has always looked at Main Street as 24 a whole, but due to population growth, since the 2000 census Main Street was split into 25 two census tracts. Chairperson Deaton indicated that the number of licenses along all 26 of Main Street, which is 19, is the number that would be relevant. 27 28 Public Hearing 29 30 Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing. 31 32 The applicant, Yong Park, stated that before closing escrow he was not aware of all the 33 licensing requirements, and although he understands about the over concentration of 34 alcohol licenses, he believes that the sale of alcohol would be an essential part of 35 operating a Japanese restaurant. He questioned the prospect of the restaurant 36 succeeding without the ability to offer beer, sake, or wine to its customers. He stated 37 that he hopes to open the restaurant as soon as possible, and cannot wait 6-12 months 38 to receive approval for an alcohol license as restaurant sales would not be strong 39 enough for it to succeed. He requested approval of CUP 09-3. 40 41 Seth Eaker spoke in favor of CUP 09-3 citing diversity of uses along Main Street and 42 noting that restaurants represent the engine that drives destination travel on evenings 43 and weekends. He noted that there has been a recent increase in ethnic dining choices 44 creating a positive and diverse dining experience for residents and visitors. With regard 45 to alcohol licenses he suggested imposing a 6-month review period to see if this 46 restaurant would be a good fit for the community, noting that Pho Basil Leaf was 1 approved without alcohol sales and has been doing well. He then thanked the PC for its 2 direction in allowing Staff to disburse the payment of in-lieu parking fees over a period 3 of time. He recommended approval of CUP 09-3. 4 5 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public 6 hearing. 7 8 Commissioner Comments 9 ' 10 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF DISCUSSION. 11 12 Chairperson Deaton: 13 14 There were a number of people who talked to me about this and, frankly, I expected 15 there to be a large concern with the alcohol permits. I did not expect there to be a large 16 concern with the restaurant itself. The feedback that people gave me was the "diversity 17 of use has to do with the diversity of parking demand," and in some ways I have never 18 thought of that. The reason that we want to have restaurants is so that we have foot 19 traffic for our other businesses, but also, the other businesses need places for their 20 patrons to park, and if the restaurants are going to take up all of the parking because of 21 their higher parking demand, then there is no place for the people to park and go to the 22 other businesses, which are the ones that, frankly, are having more trouble in town right 23 now than anyone else. We have already seen a number of businesses go out. I know I 24 just saw Main Street Financial, The Travel Center, the clothing store, although we did 25 get another clothing store in there, which is really nice. We had the T-shirt store that 26 went out, but then again we got a children's' shop in there. I think the biggest concern 27 to the residents that talked to me is parking, parking, parking, and after that was alcohol, 28 which, frankly, surprised me. I thought the biggest concern would have been alcohol. I 29 had a woman who called me today who said, "I love sushi and I would love to have a 30 sushi restaurant, but I can't walk down Main Street and I can't find a parking spot." She 31 said that it was absolutely not appropriate to add yet another restaurant. I would like 32 to propose something and see what my fellow Commissioners think. I would like to 33 continue this and send it to CC and ask them, since they are the elected and they~are 34 really the ones that need to grapple with this, "What to you want to do on this?" I mean 35 we have the in-lieu parking, which is great, the City makes money off of it, I guess, but it 36 doesn't mitigate anything. It doesn't give us any parking spaces. What we need are 37 parking spaces before we can put in another intensive use for parking. So I would really 38 like to continue it and ask that the CC tell us: "What do you want to do about more 39 restaurants on Main Street?" "What do you want to do about more alcohol permits?" 40 "How do you want to handle this?" because once we give an alcohol permit, we may 41 give an alcohol permit for sushi and two years later the sushi restaurant is gone and that 42 alcohol permit is still there. One of the big problems that we are hearing about now is 43 that the sidewalks are not clean enough because of the different alcohol-related 44 establishments, and so forth. I don't feel confident to make this decision on behalf of 45 the elected. 46 1 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: 2 3 I agree with you that CC needs to make a decision on what they are going to do about 4 the parking issue. They can't keep collecting money and not provide any parking 5 spaces. Your thoughts are "right on" there. I don't want to keep this business, however, 6 from being able to move forward pending an action of the CC. I think that would be a 7 true hardship on this business. So I would want to move ahead with these guys and 8 have them go in and have their beer and wine license. The point is well taken that a 9 sushi restaurant generally does not foment the' kind of rowdy behavior that maybe a 10 Clancy's or Hennessey's or that an O'Malley's does at certain times of the year or on 11 the weekends, but because of that I do not want to see them not be able to move 12 ahead. I would like to continue on with your thought, Chair Deaton, to recommend to 13 the CC that they come up with solutions to the problems down here. Maybe we need a 14 parking structure. I don't know where they are going to put it, but it's been done. It 15 would take a good deal of thought and work, but those kinds of things can happen in a 16 dense downtown, and maybe it's time for them to "bite the bullet" and come up with a 17 solution. 18 19 Chairperson Deaton: 20 21 I cannot in conscience go forward with it. With 19 alcohol permits out there, knowing 22 how the constituents down here feel about it, and living a half block off of it and ending 23 up with no parking in the neighborhood. So, it gives me a real problem to do that. I also 24 know that there are other establishments in town that the minute we give this one, they 25 will all be back and say, "Hey, we've already been here, so now it's our turn to get an 26 alcohol permit." I don't know how we would justify, for instance, a restaurant we just 27 approved coming in and saying, "Wait a minute. I want mine now." 28 29 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: 30 31 Is it possible to do an ABC moratorium just on Main Street? 32 33 34 35 Quinn Barrow: 36 37 It may be possible. The only prohibition would be if we have done that before in the 38 City. You should only do a moratorium once. Lee and I were actually talking about this 39 in the past and we don't know if there has been a moratorium on the issuance of CUPs 40 on Main Street in the past, but we would have to consider that, number one. Number 41 two, as you know, the CC is the only body that has that power, so you could 42 recommend it to the CC. With respect to considering these different suggestions of the 43 Commission, there is a way to accomplish what the Chair wants; however, to continue 44 this matter and send it up to the CC wouldn't work, because they are the appellate body 45 of this body, and so if they provided input while this is still within your jurisdiction then 46 basically they would be "tainted" from the process and would not be able to hear any 1 appeals. So there are other ways to accomplish what you would want, but I just want to 2 point that out. 3 4 Chai~erson Deaton: 5 6 Would the appropriate way to do it maybe be to deny it and then if it gets appealed, then 7 the CC could address it at that point? 8 9 Quinn Barrow: ' 10 11 That's one of the ways, but there are really 3 different ways: 12 13 1. You could deny without prejudice. Essentially that means that for them to reapply 14 they would not have to wait a year. 15 2. There is also the issue of there could be a suggestion to waive the fee to appeal. 16 3. Another way is the CC always has the power to call things up for review and that 17 way it is not an appeal, but in essence they would still have the same type of hearing 18 de novo before the CC, but that is also a way that they would not have to pay the 19 appeal fee. 20 21 Chairperson Deaton: 22 23 Well then, I think what I would like to do is recommend that we deny it without prejudice 24 and waive the appeal fee. 25 26 Quinn Barrow: 27 28 You would make that recommendation, because only the CC can waive that, but your 29 motion would be to deny without prejudice and recommend to the CC that they can 30 appeal without paying the fee. 31 32 33 34 35 Commissioner Larson: 36 37 I know what your problem is and I guess we all share it. My understanding of the 38 applicant's statement was that he wasn't aware before he closed escrow, everybody 39 has that problem I guess, that there are licensing problems and zoning problems, and a 40 lot of other problems, but we are not having a meeting for a month. 41 42 Chairperson Deaton: 43 44 But the Council will, so if we go ahead and deny it then it can go on to CC. 45 46 Commissioner Larson: That's right. Commissioner Eat: When is the Council meeting? Lee Whittenber~: First off the Commission needs to make your decision on what you think is the best decision because you may deny in anticipation that an appeal may be filed, but if an appeal is not filed, after 10 days your decision is the final decision. Chairperson Deaton: Which is fine too, but the whole things is we have a problem here, and it is not limited to just one particular application and we're going to get ourselves in serious trouble by "piecemealing this decision." I think we really need to get direction from CC and I like Quinn's suggestion that we do it that way so that we're not "muddying the water." Lee Whittenber~: Keep in mind that assuming Commission goes down the road of denying the application and recommending to Council that an appeal fee be waived, if an appeal is filed, there is a 10-day period to file the appeal, depending upon when that gets submitted to the City, assuming one is applied for. If it's fairly quickly, we might be able to get it on a May meeting, it depends on publication dates for newspapers and a number of other things, so it just depends on when those things fall into place, as to how quickly something may get to CC, and I can't give you definite answers on that. Commissioner Larson: What happened to another one on the 300 block that got to Council, where the Commission had said O.K. for food, but no liquor? Lee Whittenberg: That business eventually decided not to activate this CUP and it was reapproved for a wine tasting business as opposed to a restaurant. Chairperson Deaton: That is my suggestion, especially without Commissioner Bello here tonight, who also shares this district. I feel the responsibility is beyond us. Commissioner Larson: 1 I agree with that. I share your concern. I think I know what it is. You remember that 2 some time ago we went back with what to do with a property that backs up to Gum 3 Grove Nature Park on their setbacks. Well, we sent it up to the Council and they sent it 4 back and we sent it back up to the Council and they sent it back. 5 6 Chairperson Deaton: 7 8 In this case we have an application though, and I think it has to be dealt with within a 9 certain period of time. ' 10 11 Commissioner Larson: 12 13 You've convinced me and I'm not sure that people won't say we've been unfair, but we 14 have to face that, that some of the deals we make we think we're being fair and we are 15 trying to do what is best for the City, and if the Council says give as many alcohol 16 permits as you want, then its fine. If they say we want to stop, then that's fine too. 17 Chairperson Deaton: 18 19 The bottom line is that they are the elected and they are the ones who are going to be 20 held accountable for the decision that we make. 21 22 Commissioner Larson: 23 24 Yeah, that's right. I'll second your motion, if it hasn't been seconded. 25 26 Commissioner Eagar: 27 28 I am kind of torn here, because I am always in favor of business, and I would like to see 29 them start their business, but then, we're "saturated" with alcohol permits here and 30 that's not including our end of Seal Beach. 31 32 33 34 35 Lee Whittenber~: 36 37 The other option that the Commission has this evening you can approve the Conditional 38 Use Permit for the restaurant use without the alcohol. 39 40 Chairperson Deaton: 41 42 I don't feel that that's the right way to go because I've had so many complaints about 43 the parking issue, and if we get more restaurants, I mean, how do we, when do we 44 stop? At what point do we stop giving restaurants, so I would personally like the Council 45 to direct us. If they say, "You know, we're just going to bite the bullet," you know, 46 maybe eventually people will go down and use the beach lot and blab, blah, blah, I would just like the Council to make that decision because people are really unhappy about the parking intensification that is coming about with the restaurant use. Commissioner Larson: Former Mayor Antos will then bring up his lifelong goal to build parking under Eisenhower Park. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: Is there a way that we can tie; well, what we have is a motion to deny, and that would be deny the restaurant and the ABC license. Would we then, under a separate recommendation from the PC ask the CC to either direct the PC or take it upon themselves to come up with solutions for the parking issues on Main Street? Chairperson Deaton: I think there are a number of things that we need to ask, and one of them is: 1. What about more restaurant use. Does this bother you or not? 2. What about the alcohol use. Does this bother you or not? 3. How are we rather than just accepting money when people don't have parking spaces, how do we mitigate the parking issue? Like Mr. Larson says, there has been a plan floated out there for a long time, and that is to roll back Eisenhower Park, put parking under it, and roll Eisenhower Park back over the top, but then you're asking people to, I mean they could park down at the beach now and they don't want to walk down there. This is a big issue. This isn't an easily solved issue, and I do believe that this is a Council issue and not a Planning Commission issue. Commissioner Eagan: How many spaces does this restaurant get? Chairperson Deaton: They need to pay for 8 spaces and they are grandfathered in for 3. But these are "virtual spaces," they're not real. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: And there is no place to put them. Commissioner Eagan: I can see your point now. 1 2 Chairperson Deaton: . 3 4 Go on the computer and you play these virtual shopping trips and you're paying money 5 for all of this stuff, but it's virtual, it's not real. 6 7 Commissioner Larson: 8 9 But when you open up parking you open up Sunday parking and the permits to the 10 church, take away parking permit from a swim school that wasn't allowed to. It's 11 probably the most difficult thing that can happen to Seal Beach. There is just no 12 parking. We've got a couple of lots that the City of Long Beach manages; the church 13 brings people in from shuttle buses. 14 15 Chairperson Deaton: 16 17 I know that Staff has been working on this with various members of the community on 18 new ideas on how to handle the parking, different ideas have come up, and, of course, 19 it's just like bringing up parking meters again. Everybody has a different opinion and a 20 different idea, but the fact is that we're at the place "where the rubber meets the road." 21 With the economy the way it is about the only thing being really successful are 22 restaurants that are serving alcohol. What we are looking at is turning Main Street into 23 a very undiverse use of restaurants with alcohol permits. 24 25 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: 26 27 I don't think that's going to happen. In every built community, downtown 2"d Street 28 Belmont Shore, they have the same issue. 29 30 Chairperson Deaton: 31 32 Oh, they do. I can't tell you how many people tell me, "I don't want to be Belmont 33 Shore." 34 35 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: 36 37 We are Belmont Shore, only on a smaller scale. There's no place else to put parking, 38 and it means cutting off a whole use potential on the street. That means we will have 39 no more new restaurants on Main Street until this issue is settled. 40 41 Chairperson Deaton: 42 43 Unless some go out of business. The problem is we have not faced, until now with Pho 44 Basil Leaf, which just happened, and now this; non-restaurant use buildings that are 45 being turned into restaurant use. Oh no, and the Wine Cellar. Those three are brand 46 new uses. Those are the only three in the six years I have been on the PC and they have all happened recently, since we've entered this problem area. So I just feel that the CC needs to grapple with this because, otherwise, we are making decisions that they have to face their constituents for. Commissioner Larson: Well I recommended once that we take the theater and the gas station that was there and turn that into a parking lot. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: Shopping in front and, you know little stores in front and a structure above and behind. Why don't we call for the question? I'll call for the question. Lee lYhittenberQ: If I might just restate the motion, it is to deny the application. Chairperson Deaton: It is to deny the application without prejudice and to recommend to the CC to hear an appeal with no appeal fee. Commissioner Larson: We don't have an understanding if the applicant would be happy with operating without a liquor license. I gather he wants the liquor license. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: I think we should still give him the opportunity, though. Chairperson Deaton: But we still have the issue of the restaurant and the parking. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: Oh, that's right. Commissioner Ea~ar: At this point in time before we vote, should the applicant .. . 1 Chairperson Deaton: . 2 3 The question has been called for. 4 5 MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Larson to deny Conditional Use Permit 09-3 without 6 prejudice and recommend to City Council that the appeal fee be waived. 7 8 MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 -1 9 AYES: Deaton, Eagar, Larson, and Massa-Lavitt 10 NOES: None 11 ABSENT: Bello 12 13 O.K. that's four zero to deny the application without prejudice and to allow you time to 14 go to an appeal process to the CC without paying a fee. 15 16 Lee Whittenber~: 17 18 We don't have a resolution before you at this point in time, but what we will do is take 19 the discussion and fold it into a resolution that we'll have completed by tomorrow to 20 present to the applicant for him to use as part of that appeal, and we will provide it to the 21 Commission at that same time. 22 23 Chairperson Deaton: 24 25 So now we're at the end of the agenda, right? 26 27 Quinn Barrow: 28 29 Yes. 30 . 31 Chairperson Deaton: 32 33 What I would like to do now is I would like to make a motion, and if it works for you 34 guys, what I would like to do is ask the CC to direct us, specifically, on what they want 35 to do about Main Street restaurants, liquor permits, etc. It's one thing to address this as 36 one thing, but now we need some direction on how they want us to handle Main Street, 37 with the understanding that there are 19 liquor licenses just on that one street there with 38 the understanding that we have a parking issue. Where they eventually park is in the 39 neighborhoods, and so people coming home at night are competing with the people that 40 are eating on Main Street to park. It's a knotty issue that I would like directions on this. 41 42 Commissioner Larson: 43 44 Is that going to open up the Specific Plan? 45 46 Chairperson Deaton: 1 2 It may not open up the Specific Plan. It may just simply be an interpretation of the Main 3 Street Specific Plan. 4 5 Lee Whittenber~: 6 7 I think those are some issues that if the Commission approves the suggested motion 8 that is before them, we'll have to huddle with Staff and see how that process would work 9 out and present something to CC and they will probably end up giving us direction as to 10 how far they want us to go with this. 11 12 Quinn Barrow: 13 14 If I could interrupt, I just want to make it clear to the applicant that the PC has denied 15 your application without prejudice, you have 10 days to file an appeal with the City 16 Clerk, and the PC is recommending to the CC that they consider your appeal without 17 any appeal fee. Number two; technically your issue is not on the agenda, so I would 18 suggest that you direct Staff to make a verbatim transcript of this discussion and 19 present it to the Council at the next available CC meeting and then the Council can give 20 us direction. 21 22 Chairperson Deaton: 23 24 Can I go forward with my motion? 25 26 Quinn Barrow: 27 28 Not with a motion, but I if there is no objection, we are going to send this transcript to 29 the Council and you can direct Staff to make it clear exactly the points that you want the 30 Council to consider. 31 32 Commissioner Ea~ar: 33 34 What are we directing Staff? I want to make sure ... 35 Chairperson Deaton: 36 37 I think there are three items: the parking issue, the restaurant issue, and the alcohol 38 permit issue. 39 40 Lee Whittenberg: 41 42 What we'll do is prepare a verbatim transcript of the discussion that's gone on; that will 43 get submitted to Council. The next available Council meeting it will be able to be on 44 would be the April 27tH Council meeting, because their agenda is done for the April 13tH 45 meeting. 46 Commissioner Ea~ar: So we're directing Staff to make sure that these points are brought up to Council and they will then come back and direct you? Lee Whittenberg: They may; they may not. We don't know right now. Commissioner Eagar: I want something to be concrete coming out of this; I want something to be established. I know this has been "a sore subject for eons." Lee Whittenber~: The best we can do and the best Commission can do is forward information to Council and then it is up to Council to determine how they wish to respond to that request. Chairperson Deaton: But his comments will be taken down verbatim, right? That he would like something concrete coming out of this. Lee Whittenber~: That is correct. ATTACHMENT 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-3, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, DATED APRIL 8, 2009 April 8, 2009 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairwoman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street (Waki Sushi) GENERAL DESCRIPTION AppllCantS: YONG ~ .1ANE PARK GARY PUTNAM & YVETTE .1ACOBSON Location: 210 MAIN STREET Classification of Property: MAIN ST. SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (MSSP) Request: FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW RESTAURANT USE WITH A TYPE 41 (BEER 8~ WINE -EATING PLACE) ABC LICENSE. Environmental Review: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW AND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEGATIVE DECLARATION 96-1 Code Sections: 28-1250; 28-2503; 28-2504 Recommendation: STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NEW RESTAURANT AND IS NEUTRAL ON THE GRANTING OF THE TYPE 41 ABC LICENSE; THE COMMISSION MAY EITHER APPROVE OR DENY ALL OR PART OF CUP 09-3, THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 09-16. Z:\Conditional Use Permits\CUP 09-3 210 Main Street (Waki Sushi)\CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report.doc Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Streef Apri18, 2009 FACTS ® On March 5, 2009, Yong & Jane Park (the "Applicants") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 09-3. ® The subject property is described as Orange County assessor's parcel # 199-043- 12. ® The proposed restaurant is approximately 1,087 square feet in size and the proposed floor plan shows approximately 14 seats at tables and an additional 8 seats at a bar area located along the southern interior portion of the restaurant. ~ The subject property is a rectangular shaped property that is 25'-0" feet wide by 117'-6" feet deep. The proposed lease space for the restaurant shows an approximately 21'-11" by 55'-9" area. The property is developed with an existing single-story retail building fronting Main Street, as well as a two-story residential property with a single car garage at the rear of the building. ® There is no record of the property receiving any previous approvals or use permits from the City. The most recent business that was located on the property was "Sweet Berry Bliss", a frozen yogurt shop. This previous business was apparently 'grandfathered' as a permitted use within the Main Street Specific Plan zone, and was also known as `Grandma's Cookies' prior to the establishment of the frozen yogurt shop. © Aside from the residential unit on the premises, the nearest residential properties are located to the rear of the subject premises, east of the alley to the rear of the property, approximately 75 feet from the proposed business. ~ The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: ^ NORTH, SOUTH, and WEST -Retail businesses in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) zone. ^ EAST -Residential uses in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone ® Sergeant Tim Olsen with the Seal Beach Police Department, has reviewed the application and has no concerns regarding the subject request, other than it could potentially be another establishment serving alcohol on Main Street. ® As of March 30, 2009, the Planning Department has not received any comments to the public hearing notices published and mailed regarding this application. CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 2 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permif 09-3 210 Main Sfreef April 8, 2009 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of a sushi restaurant with a Type 41 (Beer & Wine -Eating Place) ABC license at 210 Main Street. There is no previous history of any use., permits or discretionary actions by the City at this address. The Main Street Specific Plan allows for restaurants, as well as on-premise and off- premise alcohol sales businesses, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The use must be found consistent with the following findings, as specified in the Zoning Ordinance: ^ ~ The use is consistent with the provisions of the City's General Plan, and is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. ^ The use is compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general, and is not detrimental to the neighborhood. ^ The subject property is adequate in size, shape, topography and location to meet the needs of the use of the property. ^ Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensures there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the use. ^ The use is consistent with the intent and purpose and vision established for the Main Street Specific Plan. ^ The use does not conflict with the Specific Plan's goal to establish and maintain a balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non-local populations. ^ The use will contribute to the unique character of Main Street and the qualities that provide Main Street a sense of identity. ^ The use complies with all applicable City Council Policies, such as the policies the Council has adopted concerning alcohol uses. The above findings direct the determinations of the Planning Commission regarding the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. The Commission would need to make affirmative findings to support each of the above criteria if it determines to grant the subject request. The proposed business is to be a sushi restaurant, a use that is not currently provided elsewhere on Main Street, and would add an additional option to the existing restaurants on Main Street. . T.he subject property does not provide any off-street parking spaces and is classified as a "legal, nonconforming property". While staff was unable to find original building permits for the property, something that is not uncommon for many of Main Street's older structures, the building is assumed to be legally constructed, permit records on file CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 3 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 date back to 1958, and does not now comply with the established parking standards of the City. Pursuant to the provisions of the MSSP, the proposed restaurant use would be `grandfathered' for three (3) parking spaces, based on the MSSP parking requirements for general retail uses (1:500). Based on the configuration of the proposed restaurant's floor plan, the use would encompass a floor area~~of 1,087 square feet. Restaurants are parked at a ratio of 1:100, meaning a 1,087 square foot restaurant would require eleven (11) parking spaces. Since the lease space is grandfathered for 3 spaces, the project would require an additional eight (8) parking spaces. This could be accomplished through either securing eight (8) off-site parking spaces, or the payment of an additional in-lieu parking fee of $3,500.00 per space in accordance with the provisions of Section 28-1256(H) (Please refer to Attachment 4 to review the complete language of the Main Street Specific Plan Zone parking standards). The total `in-lieu" fee that would be required to be paid for the proposed restaurant is $ 28,000.00. Per MSSP requirements, the maximum permitted operating hours would be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday, and Holidays. The proposed sushi restaurant is in conformance with several urban design factors that are identified within the adopted Main Street Specific Plan and the resulting Main Street Specific Plan Zone, as set forth in Sections 28-1250 through 28-1257 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. The applicable urban design factors identified by staff include: ^ Provision of transparent storefronts with views into shops, offices, and restaurants; ^ Eclectic architecture without national trademark buildings; and ^ Building facades limited to 35-50 feet in width. The proposed sushi restaurant reinforces these identified urban design factors specified in the Main Street Specific Plan and further complies with the provisions of Section 28- 1253.A.1, 28-1253.A.4, and Section 28-1253.A.6., which discusses transparency of store fronts; facade setbacks; and facade width and appearance of interconnecting buildings. Staff feels that the proposed sushi restaurant would be a positive addition to this area of Main Street and would be developed in a manner to not be detrimental to adjoining properties. The proposed sushi restaurant would be blocked by the mass of the existing 1 and 2-story commercial buildings along Main Street, as well as the residential unit that is located at the rear of the subject property and therefore noise impacts to the residential neighborhood to the northeast are anticipated to be less than significant. The residential unit at the rear of the property is built to both side property lines and will help to attenuate any noise generated by the restaurant operation. Staff is unaware of any adverse noise impacts that occurred from the previous business at the location. CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Repoli 4 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street Apri18, 2009 Overconcentration of alcoholic beverage licenses: Overconcentration of alcoholic beverage licenses has been an issue within the city in the past, particularly in areas with high crime reporting districts. The State's Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, Regulation 61.3, says that if an area has both high crime and an over concentration of ABC licenses, ABC can automatically deny an application for a liquor license. Several years ago, the City's Police Chief made a request to ABC that the City be placed under Regulation 61.3. The purpose of this request was to give ABC a basis on which to deny a license request. However, a City may approve a CUP application in an over concentrated area if it so desires. ABC calculates the total number of ABC licenses in Orange County and divides the total County population by the number of ABC licenses to determine a ratio of licenses per capita. ABC then takes the latest US Census population statistics for the Census Tract in which a license is to be placed and compares it with the ratio of a number of people per license. If there are more licenses than the number allowed, the ABC considers that census tract over concentrated. The current ratio (based on the last available census data) is 1 on-sale license per 952 people in a census tract, and 1 off sale license per 1,751 people. Based on the information available to Staff, the following data was gathered regarding Census Tract 995.11, the tract in which the subject property is located, and Census Tract 995.12. Census Tract 995.11 encompasses "Old Town" southerly of Electric Avenue, Fifth Street and Marina Drive, while Census Tract 995.12 encompasses "Old Town" northerly of that boundary up to Pacific Coast Highway. The following table indicates the current ABC licensing regulations and permits issued for both Census Tract Areas: Census Tract Population 2000 On Sale Allowed On Sale Have Off Sale Allowed Off Sale Have 995.11 3,416 4 15 2 3 995.12 2,766 3 14 2 4 Total 6,182 7 29 4 7 The licensed off-sale establishments in Census.Tracts 995.11 and 995.12 are: ^ Seal Beach Liquor, 112 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ^ Angelo's Italian Deli, 133 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ^ Dolphin Market, 1430 Ocean Avenue (Tract 995.11) ^ West Beach Liquor, 462 Pacific Coast Highway (Tract 995.12). ^ 7-Eleven, 1200 Pacific Coast Highway (Tract 995.12) ^ Bay Liquor, 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (Tract 995.12), and ^ Marina Liquor, 412 Marina Drive (Tract 995.12) CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 5 . Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 The licensed on-sale establishments in Census Tracts 995.11 and 995.12 are: ^ River's End Cafe, 15 First Street (Tract 995.11) . ^ Seaside Grill, 101 Main Street, Suite O (Tract 995.11) ^ Clancy's Saloon, 111 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ^ Taco Surf, 115 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ^ Thai on Main, 117 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ^ Irisher, 121 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ^ Beachwood BBQ, 131 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ^ Old Town Cafe, 137 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ^ O'Malleys, 140 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ^ Hennessey's Tavern, 143 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ^ Walt's Wharf, 201 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ^ Woody's Diner, 209 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ^ Ruby's (at the Pier), 900 Ocean Avenue (Tract 995.11) ^ Kinda Lahaina Restaurant, 901 Ocean Avenue (Tract 995.11) ^ EI Burrito Jr., 909 Ocean Avenue (Tract 995.11) ^ Main Street Wine Cellar, 302 Main Street (Tract 995.12) ^ Athens West, 303 Main Street (Tract 995.12) ^ The Abbey, 306 Main Street (Tract 995.12) ^ Three Twenty Main, 320 Main Street (Tract 995.12) ^ Cafe Lafayette, 330 Main Street (Tract 995.12) ^ Patty's Place, 550 Pacific Coast Highway #104 (Tract 995.12) ^ Yucatan Grill, 550 Pacific Coast Highway #111 (Tract 995.12) ^ Restaurant Koi, 600 Pacific Coast Highway #A (Tract 995.12) ^ Thai Cuisine, 600 Pacific Coast Highway #108 (Tract 995.12) ^ Finbar's Italian Kitchen, 620 Pacific Coast Highway (Tract 995.12) ^ Kamikaze Sushi, 1013 Pacific Coast Highway (Tract 995.12) ^ Blackboard Bistro, 1198 Pacific Coast Highway #A (Tract 995.12) ^ Mahe Restaurant, 1400 Pacific Coast Highway (Tract 995.12) ^ Dave's Other Place, 1500 Pacific Coast Highway (Tract 995.12) Approving Alcohol Licenses in Overconcentrated Areas Staff would like to point out that merely being overconcentrated does not automatically necessitate denial of a new ABC license request. ABC reserves the right to automatically deny a request in an overconcentrated area, but individual cities are left with the ability to analyze individual applications as they arise and make decisions based on the individual circumstance. Staff is aware that new liquor licenses have been an issue along Main Street in the past, particularly with the street's close proximity to residential neighborhoods. The Main Street Specific Plan sets forth the general vision for the district, saying: "The vision for Main Street is small town America. Important features include a family town with friendly people who care for each other." The specific plan goes on to say "Part of Seal CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 6 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permif 09-3 210 Main Street Apri18, 2009 Beach's old town charm is the close proximity of its residential development to the commercial establishments. This arrangement is highly desirable." There is obviously a balance between the existence of restaurants, off-premise alcohol sales uses, and other visitor and locally serving businesses within the Main Street Specific Plan area, and the purpose of consideration of alcohol requests through the Conditional Use Permit process is the mechanism the City has chosen to evaluate this type of land use request. The issue of noise and other effects of overconcentration is worthy of note in this regard as well. Much of the fear regarding overconcentration comes from the fear that excessive noise, calls for police services, or other ill effects will result as a result of the new application. This is the thrust behind regulation 61.3 detailed above. However, this regulation gives cities the individual autonomy to analyze the applications on a case by case basis. In this case, the applicant seeks the ability to conduct a sushi restaurant where drinks such as sake (rice wine) and Japanese beers are common compliments to sushi dining. This type of a use is not anticipated to generate excessive noise concerns, based on typical clientele of such businesses, or other operation-related impacts to the adjacent commercial and residential land uses. In November 2005, Staff was requested to provide information to the City Council regarding the Planning Commission's previous consideration of CUP requests for new alcohol sales licenses within the Main Street Specific Plan Area. At their December 12, 2005 meeting, Staff did provide the Council with a background on approvals for two locations on Main Street (302 Main Street and 320 Main Street), and also provided an overview of public concerns, as well as a discussion as to how alcohol licenses are approved at both the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, as well as the City level. As a result of that meeting, with no objection from the Council, the Mayor requested that Staff take a more neutral position in Planning Commission Staff Reports, with regards to granting alcohol licenses; that Staff present information in Staff Reports as to the current number of licenses in the particular area in question and the impact; and that Staff not give a specific recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relevant testimony, written or oral, presented during the public hearing, approve the establishment of the proposed sushi restaurant; and is neutral on the granting of the requested Type 41 ABC license. The Commission determination to approve or deny all or part of the subject request must be based upon the following considerations: CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 7 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street Apri18, 2009 ^ Is Conditional Use Permit 09-3, as it may be proposed to be conditioned regarding business operations, consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's Genera! Plan, which provides a Main Street Specific Plan zoning designation for the subject property and permits off-premise alcoholic sales subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit? ^ Is Conditional Use Permit 09-3 also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies ~of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element? ^ Is the proposed use, as may be proposed to be conditioned regarding business operations, consistent with the intent and purpose and vision established for the Main Street Specific Plan? ^ Is the building and property at 210 Main Street adequate in size, shape, topography and location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property, as proposed to be conditioned? ^ Is the required adherence to applicable building and fire codes sufficient to ensure there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use? ^ Would the proposed use not conflict with the Specific Plan's goal to establish and maintain a balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non- local populations? ^ Will the proposed use contribute to the unique character of Main Street and the qualities that provide Main Street a sense of identity? ^ Will the proposed use comply with all applicable City Council Policies, such as the policies the Council has adopted concerning alcohol uses? Suctaested Conditions of Approval if Commission determines to approve Conditional Use Permit 09-3 with alcohol sales: If the Planning Commission determines it can make affirmative findings for the above items of consideration, Staff would then prepare the appropriate resolution for this request, including the imposition of the following conditions for on-premise alcohol sales; as well as any additional conditions deemed appropriate in conjunction with a restaurant: Conditional Use Permit 09-3 is approved for a Type 41 ABC License, "On-sale beer & wine -eating place" license designation as approved by the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Said license shall require a bona fide eating place on said premises. 2. The applicant shall comply with all restrictions placed on the license issued by the State of California's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). 3. All alcoholic beverages sold or consumed on the premises shall be in accordance with the license terms of the Alcohol Sales License issued by the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Sales. Consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited outside the establishment's enclosed building CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 8 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 space. There shall be posting of signs both inside and outside the licensed premises indicating that law prohibits drinking outside the licensed premises. 4. There shall be no advertisements on the premises indicating the availability of beer, and menus shall also not indicate the availability of beer for sale on the premises. 5. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant/licensee to provide all employees that sell or serve alcoholic beverages with the knowledge and skill enabling them to comply with their responsibilities under State of California law. 6. The knowledge and skills deemed necessary for responsible alcoholic beverage service shall include, but not be limited to the following topics and skills development: ^ State law relating to alcoholic beverages, particularly ABC and penal provisions concerning sales to minors and intoxicated persons, driving under the influence, hours of legal operation and penalties for violation of these laws. ^ The potential legal liabilities of owners and employees of businesses dispensing alcoholic beverages to patrons who may subsequently injure, kill, harm themselves or innocent victims as a result of the excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages. ^ Alcohol as a drug and its effects on the body and behavior, including the operation of motor vehicles. ^ Methods of dealing with intoxicated customers. 7. The following above criteria: ^ Provider: Program: Telephone: Date: Time: Cost: Place: ^ Provider: Program: Telephone: Date: Cost: customers and recognizing under age organizations provide training programs, which comply with the Dee,artment of Alcoholic Beverage Control Licensee Education on Alcohol & Drugs (LEAD) (714) 558-4101 1 stt Monday of each month 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Free ABC, 28 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana Orange County Health Care Agency Alcohol & Drug Education Prevention Team (ADEPT) Serving Alcohol Responsibly (BARCODE) (714) 834-2860 * Karen Keay They will schedule appointments $12.95 per person 8. The hours of operation shall be: CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 9 ! Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Sfreet April 8, 2009 ^ 11:00 a.m, to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday ^ 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday, Saturday, and Holidays 9. No video games or similar amusements shall be permitted on the premises unless a separate conditional use permit is approved for that use. 10. Litter and trash receptacles shall be located at convenient locations inside and outside the establishment. Operators of such establishments shall remove trash and debris on an appropriate basis so as not to cause health problems. There • shall be no dumping of trash and/or glass bottles outside the establishment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 11. In the event staff determines security problems exist on the site, the Conditions of this permit may be amended, under the procedures of The Code of the City of Seal Beach, to require the provisions of additional security measures. 12. The project proponent shall pay the required in-lieu parking fee of $ 28,000.00 in accordance with the provisions of Section 28-1256 prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. 13. The establishment shall comply with Chapter 7.15, "Noise Control", of The Code of the City of Seal Beach as the regulations of that Chapter now exist or may hereafter be amended. Should complaints be received regarding noise generated by the establishment, the Planning Commission reserves the right to schedule the subject CUP for reconsideration and may require the applicant/operator to mitigate the noise level to comply with the provisions of Chapter 7.15. 14. The proposed restaurant shall comply with all requirements of Section 9.25 "Fats, Oil, and Grease Management and Discharge Control", as the regulations of that Chapter now exist or may hereafter be amended, including the installation of a grease control device and any other devices or systems that may be required by the Department of Public Works. 15. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) calendar-day appeal period has elapsed. 16. A modification of this CUP shall be applied for when: a. The establishment proposes to change its type of liquor license. b. The establishment proposes to modify any of its current Conditions of Approval. CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report ~ ~ Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street Apri18, 2009 c. There is a substantial change in the mode or character of operations of the establishment. 17. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if harm or retail-related problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of criminal or anti- social behavior, including but not limited to the congregation of minors, violence, public drunkenness, vandalism, solicitation and/or litter. 18. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date. 19. The term of this permit shall be 6 months from the date of ABC approval of the new Type 41 license. At the end of the initial term, the applicant may apply for an indefinite extension of CUP 09-3. The commission may grant an indefinite extension provided that all the conditions of approval have been met and no significant police or other problems have occurred. The applicant is hereby advised that a new application and accompanying fee must be paid to the city prior to consideration of an indefinite extension. 20. The applicant will prominently display these Conditions of Approval in a location within the businesses' customer area that is acceptable to the Director of Development Services. 21. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. 22. Failure to comply with any of the aforementioned conditions may result in the revocation of this Conditional Use Permit. CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report ~ ~ Planning Commission Staff Report Condifiona! Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 If the Commission determines to approve CUP 09-3 without alcohol sales, Staff recommends that conditions 2-7 be deleted and that condition 1 be revised to indicate approval as a restaurant use only. Based on the determinations of the Commission, Staff will prepare the appropriate Resolution for consideration by the Planning Commission on May 6, 2009. '~ Olivera, AICP + ni r Planner epartment of Development Services Attachments (5): Attachment 1: Application Attachment 2: Article 12.5 -Main Street Specific Plan Zone Attachment 3: City Council Staff Report re: Provision of Information - Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area, dated December 12, 2005 (with selected attachments) Attachment 4: City Council Minute Excerpt, December 12, 2005 Attachment 5: Project Plans CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report ~ 2 ' Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 ATTACHMENT APPLICATION CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 13 1 MAR 5 2Q09 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PUBLIC HEARING AP City of Seal Beach Department of ~elapment Services ~ ]i,4-4~ iY ~ 'F'iv ~1,jT\it: i. ~2_! F'.2M_~g a~ ~ 4' ;::aik.i,'.1 z' •~: e~l?`:n''~••'-~.4: :e: ~.i •.~• yb'_. _iY: i''.Ti ~ i'S~ {'t} ~91a d ~ k•r {'-"`3 .;_., ~:.,,.._ ...:~:: ~ ~;,?:: ;;_~: • ,`. FOtZQFFICE'~USE ONLY`.~:_ y~„'ti.;;~ `~;, ~. •.:.v, °:.R: ~' . r '.° ., :!~ -6i•5' :!•'Ri! j3. ~; ; _'a!`~j~ 3, ~ -_ y• ~ ,~d. ~tm~Yl ~.~- ~. = ~ .x ~' „~.,. -;y° - - pr'ti('~p.4~'=~~;~•'.•: ,..d.: _a~~ra; .- _',_:~r _,r ~ ~W~~:rj-• .'. - ~':~ .- .. ._ •n+:+#~~-~~,;~. ., ~Applicatiori No~.~•`.._ .{~, ~-_ -- - _ - ~=~ Res__olufionp~! ~ ~ :~~"__ ~~ -: ~JW!: it - _ .4 •' __~. li• •i• - .~ii a3 {, .aBt. ~': a•.41]. '..l£!? "C.J~t e~~Y i~"Y •~. +~-~Ti '__.._i~y~. = ~, ~9~-''ti f'~' 1. Property Address: 'Z~ ~ ~t A-rnl S (•~r -, 2. County Assessor Parcel No: 3. Applicant Name: n N~-, /+tZ~ ~ ~ C'tS~'-7m+.F~~C~?~ ) Address: ~ ~/°~ .p~ ~ '~ .~ Q,z6 / Phone: Work (~~I¢) '?3-~~ ~~-7 ~' Home: (~~-'~) ~-a`~ • ~ ~ ~~ FAX: (`114-) "13~. 3¢~~- Mobile: ('1(t~.) ~~`~ • 33 ~P E-Mail Address: bulb ~~ Q""~~~ O ~~^°~ ~ ~ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Property Address: Telephone: General Plan and Zoning Designation: ~~ btu Present Use of Property: R~~"a ~l C Fidv-t.~ ~o a~ ' Proposed Use of Property: ~f'auvr,.~', e~_~,bir,.ese. Request For: GQnc~.r.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, , ~Q.p~,,,,es~e ~~kk'K.~" ~_ ~~~~ ~ )off n~..? D~y~a:"~"' Describe Proposed Use: ~.C'~~e urn', ~~e. -- ~ ~ f~-~.-8ti~ 10. Describe how the proposed improvements are appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood: S~J~ ~,~~ue {~„~ ~:.~, a~.~:~-t~~ d~sf~z~. Page 7 Rev. 6106 ~` ~-4 ~ no~~ y ~ 9~y,-~'la.l-4ay a, ;- ~ ...: : "1 fi. Describe how ~. _, :. RI'oRe_~/ in the he approval of this Permit would be detrimental in any way to other vicinity: 12. Proof of Ownership Please attach a photocopy of a picture I.D. and a photocopy of the Grant Deed provided by the applicant. or Signed and notarized Property Owner's AfFdavit to be completed and attached to the application. 13. Legal Description (or attach description from Title or Grant Deed): J By. u (Pint am ) 3 n (Date) By. ~' `~~ ~ ~~ v (Signature of Applicant) ON " (Pint Na e) 3~t~ 0 9 (Date) ' Page 8 Rev. s/os Environmental Information and Checklist Form General Information 1. Name and address of Developer or Project Sponsor. Name: '`i'ce N ~ P~~ Address: City: Telephone: E-mail Address: State: FAX: Zip: 2. 3. 4. 5 6. Address of Project: zl n ~~N ST~~eT ~~ f3~c ~ q Assessor Parcel Number: Name, address, and contact information of Project Contact Person: Name: `~° N ~' ('~ Address: __ ~ I~r~a~ Ci~,o~Q.... 'a City: C~„~, -~ ('Q ~ State: C~ Zip: ~~ Telephone: ~t-~y_ 33~- FAX: ~t'1~~~-- X30-- 3~~ E-mail Address: Existing zoning: Existing General Plan: Proposed use of site: ~Gc.baa•,~ ~-('c~t.~rckc'~ i ~~ ~ ~~. ~ Czr~ ~-ac.~' Page 11 ~ Rev. sios List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: ~ ~~~ deal. 4 ~ ~ Project Description 7. Site size (square footage): ~/~' 8. Square footage of proposed Project: 1> v g, S~ 9. Number of floors of construction: ! 10. Amount of off-street parking provided: 11. Existing and proposed impervious surface coverage (Impervious surface coverage includes all paved areas and building and/or structure footprints): E~asting impervious coverage: % N6 ~i~~tC Proposed impervious coverage: 12. Attach plans including preliminary grading plans, drainage plans, Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) for large-scale developments, construction site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Plans. 13. Proposed scheduling of Project: $ w~S ~'^S-~~ 14. Associated Projects: ~~ 15. Anticipated incremental development: t~~ . 16. For residential projects, indicate the: A. Number of units: B. Schedule of Unit sizes: C. Range of sale prices or rents: . D. Household size(s) expected: 17. For commercial projects, indicate the: A. Type of project: I~~i~ ~~-~" in~.xnve~,.~-F- -~Y ~-~~~ B. Whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented~v ~~ ~~~~bY~ d ~, C. Square footage of sales areas: 37~' ~ D. Gross building area: I fl E. Size of loading facilities: ct~~ 18. For industrial projects, indicate the: Page 12 Rev, s~os A. Type of project: B. Estimated employment per shift: C. Size of loading facilities: 19. For institutional projects, indicate the: A. Major function: B. Estimated employment per shift: C. Estimated occupancy: D. Size of loading facilities: E. Community benefits derived from the project: 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit/unclassified use permit, height variation or zone change application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: Variance: CUP: ~ Height Variation: Zone Change: Briefly explain: l a~.~,~-~ ~,c~ ;.~ ~a,,, -tvw~. cfcs-tv~„~ Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO ..~_ 21. Change In existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours? 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. • ~_ 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. ;~_ 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water Page 13 ~ Rev. s~os ~~5 ~-1~ quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or..vibration levels in the vicinity. _~ 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. ~_ 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. ~_ 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal service (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.), 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). _~ 32. Relationship to larger project or series of projects. Environmental Setting ~ 33. On a separate page, describe the project site as it exists before the project, • including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. 34. On a separate page, describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type • of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment homes, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Page 14 Rev. spas Environmental Impacts (Please explain all "Potentially Significant Impact", "Less Than Significant with Mitigation incorporated" and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers on separate sheets.) _ " Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: ~ ' a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ~ ~ ~ scenic vista? ~ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial ® ® ~® ,light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment ' Model (1997) prepared by the Califomia ' Dept. of Conservation as an optional " model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? " b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Page 15 Rev. sloe c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard dr contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Wou[d the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on. any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifcant No Impact Incorporated impact Impact a a a a a a ,~f' o ~ o a a a o '~ o Page 16 Rev. s~os :b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of .any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V'_ CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated ~~Impact Impact a a a 0 0 0 ~3 a o o a o a a o ~ `~' 0 0 0 ~i, 0 0 0 `~' 0 0 0 ~ Page 17 ~ Rev. sios d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading; subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to fife or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated ~ Impact Impact ^ ^ 0 o a `,~ o a o ,~ 0 o a ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ a o o ~ 0 0 0 ~- a o a ~' Page 18 Rev. 6106 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project: ~~a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or. disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would . it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for ~'•people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g)' Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? l Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ®, a ~ a a a a a Page 19 a No Impact O ~' O Rev. 6106 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact h) Expose people or structures to a i if t i k ~ Q a s gn ican r s of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where , wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or t dis h o o ~ o ~ was e c arge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater o 0 0 supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a ~ . level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing d i ra nage pattem of the site or area, including .through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing d i ra nage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the / ` course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surtace runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water lit ? qua y Page 20 Rev. sios l ~ Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation ~ Significant No Impact Incorporated ~ Impact Impact g) Place housing within a 100-year flood h ~ a Q azard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard ' delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard ~ a area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? " i) Expose people or structures to a ^ ~~ Q significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? I) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Page 21 Rev. spas b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a I'~ically-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards - of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project .vicinity above levels existing without the project? For purposes of this analysis, a substantial temporary or `periodic increase is defined as a continuous noise of more than 70 db(A) Page 22 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a a ~ a a a a o ~' O ~I a ~( Rev. 6/06 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No. Impact Incorporated Impact Impact . for 15 minutes or more or an intermittent noise of more than 75 db(A) for between 5 and 14 minutes resulting from construction that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. ~ . e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a -, public airport or public use airport, would tie project expose people residing or ... working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ® ® ® ~. private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in ' ~ an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govemmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, iri order to maintain acceptable service ratios,' response times or other pertormance objectives for any of the Page 23 ~ Rev. slos Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than . Significant ~ Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact public services: Fire protection? ~ Q Police protection? ~' Schools? ~ O Parks? Other public facilities? ~ ~ Q XIV. RECREATION • a) Would the project increase the use of i ti ex s ng neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational faalit~es such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational f iliti ® ® ® '~„~( ac es or require the construction or ,~p expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATIONlTRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is b t i l i su s ant a n relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? • b) Exceed, either individually or ~ 0 cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic a patterns, including either an increase in traffic •levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Page 24 Rev. sios Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated -Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to ~ a a a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ' e) Result in inadequate emergency ~ a 0 access? . f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ~ a g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, ~ ~ a or programs supporting alternative . transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ' b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or . are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provideras existing commitments? No Impact . Page 25 ~ Rev. sios Potentially Significant Impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ofi the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"~ means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 ~r 0 0 ~( O D a o ~ o a ~( Page 26 Rev, seas (OTC-.Before ~Ceac~Age'~n.~'c~3car~ _accepf this? appficatior~~as~ comp(e~e~„ t~e''applican~~must: consult'thEr.lists ,.~..~: 9'#: ~ki?~~- =5.~.. 3a- ~ =:~-: ~fd'° -sae--r~~:., +sa'.=r;:~?~ ±~°',-~ '. is ~:~:r~.'~=:.i+t•s~ Apr pa~.e~d_°-.- pur~._suant. toy S_ a ~o~_ 65962w~ o Cow emme~ntmCbd~a_nc~,subm~~a.gned:~ ~tement ~ dic~a~n 9. ~_ whether the ~ro~ecct: and an alternatives. are focated~`on~ a sit~~ whTicfr is included on.~arijr. su'ch~hstw•and: sF~alfb. '~~A:: ~,#c~'=s •.r sIT34.i~''b; ~. ~+ ~'a '.5-'_- ._ • 3'i; a+:~: a .T.,_ r}... } ~•:_ ~y .speafY.an1i:listi _' ... j:}=~-° -~;-. ~r3~.- T.~ ~ - ~- ,. ~,~ ~.'; •~_ ;~:.,~~ Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Accgrdingly, the project applicant is required to submit a signed statement which contains the following information: ' 1. Name of applicant: YoNO't ~~~~. ~' ~~c!'~ 2. Street: d'D Vi'~t 3. City: _ ~-~o -~~ C~~~ . 4. Zip Code: 5. Phone Number. ~I~ 3L~'~- 33 ~` 6. Address of site (street and zip): Z1~o M~I~ S'f~'(1 Q °"1 Q~ 7. Local Agency (city/county): 8. Assessor's Parcel Number: 9. Specify any list ursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code: --- - ~ fib ~~~ ~> 10. Regulatory identification number. 11. Date of list: Date: ~~~~ °,~ Signature: ,~ ~~ Applicant: '~ ~~^-~ ~~' ~ 6`h `""~~ Page 27 Rev. stos NOTE: In the event that the project site and any alternatives are not listed on any. list complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, then the applicant must certify that fact as provided below. I have consulted the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.2 of the Govemment Code and hereby certify that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not contained on these lists. Date: ~ 3 ~ ~ Signature: Applicant: Page 28 ~ Rev. s/os PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA } CITY OF SEAL BEACH } COUNTY OF ORANGE } (1)/(1Ne) ~~'~ (Name) swear that (I am)/(we are) the owner of the property at: (Street Address) (City) (State) (LIP) and that (I am)/(we are) are familiar with the rules of the City of Seal Beach for preparing and filing a Public Hearing Application. The information contained in the attached Public Hearing Application is correct to the best of (my)/(our) knowledge and (I)/(we) approve of this applica~ti,/onto do the folio `wing workk: ~ ~,.,~~o ~ aF ~ ~ ~ Fc~..~- ~, SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ~ ^ THIS DAY OF F ~~~ ~ t'' ~~'~~~ Notary Public .~~ Page 31 ~v,~ ~~`~ Rev. 6/06 ~Aaaress - riease Nnnt) (City, State & Zip) (r'elephone) Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 ATTACHMENT 2 ARTICLE 12.5 -MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report ~ 4 Chapter 28 -ZONING Article 12.5. Main Street Specific Plan Zone Section 28-1250. Permitted Uses. A. Permitted Uses. 1. Barbershops and beauty parlors; 2. Coffee houses, dessert shops and similar establishments provided there is seating for no more than 10 customers and the gross square footage of the establishment does not exceed 1,000 sq. ft.; 3. Financial institutions; 4. General retail businesses such as grocery store, furniture store, etc.; 5. Horticultural Nursery; 6. Medical offices and laboratories facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue (second floor or above only); 7. Medical offices and laboratories not facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue; 8. Prescription pharmacies; 9. Professional offices facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue (second floor and above only); 10. Professional offices not facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue; 11. Service businesses dealing directly with consumers (dressmaker, nail shop, tailor, etc.); 12. Accessory buildings and structures; and 13. ~ Other similar uses when determined by the Planning Commission to be consistent with the Main Street Specific Plan and compatible with other permitted uses within the zone. B. Uses Subject to Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Automatic ice vending machines; 2. Coffee houses, dessert shops and similar establishments with seating for more than 10 customers and the gross square footage of the establishment exceeds 1,000 sq. ft.; Article 12.5 -page 7 City of Seal Beach Municipal Code December 2004 3. Coin operated amusement machines as a secondary use; 4. Commercial activities operating between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; 5. Entertainment cafes; 6. Gas Stations located on a major arterial, subject to compliance with the performance and development standards imposed by Section 28-2318; 7. Horticultural Nursery; 8. Liquor establishments, if part of a grocery store, provided that the number of such establishments permitted in the Main Street Specific Plan Zone shall not exceed 2 at any one time. Permitted operating hours for such establishments shall be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday, Saturday, and holidays. Any such establishments which qualify for temporary on-sale or off-sale licenses under the provisions of California Business and Professions Code Sections 24045.1, 24045.2, 24045.3, 24045.4, 24045.6, 24045.7, 24045.8, and 24045.9, as may be amended, shall be exempt from this requirement for a Conditional Use Permit; 9. Medical offices and laboratories facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue (first floor); 10. Movie Theaters; 11. Parking garage; 12. Pet shop; 13. Private parking lots; 14. Professional offices facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue (first floor); 15. Recycling facilities as defined in Section 28-2321 and as follows: a. Reverse vending machines; b. Small collection recycling facilities within a convenience zone; and c. Mobile recycling units within a convenience zone; 16. Restaurant, with or without alcohol sales (not including drive-in restaurants). Permitted operating hours of such restaurants shall Article 12.5 -page 2 City of Seal Beach Municipal Code December 2004 be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday, Saturday, and holidays; 17. Similar retail or service establishments catering directly to consumers when interpreted by the Planning Commission as meeting the intent of service commercial uses and the General Plan; and 18. Veterinary out-patient clinic. Section 28-1251. Limitations on Permitted Uses. Every use permitted shall be subject to the following conditions and limitations: A. All uses shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building except such uses as: 1. Growing stock, only when in connection with horticultural nurseries; 2. Parking lots; 3. Restaurant, semi-enclosed. B. Storage shall be limited to accessory storage of commodities sold at retail on the premises. C. All operations conducted on the .premises shall not be objectionable by reason of noise, odor, dust, mud, smoke, steam, vibration or other similar causes. D. Where any property used for commercial purposes has a common property line with property zoned for residential purposes, no commercial use shall be established thereon unless there is first erected a solid masonry or concrete block wall not less than eight feet in height at such property line, except where a wall of a building is on such property line, no separate block wall need be provided. . E. Findings required for Conditional Use Permits within the Main Street . Specific Plan boundaries: Additional Findings Required: In reviewing applications for Conditional Use Permits for the Main Street area, the Planning Commission shall evaluate each proposed use in order to consider its impact on the City. No Conditional Use Permit shall be granted within the Main Street Specific Plan boundaries unless the Planning Commission makes, in addition to those findings required in the Zoning Code, Section 28-2503 and 28-2504, all of the following findings: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the intent and purpose and vision established for the Main Street Specific Plan. Article 92.5 -page 3 City of Seal Beach Municipal Code December 2004 2. The proposed use does not conflict with the Specific Plan's goal to establish and maintain a balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non-local populations. 3. The use will contribute to the unique character of Main Street and the qualities that provide the Main Street sense of identity. 4. The proposed use complies with all applicable City Council policies, such as the policies the Council has adopted concerning alcohol serving uses. Section 28-1252. General Provisions Lot Size Open Space and Yards. A. Minimum Lot Size: Width :..................................................................................................25 ft. Depth :................................................................................................110 ft. Area : ....................................................................................... 2,750 sq. ft. B. Yard Dimension (minimums): Abutting Front Street :................................................................................0* Abutting Side Street• ..................................................................................0 Abutting Rear Street :................................................................................0* Abutting Side Alley :................................................................................4 ft. Abutting Rear Alley :............................................................................. 22 ft. Not Abutting Street or Alley on Side .........................................................0* Not Abutting Street or Alley on Rear ......................................10% lot width; 5 ft.min./10 ft. max.* Where a property has a front, side or rear yard on a block face with residentially zoned properties, the minimum dimensions for required front, side, or rear yards for the property shall be the same minimum dimensions as required in the residential zone. Notwithstanding the foregoing, uses with loading zone requirements do not have to provide the minimum dimensions required for residential zone rear yards where such loading zone conflicts with such minimum requirements. C. Lot Coverage :.......................................................................................75% D. Maximum Height, Main Building :................................................. 30 ft. max. Any portion of structure greater than 20 feet in height must be set back from street facade a minimum of 10 feet. No structure shall exceed 2 stories in height and Section 507 of the Uniform Building Code shall not be applied within this zoning designation. E. Maximum Height, Accessory Building :.................................................15 ft. Article 12.5 -page 4 City of Seal Beach Municipal Code December 2004 F. Minimum Required Landscape :............................................ 0% of the site, plus one tree for each 5 parking stalls distributed . throughout any on-grade parking lot area. if parking area abuts the front or side street(s), a landscape area averaging 3 feet in width shall be required between such parking area and sidewalk(s) subject to the approval of the Director of Development Services. Such area shall include a minimum of one tree for each 30 ft. of linear landscape area plus landscaping and/or wall to a height of 2.5 feet designed to screen the automobiles from the sidewalk. In no case shall the landscape area be less than one foot in width. G. Lot Area Standards :..............................................Smaller parcels shall not be merged for development purposes into a parcel that exceeds 6,000 sq. ft. Notwithstanding the foregoing, development may be permitted on parcels that exceed 6,000 sq. ft. as of the effective date of this Article. (Ord. No. 1406; Ord. No. 1446) Section 28-1253. Design Provisions. A. All buildings shall meet the following design criteria: 1. Transparency: At sidewalk level, buildings shall be primarily transparent. A minimum of 50% of all first floor facades with street frontage shall consist of pedestrian entrances, display windows or windows affording views into retail, offices, gallery or lobby space. The building wall subject to transparency requirements shall include the portion between 3 feet and 10 feet above the sidewalk. Blank walls should be avoided and lively facades encouraged. 2. Glass: All glass in windows and doorways shall be clear for maximizing visibility into stores. A minimal amount of neutral tinting of glass to achieve some sun control is acceptable if the glass appears essentially transparent when viewed from the outside. Opaque and reflecting glass shall not be used. 3. Window Security Bars: Window security bars shall only be allowed if installed on the interior of the window area. Article 92.5 -page 5 City of Seal Beach Municipal Code December 2004 4. Facade Set=Back: Buildings shall be located on or within 4 feet of the street property line. Exceptions shall be: a) outdoor restaurant seating areas orb) areas where abutting buildings are, as of the effective date of this Article, set back creating in effect continuous store frontages with a wider sidewalk. In the latter case, the abutting buildings' set back shall be considered the equivalent of the property line. 5. Facade Continuity: Building street facades shall be continuous from lot line to lot line. Parking or loading areas shall not abut Main Street or Ocean Avenue frontages. 6. Facade Width: Facades of interconnecting buildings should retain their individual identity. Buildings should not be remodeled or painted to give the appearance of a single building. Any street side building facade exceeding 50 feet in width shall be segmented into individual designs not exceeding 50 feet in width. 7. Trademark Buildings: Trademark buildings used to house a franchise operation shall be prohibited. B. All new sidewalks or sidewalk replacements shall be constructed utilizing a textured sidewalk material in a pattern or design representing no less than 50% of the sidewalk surface. Section 28-1254. Parkin4 and Loading Space Requirements. A. Off-street parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 feet by 20 feet. A minimum driver aisle width shall be provided as follows: 90 degree Right Angle Parking ............................................................24 ft. 60 degree Angle One-Way Traffic .......................................................18 ft. 45 degree Angle One-Way Traffic .......................................................12 ft. 0 degree Parallel One-Way Traffic ......................................................12 ft. B. All parking areas shall be paved with portland cement concrete or asphaltic concrete. C. Parking requirements shall be satisfied in one or more of the following ways: 1. By providing required off-street parking spaces on the property on which the building is located. Artlc% 12.5 -page 6 City of Seal Beach Municipal Code December 2004 2. By providing required off-street parking spaces within 300 feet of such building: 3. Through participation in the City's in-lieu parking program as established in Section 28-1257. D. No use shall be established unless there is full compliance with the off- street parking requirements set forth herein or the in-lieu parking program set forth in Section 28-1257. E. No on-site loading area is required. Section 28-1255. Number of Off-Street Parkin4 Spaces Required. A. Beauty salon; Nail shop .................................. 2 spaces per each operator. B. Business Offices ..................... .........................1 space for every 300 sq. ft. gross floor area. C. Coffee houses; Dessert shops ................................... 1 space for each 500 sq. ft. gross floor area or part thereof. D. Financial institution; Professional Offices .................. 1space for each 250 sq. ft. gross floor area. E. Furniture stores ....................... .......................1 space for every 1000 sq. ft. gross floor area. F. Grocery stores ........................ .........................1 space for each 1000 sq. ft gross floor area or part thereof. G. Hardware stores ...................... ........................1 space for each 1000 sq. ft. gross floor area or part thereof. H. Horticultural Nursery ............... .......................1 space for every 2500 sq. ft. of lot area. Medical offices .................................................1 space for every 200 sq. ft. gross floor area. J. Movie Theaters ...................................................1 space for every 6 seats. K Offices Not Providing Customer Service on the Premises ............................................... 1 space for every 4 . employees or one space for every 500 sq. ft. gross floor area (whichever is greater). L. Pharmacy; Drug stores ...................................1 space for each 1000 sq. ft. Article 92.5 -page 7 City of Seal Beach Municipal Code December 2004 gross floor area or part thereof. M. Restaurants ......................................................1 space for every:100 sq. ft. gross floor area. N. Retail stores ......................................................1 space for each 500 sq. ft. gross floor area or part thereof. Section 28-1256. In-Lieu Parking Proaram. A. Participation in Proaram Required: In the event a use cannot provide the off-street parking spaces required by Section 28-1255 and Section 28- 1256, such use shall not be established unless there is full compliance with all the requirements of the Main Street In-Lieu Parking Program as established in this Section. All or part of off-street parking space requirements may be satisfied by compliance with this Section. B. In-Lieu Parkina Fee. The In-Lieu Parking Fee and the formula for calculating said fee shall be established by Resolution of the City Council. C. Existing Uses -Parkina Deficiencies: Any use which pre-exists the effective date of this ordinance and which is presently operating under the authority of a discretionary land use entitlement and/or development agreement shall remain subject to the terms and conditions of said approval and agreement. As a condition to those entitlements, the applicants agreed to participate in any in-lieu program established by the City Council. This Article constitutes the in-lieu parking program referenced in the resolutions conferring those entitlements and in those certain development agreements. D. Processing In-Lieu Parking Proaram Applications: 1. Eligible persons or businesses desiring to participate in the !n-Lieu Parking Program established herein shall submit a written application for participation to the Director of Development Services on a form prescribed by the City. If the Director determines that such application meets the requirements set forth in Sections 28- 1255, et seq. of this Code, the Director shall, within 30 days of the completion of such application, calculate the applicable in-lieu fee and grant permission to participate in the program, if the Director makes the following findings: a. Participation in the In-Lieu Parking Program will not create any significant adverse traffic safety impacts, pedestrian- vehicle conflicts, or parking impacts. b. Participation in the In-Lieu Parking Program will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Article 12.5 -page 8 City of Seal Beach Municipal Code December 2004 2. The Director may deny the request to participate in the program, if the Director is unable to make the findings set forth in subsection 1. 3. The Director may restrict the applicant's participation in the program, if the Director determines that such restriction is necessary to make the findings set forth in subsection 1. 4. The Director's decision shall be in writing, and shall be served upon the applicant by certified mail, return receipt requested. E. Appeals: The decision of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any aggrieved person, in the time and manner provided in Article 29.4 of Chapter 28 of the Code. F. Payments and Deposits: 1. Payments of In-Lieu Parking Program Fees shall be made pursuant to the schedule adopted by Resolution of the City Council. In no event shall a certificate of occupancy be issued for any participating use in the Main Street Specific Plan Zone prior to the receipt by the City of the first installment or, if applicable, full payment of the In-Lieu Parking Fee. 2. Funds collected from the In-Lieu Parking Program shall be deposited in a segregated City In-Lieu Parking Program fund. Such fund shall be used exclusively for the purpose of promoting, managing, operating, increasing and maintaining the availability of parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of Main Street. G. Transferability: In-Lieu Parking space payments paid for pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance shall be credited only to the use for which participation was granted, and shall not be assigned or otherwise transferred for use on any other property. H. Additional Off-Street Parkins Spaces: Should the use of any property within the Main Street Specific Plan Zoning be proposed for expansion, enlargement, structural alterations, intensification or conversion to a new use which requires additional off-street parking spaces, the owner, lessee or sublessee of the property shall provide the required additional off- street parking, either on-site, within 300 feet of the property on which the building is located, or through payment of in-lieu parking program fees, or additional in-lieu parking program fees, as required by this Article. I. Acceptance of Terms and Provisions: An applicant's participation in the program shall not become effective, and a certificate of occupancy shall not be issued, unless and until the participant first executes and submits for recording on the title to the property a covenant accepting the terms of Article 92.5 -page 9 City of Seal Beach Municipal Cade December 2004 the approval, in a form to be provided by the City Attorney. Said covenant shall be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder and shall also be maintained in the office of the City Clerk. J. Violators Punishable by Fine and Imprisonment. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of~this article is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 6 months, or both such fihe and imprisonment. Section 28-1257. Roof-Mounted Mechanical Equipment. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be architecturally screened to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. (Ord. No. 1406) Artic% 12.5 -page 10 City of Sea! Beach Municipal Code December 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Streef April 8, 2009 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT REGARDING PROVISION OF INFORMATION -ALCOHOL LICENSES AND IN-LIEU PARKING ISSUES, MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, DATED DECEMBER 12, 2005 (WITH SELECTED ATTACHMENTS) CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 15 fllf COPY _~ . .AGENDA REPORT DATE: December 12, 2005 T0: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: .PROVISION OF INFORMATION - ALCOHOL . LICENSES • AND IN-LIEU PARKING ISSUES, MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN AREA SIfP-1MARY OF REQUEST: Staff was requested at the•November 14 City Council Meeting to provide information to the City Council that ~ was presented to the Planning Commission during the Commission's consideration of Conditional Use Permit requests for new alcohol sales licenses within the Main Street Specific Plan Area. BACKGROUND: On November 9; 2005 the Planning Commission considered two requests for conditional use approvals on ~ Main . Street that both involved alcohol sales and in-lieu pazking requests. Those requests aze summarized below and a "Draft Minute Excerpt" for each case is,provided as Attachment 1 and 2 for the information of the City Council: 320 Main Street -Conditional Use Permit OS-11: ® Approvals of the following requests were considered by the Planning Commission: ^ To add an outdoor dining area of approximately 145 square feet; ^ upgrade the current alcohol sales license from beer and wine to a full alcohol license; ^ change the approved hours of operation from 10:30 AM to 11 PM on Friday and Saturday to 10:30 AM to midnight; and ^ to allow live entertainment on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. ^ 2 In-Lieu pazking Spaces would be required. ® The Planning Commission determined to approve the outdoor dining azea, denied the upgrade request for,the alcohol sales license, made no change in the operating hours the City Attorney~had determined that the Commission could not make any changes to the operating hours, as they aze established in the Zoning Ordinance), and denied Agenda Item ~- _ Z:uv1y Documents~M.SINSTRE.SP1Alcohol Liccnses & In-Lieu Parlang Status.CC Staff ]teportdoc1Lw111-21-05 'Provision oflnformation-AlcoholLicenses ' and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area . City Council Sta~`'Report December 12, 2005 the request for live entertainment. The Commission will consider final adoption of a Resolution at its December 7 meeting, after the prepazation of this Staff Report on this application. . 302 Main Street -Conditional Use Permit OS-14: ~ Approvals of the following requests weie considered by the Planning Commission: ^ To establish a new restaurant with a full alcohol license; ^ To establish operating hours of 10:30 AM to 11 PM Sunday through 'T'hursday and 10:30 AM to Midnight, on Friday and Saturday. ~ ~"' - ^ 17 In-Lieu pazlsing Spaces would be required. ® The Planning Commission determined to approve the new restaurant, denied the request for a new alcohol saies~.license, and made no change in the operating hours (the City Attorney had determined that the Commission could not male any changes to the operating hours, as they aze established in the Zoning Ordinance.: The Commission will consider final adoption of a Resolution at its December 7 meeting, after the prepazation of this Staff Report on this application. Overview of Public'Concerns re: Alcohol Licenses: Whv Consider Additional Alcohol Sales L~'stablishments On Main Streets During the Planning Commission public testimony on both of the subject conditional use applications the concern was raised as to why the City was even considering these types of land use entitlement requests; why couldn't City staff just say.no to the applications? The answer is that the Zoning Code sets forth in each zoning category usesthat are permitted by "right", meaning if all of the ~ specified development and operational standazds .aze met, the project is approved ~by City staff and there is no public hearing before the Planning Commission. The .second category -of uses of property that are permitted aze those that aze permitted "by conditional use permit". Under the conditional use permit process, an application for conditional use permit is filed by a project applicant, 'and after the ~ application is determined to be complete by City staff, a public ~ heazing is then held by the Planning Commission to determine if the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and "as conditioned" would be compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding properties. .-J/ This process allows the Planning Commission to review applications for a land use entitlement that requires a conditional use permit to obtain public input on the proposed use of property and to then determine what conditions should be imposed on the proposed land use to ensure its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; ~ if the Commission determines that the requested use cannot be conditioned in a manner to be compatible with~the surrounding neighborhood the Commission has the discretion and authority to deny the requested land use entitlement. -- Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu ParlQng Status.CC Staff Report 2 Provision of.. - ~rmation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 Whv doesn't the City prohibit such applications:. This-issue was raised during the public review and adoption process of the'Main Street Specific Plan'iri~the~~1994-1996 time"period. It was the final determination of the City Council. to .not. impose ~a limit on tbie 'number of alcohol licenses that. would ~be permitted. within the Main Street Specific Plan area, ~ but to require the :conditional use .. -- pemut approval review process sb that an application ~. could be considered on its individual and.distinct potential impacts upon the community. ~ Provided as Attachment 3 are some excerpts from the January 1995 "Background Studies -Main Street-~Specific Plan, City, of. Seal Beach" that ~ was prepazed by Zucker Systems and Linscott, ~ Law & Greenspan. This background report was part of the city-approved process i~'developing the "Main Street Specific Plan" and the "Main Street Specific Plan Zone". that:vr~as adopted by the City Council in 1996. The provided excerpts discuss "Land Use" issues related particulazly to alcohol sales establishments and "In-Lieu Pazking". 'the overview of the issues raised during 'the public input process developed by Zucker Systems, including a survey questionnaire that was sent out to 1,200 property.owners; residents, and business operators within the~azea and received a 42% response rate of return is also provided as part of Attachment- 3. Lastly, a, summary of land use regulations from other communities that was reviewed during the drafting ~of the Main :.Street Specific ~ Plan ~ is 'also provided ~ as ~~part . of .) Attachment 3 . The issue of trying to pre-determine an acceptable level of a particulaz business use is a local commercial azea is a difficult issue to address and the insertion of governmental regulation into the free market determinations of appropriate levels of- .competition between businesses is one that local governments generally try to avoid. The Main Street Specific Plan regulations currently limit the type of both "allowed by right" and "allowed by conditional use permit" commercial -and: professional . uses ~ along Main_:~Street. However, the City has never determined~to~~place a numerical "cap" as to-.;an -allowed number of any specific type of business enterprise within the community or within the Main Street Specific Plan azea. During the formulation of the Main Street Specific Plan this issue was considered and ultimately rejected. Provided as Attachment 4 is a minute excerpt from an August 9, 1995 joint City Council/Planning Commission worksh_ op on the "Dra$ Main Street Specific Plan where this issue~was discussed. Provided below is some recent sales tax information to provide a summary of the relative importance of food sales, both with and without accompanying alcohol sales within the entire City ~ and' the Main Street Specific Plan azea to provide the City Council with an understanding regazding the relative importance of restaurant uses within the Main Street Specific Plan aiea. Alcohol Licenses ~ In-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 3 Provision oflnformation-Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council St~'Report December 12, 2005 Sales Tax Revenues: October -December-2004 Total All Accounts City of Seal Beach ~ Main Street Specific Plan Area Main Street as % of City All Businesses ~ $866,667 (633) $77,,117 (138) 8.9% -Restaurants - Alcohol ~ $62 008 (13) ~ $22,613 (5) ~ 36.5% - - Restaurants - Beer & Wine $43,420 (28) ' ~ ~ $ 7,370 (13) ' ~ 17.0%. - Fast Food $42,790 (47) ~ - ~ $ 8,008 (22) 18.7% Sales Tax Revenues: July -September 2005 . Total All Accounts City of Seal Beach Main Street Specific Plan Area Main Street as % of City All-Businesses $787,030 (657) $74,363 (165) 9.4% Restaurants - Alcohol $68,280 (13) ~ $25,254 (5) 37.0% Restaurants - Beer & Wine $55,140 (29) $ 5,736 (13) 10.4% Fast Food ~ $48,968 (59) - $ 8,211 (22) 16.8% . Information from Planning Commission Staff Report re• CUP 05 14, November 9, 2005: The Planning. Commission Staff Report included information regarding the number of current alcohol sales licenses within "Old Town", and that information is provided below for the information of the City Council: ~ ~ - "Over Concentration ofalcoholic beverage licenses: Over Concentration of alcoholic -beverage licenses has been an -issue within the city in the past, particulazly in azeas with high crime reporting districts. The State's Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, Regulation 61.3, says that if an azea has both high crime and an over concentration of ABC licenses, ABC can automatically deny an application for a liquor license. Several yeazs ago, the City's Police Chief made a request to ABC that the ~ City be placed under Regulation 61.3. The purpose of this request was to ` Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu parking Status.CC Staff Report 4' Provision oft. nation -Alcohol Licenses ' and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Sta~`'Report December 12, 2005 ~ give ABC a basis on which to deny a license request. However, a City may approve a CUP application in an over concentrated azea if it so desires. ~ ' Based on information received from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control ("ABC"), the proposed project is located in a high crime reporting district. Please refer to Attachment 6 to review the information provided by ABC. Staff has discussed the information with ABC and has determined that the calculation for a high crime reporting district is based on City information from 2001; appazently this is the most recent information available to ABC. ABC calculates the total number of ABC licenses in Orange County and divides the total County population by the number of ABC licenses to determine a ratio of licenses per capita. ABC then takes the latest US Census population statistics for the Census Tract in which a license is to be placed and compares it with the ratio of a number of people per license. 'If there are more licenses than the number allowed, the ABC considers that census tract over concentrated. The current ratio is. l on-sale license per 952 people in a census tract, and 1 off sale license per 1,751 people. Alcoholic Beverage Control was contacted by staff during the review process of this case, and the following information was gathered regarding Census Tract 995.11 and Census Tract. 995.12, .the tract in which. the subject property is~located. Census Tract 995.11 encompasses "Old Town" southerly of Electric Avenue; Fifth-Street and Marina Drive, while Census Tract 995.12 encompasses "Old Town" northerly of that boundary up to . ~~Pacific~ Coast Highway. The following table indicates the current ABC licensing regulations and permits issued for both Census Tract Areas: Census Population ~ On Sale ~On Sale Have Off Sale Off Sale Tract 2000 Allowed Allowed Have 995.11 3,416 4 ~ 15 N/A 2 ~ N/A 3) 995.12 2,766 3 ~ 10 plus 2~ N/A (2) N/A (3) endin Total ~ 6,182 7 25 plus 2 ~ N/A (4) N/A (6) endin Approving Alcohol Licenses in Overconcentrated Areas Staff would like to point out that merely being overconcentrated does not automatically necessitate denial of a new ABC .license request. ABC reserves the right to automatically deny a request in an overconcentrated area, but individual cities aze left with the ability to analyze individual Alcohol Licenses 8t In-Lieu Parking Stams.CC StaffReport 5 Provision of Information -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Stcr,~lteport December 12, 2005 applications as they _ arise and make decisions based on the individual circumstance. ~ • ~ ~ ~ •• Staff is aware that new liquor licenses have been an issue along Main Street in the past, particulazly with the street's close proximity to residential neighborhoods. This application is the second request for a new ABC liEense since the adoption of the Main Street Specific Plan. The first approved location after adoption of the Main Street Specific Plan was for "Old Town_ Cafe" at 137 Main Street, which was approved on September 20, 2000. The Main Street Specific Plan sets forth the general:vision for the district, saying: "The vision for Main Street ~is small town 14merica. Important features include a family town with friendly people who care for each other." The specific plan goes onto say "Part of Seal Beach's old town charm is the close proximity of its residential development to the commercial establishments. This arrangement is.highly desirable." . Staff believes that this request falls within the scope. and vision as detailed -within the Main Street Specific Plan. ~ In order to be a viablerestaurant in today's market, staff acknowledges that the sale of alcoholic beverages is a near necessity. The issue "of overconcentration has come up in regards to this application and whether of not adverse effects will arise as a result of the new license.. In terms of overconcentration ~ itself, ~ staff sees concentration of .alcohol licenses, generally, as a good thing' if properly conditioned and: managed. :Having alcohol_~ licenses .located. within ~ close proximity .of_.each .~ other creates a; sense of _ `.`place" .which has ~ benefits in and of itself for .both residents and visitors of the City. This ~ sense of place is what is described -within the Main Street Specific Plan. In contrast, ~ if the alcohol licenses within this census tract were more spread .out throughout the. entire .old town ~ area, ~ the ~~sense of the Maui ~ Street area ~would• be .dramatically different. There is obviously a balance between the existence ~ of restaurants and other visitor and locally serving businesses,;w_ ithi~a the Main Street Specific Plan azea, and the purpose of consideration of alcohol requests through the Conditional Use Permit process is the mechanism the City has chosen to evaluate this type of land use request." As part of Plann_ .ing Commission Staff Report regarding Conditional Use Pernut OS-14, staff ~ provided information regazding alcohol- and drug-related incident 'and arrest information ("AOD".incident and arrest) on a City-wide basis and also within the Main Street Specific Plan azea. That information is provided as Attachment 5_ for the information of the City Council. Alcohol Licenses & 1n-Lieu Parking StaLus.CC Staff Report 6 Provisionofl,;, rnzation-AlcoholLicenres and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 Current In-Lieu parking Provisions -Main Street Specific Plan Zone: The issue of the use of the Zoning Code authorized in-lieu parking program was also raised during the public comments on both conditional use permit applications, Provided as Attachment 6 is the current language of Section 28=1256 of the Zoning Code, (Section 28-1250 through 28-1257 is the Main Street Specific Plan Zone standazds). FISCAL IlVII'ACT: Unknown at this time. Future actions based on City Council direction could result in reallocation of Staff resources or consideration of retention of outside consultant services to respond to the direction of the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: After City Council discussion, provide any additional direction to staff determined appropriate. Receive and File Staff Report. Whittenberg irector of Development Servi s Attachments: (6) Attachment 1: Draft Planning Commission Minute Excerpt, Conditional Use Permit OS-11, November 9, 2005 Attachment 2: Draft Planning Commission Minute Excerpt, Conditional Use Permit OS-14, November 9, 2005 Attachment 3: Excerpts of "Background Studies, Main Street Speck . Plan, City of Seal Beach"; prepared by Zucker Systems with Linscott, law & Greenspan, Engineers, dated January 1995 Attachment 4: Minute Excerpt re Joint Workshop -Draft Main Street Specific Plan, August 9, 1995 Alcohol Licenses & ht-Lieu Parlang Status.CC Sta$Report 7 Provision oflnformation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Stcrf}'Report December 12, 2005 Attachment 5: Alcohol- And Drug-Related Incident and Arrest Information, 2004 and First Quarter 2005 Attachment 6: Seal Beach Zoning Ordinance, Main Street Specific Plan Zone, Section 28-1256. In-Lieu Parking_Pro~ram 1 ._~ Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking Status.CC staff Report 8 Provision ofl,., _rmation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Spec f c Plan Area City Council Sta,~`'Report December 12, 2005 ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OS-11, NOVEMBER 9, 2005 .~ Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parlana Status.CC Staff Report 9 Provision o, j _ , ormation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff'Report December I2, 2005 5. Conditional Use Permit 05-11 320 Main Street Applicant/Owner: C. Mingura ~i.R Mazshall /Fred & Janet Reidman Request; To add a 145=squaze foot outdoor dining azea; upgrade the current alcohol sales license from beer and wine to a full alcohol license (Type 47); change the approved hours of operation from 10:30 a:m. to 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday to 10:30 ~a.m. to midnight; and to allow live entertainment on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Recommendation: Approval and adoption of Resolution OS-53, subject to conditions, and as may be further revised by the Commission a$er considering public testimony. Staff Report • Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided same background information on this item and noted that this is an existing restaurant that was approved a number of years •ago and was occupied for many years by Bayou St.• John. He said that approximately 2 years ago the name of the restaurant was changed to "Cazoline's." He indicated that the restaurant currently measure 1,955 squaze feet, with 870 squaze feet used for seating, for a total of 64 seats. He stated that the applicant proposes to .add 14 seats in a new baz azea and 720 squaze feet aze currently used for the kitchen and service azeas, with the remaining 365 squaze feet utilized foi restrooms, hallways, and other storage meas. He reported that the original construction of the~multi-tenant building was approved under a Variance (VAR) 84-11 .in 1984 and currently there aze four businesses in this two-story structure.. He explained that Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 85-29 was approved by the Planning Commission (PC) in December 1985 for the initial approval for the on-sale of beer and . wine, and the premises has been operating under this license for 20 years. He stated'that . as part of the approval of VAR 84-11 the property was required to participate in the • City's in-lieu parking program that was in place at that point for the 26 spaces granted with the VAR He noted that there are only 5 pazking spaces provided at the reaz of the property for the 4-tenant uses 'on the property. Mr. Whittenberg then indicated that the • Seal Beach Police Department (SBPD) has reviewed the application and has no concerns. With regazd to the outdoor d'~ningarea proposed for the front of the restaurant, Staff has no concerns with permitting this, as ~ there.,,~e several establishments along Main •Street that either have outdoor or semi-enclosed dining• areas. He stated that the proposed outdoor dining area would not have a solid roof, but a trellis structure for shade.would be constructed and planters aze proposed to sepazate the patio aze from the public right-of- way. The Director of Development Services explained that one of the proposed conditions of approval is the requirement of a minimum 42-inch high wall of a decorative nature to be approved by the Planning Department, incompliance with the general standazds as approved by the PC for other outdoor dining areas where alcohol is to be Alcohol Liccnses & In-Lieu Parking Stahis.CC Sta$Report 1 Provision oflnformation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Stcrff'Report December 12, 2005 served. With regazd to the change to a general liquor license, under Alcohol & Beverage Control (ABC) criteria since the establishment is already licensed for alcohol sales on premises, it has no affect on the issue of over-concentration of alcohol liEenses. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff has provided incident reports from SBPD in the Staff Report for all reported alcohol and drug related incidents along Main Street and the 300 block is by far the least impacted by this type of problem. With regazd to the change in the hours of operation, Mr: Whittenberg reported that ~a$er reviewing the City Ordinances and discussion with the City Attorney's office, Staff found that the PC really has no authority to grant a change in the hours over what is stipulated in the Zoning Ordinance at this time. Currently for all restaurants on Main Street City Code has established the hours of operation as up to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and.1~1:00 p.m. on Rnday and Saturday. He then addressed the issue of live entertainment and noted that he has worked for the City of Seal Beach since 1989 and in 1992 a major issue azose regazding live entertainment at Papilli~}n~s; c was located at what is now the Hennesse 's location. ~.:, y He. stated that after a rl~itmb~~~~f~.~i,.~egs over a period of approximately one year, the matter was ultimately approved, b~uf~e after opening the business the owner had live entertainment for approximately 9 months and then decided to discontinue it. He commented that this is the second application that he.has seen for entertainment on Main Street, and the first one to come in since the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) was adopted in 1996. He noted that the MSSP does not prohibit live entertainment, but does require that it be approved through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He stated that the application in this case is to provide music on Friday and Saturday night by a jazz quartet with the music to be piped through the existing restaurant sound system with which the proprietor can control the volume. The quartet would be located within the enclosed portion of the restaurant and would not occur in the outdoor patio. He noted that a specific area for the live quartet has nat been determined, and some tables would probably have to ~ be removed to accommodate this. He said Staff has made a recommendation for a location for the musicians, but the PC could specify an area for this use. He then indicated that Staff has also included conditions requiring that noise measu~e~nents be taken twice within the first 6 months of operation 'to verify that noise levels generated azein compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and a condition fora .6-month review is also included. He explained that with regard to the live music Staff considered~that the restaurant is within atwo-story building, it faces Main Street, so noise would be generated out toward Main Street and be absorbed by traffic noise, etc. He said that Staff recommends approval, subject to conditions. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Ladner asked if there would be any outdoor speakers. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there aze no speakers on the outside of~the building. Commissioner Ladner asked if there aze plans to add speakers. Mr. Whittenberg stated that they are not shown on any of the plans submitted. Commissioner Roberts asked if the back doors aze to remain open during business hours. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the doors aze required to remain unlocked, but the only ~~ Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 11 Provision of _ , ~rmation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specifrc Plan Area City Council Sta„~'Report December 12, 2005 business that he knows of that is required to keep the back doors closed is Taco Surf neaz Surfside. Chairperson Shanks asked other than Walt's Wharf, which other restaurants along the 200 and 300 block of Main Street have general liquor licenses. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there were no others that he could think of. A member of the public interjected that The Abbey on the 300 block does serve hazd liquor. ~ . Public Hearing ~ Q~ . . 9~ . Chairperson Shanks opened the public~hearing. Rob Marshall, one of the applicants, stated that he and Mr. Mingura look forward to the opportunity to serve everyone in Seal Beach. He said they understand the concerns over the service of hazd liqu'iir; abut they would like to bring a new restaurant to Seal Beach that provides American cuisine with ~a California flair and would like to accommodate their patrons with distilled spirits. He noted that they would place an emphasis on_ California wines. He noted that currently there is one outside speaker, and the plan is to eventually have ~a Saturday/Sunday brunch with music provided inside the restaurant by a jazz quartet. Commissioner Ladner asked if any additional speakers aze to be added. Mr. Mazshall stated that there aze no plans for this; and if the speaker is a concern, it can be removed. ~ Commissioner Ladner asked if a. band would ever be playing •music. Mr. Marshall stated that a 4 piece ensemble would be the maximum for musicians. Commissioner Roberts asked if the baz area is to be new. Mr. Marshall described the proposed bar azea. Commissioner Roberts expressed liis concerns over converting more than 20 percent of the existing seating azea into .a sit-down baz and the potential for this restaurant becoming a "local watering hole." Mr. Marshall stated that in• re-evaluating the baz azea, it will have 12 seats instead of 14 and not all of this seating will be for the baz, as part of this would be for a service area for the kitchen and to accommodate single patrons. He noted .that the emphasis would be as a restaurant and not , a "bar." Commissioner Deaton asked~~for clarification on the center azea of the restaurant. Mr. Marshall stated that 3-inch metal columns that run through the restaurant support the structure, and one of these is to be used for a partition with plants to sepazate the dining room and booths aze to be placed on either side of this partition. Geri West, 1301-B Electric Avenue, spoke in opposition to this application and noted that it would be difficult to seat 60 people within an 870 square foot azea. She expressed her concern about pazking for the patrons and employees of this new establishment, noting that under VAR 84-11 parking for this property was to have been provided by St. Anne's Church; however, neither the church diocese nor the City had been provided with a copy of this agreement. She stated that there aze akeady 7 full bars within the 3 blocks along Main Street, and 1.0 beer and wine bars, and noted that'her hometown of New Orleans has less than this in 3 blocks along Bourbon Street, Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parldag Status.CC Staff Report 12 Provision oflnformation-Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council St~'Report December 12, 2005 Roger West stated that this is not a restaurant but a "nightclub" with no pazking, and meets none of the City requirements. He cautioned that if this were approved, it would set a precedent for the all the other existing restaurants serving alcohol and any new restaurants coming into Seal Beach. David Rosenman stated that he has contacted ABC regarding their original provisions for hard liquor versus beer and wine, but has not yet 'received a response. He indicated.that the in-lieu pazking as noted in the Staff Report is inadequate as it is non-existent, making ~ . the Staff Report erzoneous. He shazed that regazding the approval for entertainment for Papillion's, two of the t~ieri'seated council members later stated to him that this had been the biggest mistake of their council cazeers, as it quickly progressed from a restaurant to just a bar. He cautioned that many residents throughout the city would be displeased should this receive approval. Herecommended denial ~of the general liquor license, removal of the outdoor speaker, require provision . of ade parking, and correctly calculate of in-lieu fees. Mitzi Morton stated that the restaurant proposes to ccommodate 104 eo le in a 4-tenant building that provides 5 pazking spaces for tenants only. She noted that the money from in-lieu parking fees was expected to be utilized ~to purchase pazking spaces for Main Street, and now all of this money has disappeared, and the City is chazging $3,500 for an in-lieu parking space that would'cost the City $10,000 to put in place. She indicated that many establishments with in-lieu pazking agreements are in arrears with the fees. ~ She also spoke in opposition to approval of entertainment and the service of hazd liquor; ~~ stating that this would be asking for more problems like those reported on the 100 block. Joyce Parque stated that this location was previously a restaurant so the applicant should be allowed to have a restaurant, and if they probe to be good neighbors they can return to the PC to request approval for the liquor service and entertainment. She recalled .the extended problems experienced with a spaghetti house formerly located in the Walt's Wharf building that had live entertainment, and cautioned that the City did not want to experience this same situation should they allow live entertainment. Chi Kredell spoke in opposition noting the same problem location at the Walt's Wharf building and stated that he believes he expresses the general feeling of most Seal Beach residents when he states that they don't want live entertainment on Main Street. He emphasized that the City Code should be adhered to without making allowances for specific requests. He recommended denial of hazd liquor and live entertainment. Nancy Kredell stated that she had served on the Main Street Revitalization Committee approximately ~ 12 years ago and they had. encouraged the outdoor dining. She noted that the Founders Day committee recently conducted its meetings at Caroline's every Monday night and usually there. were very few patrons in the restaurant, and there was still no pazking available neaz the restaurant. She emphasized that a family atmosphere is important to the residents of this city. ~ She recommended denial of the liquor license and live entertainment. Alcohol Licenses & 7n-Lieu Parking Status.CC StaffReport ~ 13 Provuionol_ ,ormation-Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Sta~'Report December 12, 2005 Mario Voce spoke regarding intensification of land use, stating that he recalls the battle described by Ms. Parque, which took a lot of time away from his family to come and speak against the approval of live entertainment. He commented that he empathizes with the residents surrounding Main Street and the decisions made by the PC can have many ramifications. Mr. Whittenberg noted for the record that Attachment 6 of the Staff Report is a letter in opposition to CUP OS-11 from Ann Cook at 339 Tenth Street. Rob Marshall stated that he understands the desire to maintain the small town atmosphere and also the concerns over the live music. He inquired about conditioning the live music with regard to decibel level, etc. to help mitigate the noise levels. . There being no one'else~wishing to speak, Chairperson Shanks closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments • ~~ - Commissioner Roberts asked about the current. number of seats in the restaurant, the • arrangement, was this adjusted when the restaurant was purchased? Mr. Mazshall reported that currently there are~•60 seats allowed, and the plans for the new layout show 8 seats at the bar with less than 60,other indoor seats, and when combined with the outdoor _~ dining area, there will be approxiniately'~75-80 seats altogether.` Commissioner Deaton inquired about how in-lieu fees aze calculated. Mr. Whittenberg responded that in-lieu fees aze based upon square footage, with the requirement of 1 pazking space for each 100 squaze feet of new restaurant area, including kitchens, restrooms, and outdoor dining azeas) for aone-time fee of $3,500 per space. ~Ie explained that 320 Main Street would require 2 spaces for the 145 squaze feet of proposed outdoor area, as the property on•which the existing restaurant is located already participates in a much older in-lieu pazking program that wa$ in place in 1984, and pays a fee of $2,600 per year for the current building..He noted .that the addition of the patio area is subject to the new fee of $3,500 per space. • Commissioner Denton stated that she is confused because when discussing Javatini's they were only allowed. to have a specific number of seats. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that under City Code a coffee shop or dessert shop of less than 1,000 squaze feet with less than 10 seats would be classified as a regulaz retail store and not as a restaurant and would require 1 pazking space per 500 square feet of space. He added that when reviewing the final tenant plans, OCFA would determine the occupancy load for the indoor and outdoor di.ning~azeas. Commissioner Deaton then stated that she would not be able to approve a bar in the restaurant, as the PC is looking for another fine dining restaurant and not another baz. She said that if Mr. Marshall removes the baz and the live music, she would not have a problem in voting to approve. Mr. Marshall stated that he understands not granting the liquor license, but he would prefer to keep the bar for the benefit of their single patrons. Commissioner Deaton asked Alcohol Licenses $c kn-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 14 Provision oflnformation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Stcff'Report . December 12, 2005 if Mr. Marshall would prefer to have the bar with only beer and wine, or no baz and the general liquor license? Mr. Marshall stated that he would prefer to have the baz. Mr. Whittenberg called fora 5-minute recess. The meeting recessed at 9:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Abbe stated that during the break a number of the members of the public spoke with the •Commissioners and he requested that if any conversation was conducted regazding the item on the agenda that the Commissioners briefly disclose that information at this time. He cited the applicant's due process right to rebut anything that was said. Commissioner Deaton stated that her discussion with the public was regazding pazking problems and finding pazking spaces. Chairperson Shanks stated tl,~at he ~is 'opposed tg the bar, the hard liquor, and live entertainment, noting that if live niiisic is approved the PC would be glutted with requests for approval of live music at the other restaurants on Main Street. He emphasized that this issue has been discussed time and again with the same determination that it is not wanted in Seal Beach. He said he had no problem with th tdoor patio or the continued service of beer and wine. Commissioner Roberts state d that he could ccept Mr. Mazshall compromise to seek approval for the bar and to continue serve beer and wine only. He said that he is not as opposed to the entertainment as the othei Commission_ ers,~but he would vote with the PC on this.one, and he would vote to approve the patio. ~ ~ ' Commissioner Ladner stated that with a noise level limit of 65 -dBA for the outdoor speaker, he does not believe that it would be a problem with the entertainment, pazticulazly with the traffic and outdoor •noises along Main Street.- He indicated that the noise levels could be monitored for 6 months to determine if they aze exceeding the minimum allowed. He stated that he would approve all of the requested items except the service ~of hazd liquor, and he agreed with Mr. Mazshall's proposal to only serve the beer and wine and after 6 months reapply for approval to serve hazd liquor. Commissioner Deaton moved to approve a .restaurant with the existing beer and wine license, to allow the outdoor dining patio with a 42-inch wall as recommended by Staff, to deny live music except through the approval of a Special Event Permit, and to limit baz seating to 8 bar seats. She stated that she is still concerned about pazking, but because this is an existing restaurant there is nothing the PC can ~do about this. She said she wished to go on record that the City must figure out a way to create more pazking spaces. Mr. Whittenberg inter] ected that Staff would prepaze a resolution to reflect the PC motion as indicated above and return with ~ this resolution for ~ adoption at a later date. Alcohol Licenses & 1n-Lieu Paiicing Status.CC Staff Report 15 Provision o~ ~, formation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 Commissioner Roberts asked if the PC wished to impose a 6-month or 12-month review period. The Commission unanimously agreed to a 6-month review period. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Roberts to direct Staff to prepaze. a Resolution for Conditional Use Permit OS-11 to approve a restaurant with the existing beer and wine i~cen's~, to allow the outdoor dining patio with a 42-inch wall as recommended~by Staff, to deny live music except through the approval of a Special Event Permit, to limit bar seating to 8 bar seats, and that CUP OS-11 be subject to a 6-month review. MOTION CARRIED: 3 -1-1 AYES: Shanks, Deaton, and Roberts NOES: ~ Ladner ABSENT: O'Malley Mr. Whittenberg stated that there is no final decision at this point and Staff will prepaze a resolution for presentation at the December 7, 2005 Planning Commission meeting that reflects the intent for final PC review. He noted that once the PC takes action to adopt a resolution then the 10-day appeal period will begin. Mr. Abbe clarified that this resolution would not be a public hearing item, so there would be no need to present additional testimony. Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 16 Provision of ~.; ormation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT PLANNING CONIlVIISSION MINUTE EXCERPT, CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT ~05-14, NOVEMBER 9, 2005 J Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff}teport 17 Provisionoj_ ,~rmation-Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Sta„~'Report December 12, 2005 6. Conditional Use Permit OS-14 302 Main Street Applicantft)rwneY:'°'"1Vlichael ~Rosetti~/Henry K. Warno Request: To establish a new restaurant with a Type 47 alcohol license (full service) with operating hours of 10:30 a.m, to 11:00 p.m. Sunday to Thursday, and 10:30 a.m. to midnight on Friday and Saturday. Recommendation: Approval and adoption of Resolution OS-62, subject to conditions, and as may be further revised by the Commission after considering public testimony. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided ~ some background information on this. item and explained that the application is to convert a portion of the old Corner Drug Store building into a new restaurant with a full liquor license allowing the sale of distilled spirits. He again noted that the PC does not have the authority to change the hours so the PC would be considering the establishment of the restaurant and the service of alcohol. He reviewed the pazking standazds as 1 pazking space per 100 squaze feet of floor azea, which would create the requirement of 19 pazking spaces for this location. He stated that under the provisions of the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) pazking standards it has ~~ been given a credit for two pazking spaces for the previous use as a drugstore, leaving a remaining requirement of 17 spaces at the $3,500 per space fee. He then indicated that the on Page 6 of the Staff Report provides current information on the number of licenses under ABC criteria for over concentration broken down by census tracts with Tract 99- 51I comprising Old Town from Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to the Electric Avenue/Marina Drive azea and Tract 99-512 encompassing the remainder the coastal Old Town area down to the Pacific Ocean. ~ He explained that ABC criteria is based upon average population throughout Orange County and allows one on-premise license.per 952 residents, which would translate into an over concentration if there aze more than 7 on- premise licenses within the Old Town azea, and currently there aze 25 existing licenses with Old Town, which includes Main Street, 'and businesses along PCH and Marina Drive. He stated that under the CUP requirements the City retains the ability to review applications for new on or off-premise liquor licenses and make case-by-case determinations as to whether a new use is appropriate within the community and can be conditioned so that it is not detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. He then reviewed the overview of statistics from SBPD regazding reported incidents for 2004 as listed on Pages ~8 and 9 of the Staff Report. The Director of Development Services then indicated that there are 4, businesses on the property (The Abbey Restaurant, The Furnace, and a new bedding shop) and for this 302 Main Street there is no pazking . provided. ~ ~ . Alcohol Licenses & Ia-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 18 Provision oflnformation-Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 Commissioner Questions Commissioner Deaton asked for an explanation of how these lazger buildings can be subdivided without having to come before the Planning Commission ~ (PC).. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there is no City Ordinance that requires that a subdivision of store space to come before the PC. He indicated that this is only required when a use is proposed for an area within a commercial building that requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Commissioner Deaton expressed her concern with the subdivision of a building and creating more businesses and more pazking shortages. Mr. Whittenberg noted that in order to address this concern it would require an amendment to the MSSP and to the Main Street Zoning Standazds. ~• Chairperson Shanks opened the public hearing. Michael Rosetti stated that he grew up~ in this azea, and now he wants to add to the city by providing. a Hawaiian theme restaurant. He indicated that the restaurant designer, Davis- Crimmins, has also lived in Seal Beach and is very familiar with it. Mr: Rosetti stated that he has worked in and knows the restaurant business very well and he believes this small restauxant will be a good fit for Seal Beach. With regard to pazking, he stated that they aze willing to help the parking situation ~ and pay the in-lieu fees. Commissioner Roberts noted that the bar area appears to be very lazge relative to the overall floor azea, • which will be a problem. Mr. Rosetti stated that there aze 8 seats at the bar, with 2 -~ additional seats for handicapped use. Commissioner Roberts asked if the plan includes a full baz or just tropical drinks. Mr. Rosetti stated that they would feature tropical drinks, but would have a full baz. Joyce Pazque spoke in opposition and questioned how this application could have been accepted when there is no pazking available. She stated that all of the restaurants in town• had been grandfathered in and the only way to start a new restaurant would be to purchase an existing restaurant. Chairperson Shanks asked for a quick explanation of the amount Mr. Rosetti would have to pay for additional pazking. Mr. Whittenberg referred to Page 33 of the Staff Report and explained that the MSSP Zoning standards allow for approval of certain uses through the CUP process, such as coffee houses, dessert shops, etc., with seating for more than 10 customers and when the gross squaze footage exceeds 1,000 feet; also, automatic ice vending and coin-operated amusement machines; commercial activities operating between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., entertainment cafes, gas stations located on • a major arterial, liquor establishments as part of a grocery store, movie theaters, pazking gazages, pet shops, private parking lots,. professional offices facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue, recycling facilities, and restaurants with or without alcohol sales. The City will not prohibit anyone from applying for a .CUP to establish any of these uses on Main Street, and when an application comes before the PC, the Commission decides whether to approve, deny, or approve the application subject to any conditions they feel are -'' Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking S~s.CC Sta$Report 19 _ •Provision o~ . „ ormation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Stc~`'Report December 12, 2005 ~) appropriate. The Director of Development Services indicated that Staff is required by law to accept an application that meets all of the standazds of state law and City requirements. He emphasized that no one can be denied application for a CUP when the .Zoning laws allow this. With regard to this application, Mr. Whittenberg reported that it would require 17 in-lieu pazking spaces for aone-time fee of $3,500 per space for a total fee of $59,500. Mario Voce stated that the reason for the low incident rate for the 300 block of Main Street as reported by SBPD is due to the lack of bazs along this block. He indicated that as the number of bars is increased there would be more incidents occurring. David Rosenman stated that even with the smaller baz he is still troubled by this proposal. He questioned the success of another restaurant in this area and noted that many restaurants make up for the lack of dining sales through the sale of ~hazd liquor. Ike agreed with Commissioner Deaton's suggestion that the .assistance of City Council be sought to. seek a solution to the parking problem. Ike said that this looks like a bar and Seal Beach doesn't need another baz. Mitzi Morton spoke in opposition and asked for c arification on what the total seating for the restaurant would be. Commissioner Roberts reported that the seating is appears to be approximately 24. Mr. Whittenberg added that the ultimate seating would be determined by the OCFA. Ms. Morton inquired about the parking for the proposed restaurant. Mr. Whittenberg stated that for the 1,865 square foot azea 'for the new restaurant would require 19 pazking spaces, with a credit of 2 parking spaces granted for the pazking grandfathered in with the former drugstore use, leaving a requirement of 17 pazking spaces. Ms. Morton explained that with all of the restaurant uses on Main Street with no pazking, patrons are pazking on Eighth and Tenth Streets and City residents aze not able to find a pazking space when they wish to shop on Main Street. Roger West spoke in opposition and noted that the church behind this property also has a. pazking problem; so perhaps a pazking agreement could be worked out between the . church and the restaurant. He stated that this is just a "saloon under the guise of a restaurant." Commissioner Deaton asked how many patrons Mr. Brian Rosetti feels he would have to seat in order for this restaurant to be successful. Mr. Rosetti stated that they would need 48 seats. :He said that he has visited Seal Beach for many ~yeazs and enjoys eating at Walt's Wharf, but he does feel that there are.many good restaurants on Main Street, and he believes that they can bring something more upper class that would serve high quality food. He stated that he and his brother have worked in many restaurants and have learned that good food and good service aze a priority, with drinks being secondary. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Shanks closed the public hearing. J Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parlaag Status.CC Staff Report 20 Provision of Information -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parkinglssues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 Commissioner Comments Commissioner Roberts stated that the arrest statistics have hit- home with him and he cannot in good conscious contribute to this by approvin a of alcohol service for this restaurant. Commissioner Deaton stated that the City still needs to resolve the pazking issue, as '$60,000 is a lot of money, and this still does not provide pazking for one car. She said she would vote to deny based upon pazking and the request for liquor service. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the PC can deny CUP OS-14 as presented, or it can approve the restaurant without the sale of alcohol. He stated that if the restaurant is approved without alcohol, the Zoning Ordinance automatically allows for the utilization of the in-lieu p~r~g program to meet the pazking standazd, and would not have the authority to say no to .the in-lieu parking, as this is left to the discretion of the Director of Development Services, but ~an appeal to the PC can be made once a The Director of makes a decision, and this would require a Public hearing and would only happen if the PC were to approve the restaurant and deny the alcohol service. Commissioner Deaton asked on what grounds the PC could deny the restaurant. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the PC could deny based upon incompatibility of the restaurant with the neighborhood. Chairperson Shanks stated that what Commissioner Denton is referring to is whether the proposed used does not conflict with the MSSP goal to establish and maintain a balanced mix ' of uses that serve the needs of both local and non-local populations. Mr. Whittenberg added that this would be one of the azeas of findings that Staff could look at, and there is a specified set of findings for CUPS in the MSSP, and if the PC feels the restaurant use does not comply with those findings, then Staff could return to the PC with a final resolution that incorporates ~ these findings. Chairperson Shanks stated that from an aesthetic point, the wall along the old railroad right-of--way is a solid wall, and if this were to ~be a nice restaurant, windows could be placed here instead to provide a more aesthetic look towazds.the greenbelt. Chairperson Shanks also noted that in the past the PC has approved restaurants with alcohol service, and if the food service doesn't go well, then alcohol seems to become more important and restaurants being promoting "happy hours" and alcohol sales increase. He then requested a motion. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Roberts to direct Staff. to prepaze a Resolution for Conditional Use Permit OS-14 to approve a restaurant and deny the sale of alcohol. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 -1 AYES: Shanks, Deaton, Ladner, and Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: O'Malley Mr. Whittenberg stated that there is no final decision at this point and Staff will prepaze a resolution for presentation at the December 7, 2005 Planning Commission meeting that Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Pazldng Status.CC St$ff Report 21 Provision ofl.~ormation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff Report _ ~ ~ December 12, 2005 _l reflects the intent for final PC review. He noted that once the PC takes action to adopt a resolution then the 10-day appeal period will begin. pRAFt .J _~ Alwhol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 22 Provision of Ly vr»iation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 ATTACHMENT 3 EXCERPTS OF "BACSGROUND MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN, SEAL BEACH", PREPARED BY SYSTEMS WITH[ LINSCOTT, GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS, JANUARY 1995 STUDIES, CITY OF ZUCKER LAW & DATED Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 23 ~ 1 ' 9~4. '~i 1 Jr'~,,(j /~ ~ x . ~. ~° 1. ~ ~~. 4 4 . ~ ~ ~ .~ a ~ ~ - .. ;• '• . , ...: .~ f ~~ • ~. . J~ ~: ~~` Cv:'~E ti•~ ry~-r~ {~ A:i {~ _ Y ~3:' 4•u ~_ _ _ _ .'F~x+as~r«ssa~vs w~aacxurxmcaxe u. ~cxxastw {a,ea,aa<r_.ww'+# _. ®~ Z~JCKEI~ SYSTEI'15 ~ with ~inscott, Lavv & Greenspan, Engineers PACGR®Ul~ ST~TI)IES 1®T STREET SPECIFIC PI~AI~T CITX OF SEAL PEACI~ January, 1995 ~y Zucker Systems with Linscott, Law and Greenspan .~ TAELE OF CONTENTS ` ~ J L INTRODUCTION AND SUIVIMARY ....................................................... 1 IL INTERVIEWS ......................................................................................................... 7 1. Background ............................:............................................................................ 7 2. Vision of Seal Beach -What People Like the Most .......................... 7 3. What People Like the Least ..........................................................:.............. 8 4. Land Use Issues ...........................................:..................................................... 9 5. Design Issues ......................................................................................................10 6. Signs .......................................................................................................................11 7. Parking ...............:................:................................................................................11 8. Alle3's ......................................................................................................................14 9. Other Issues ............................:..........................................................................14 10. Expectations for the Specific Plan ........................................................15 J - III.. OI'lNIONS~CT'Y ....:.........................................................:..................:.........16 1. Overview .............................................................................................................16 2. Survey Responses ......................................... . 16 . ............................... ............. 3. Image of the Area 18 ............................................................................................ 4. What People Like the Most ...:..................................................................:19 5. What People Like the Least........: .............................................................. 20 6. Businesses ................................................................................:...........................21 7. Design Issues ................................................................................................. 24 8. Amenities ............................................................................................................ 25 9. Parking Issues ...............................................................................:......:........... 27 .~ Main Street Specific Plan. Zucker Systems _. ~ _ i ~~ N V. ENERAL PLAN ANI~ ORDINANCES ................................................ 31 1. eneral Plan ...................................................................................................... 31 2. Specific Plan ....................................................................................................... 32 3. Zoning Cvde ~ ~ '~ ....................................................................................................... 36 4. Other Ordinances..... ................................................................................... 40 LAND I75~ ..................................................:.........................:. ............................ 41 1. Overview .............................................................................................. ............... 41 2. Main Street ........................................................................................................ 43 3. Adjoining Residential Neighborhood .................. .,,.,, c~ ............................ 4. Food and Beverage Establishments ...................................... .................4$ ,. _ . 5:~ ues ......................................................................................................................49 PAIi.KING AND TRAFFIC ............................................................................ 53 1. Introduction .....................:............................:.................................................... 53 2. Description of the Study Area .........:..................... . .................................... 53 3. Circulation Overview ...................................................... .. 54 4. Parking Inventory ......................................................................................... 54 5. Residential Parking.P.~rmit Program ................................................. 60 6. Merchants' Parl~ng Program ...:............................... ............................... 61 7. Parking In-Lieu Program ..............:.......................................................... 61 8. Parking Demand Analysis ......................................................................... 64 9. ~ Parl~ng Opportunities ................................................................................. 69 10. Theoretical Parl~ng Demand ................................................................71 11. Summary of Parldng Findin gs ................:............................................ 74 12. Parking Alternatives ....................................... ........................................... 76 lrlain ~'~reet ~peci~c Plan Zucker Systems ~~ VIL URBA N DESIGN ................................................................................................. 77 1. Storefront Windows ............................ ~ ~ .. .................................................:....... 78 2. Building Set-Backs ............................................................................:............ 80 3. Facade Continuity .......................................................................................... 84 4. Screening of Parking ................................... ......... 86 ....................................... . 5 Street Trees . ........................................................................................................ 90 6. Design Theme ...................................................... 92 ............................................. 7 Building Scale . .................................................................................................... 93 8. Trademark Buildin s g ................................................................................... 95 9. 'ding Height :................ : : ....................................... .. .................................... 96 . .. 10. Ut~ty Poles ...................................................................................................... 98 ...~ 11. Newsracks ....................................................................................................... 99 12. Benches ....................................................................................................... .. 99 13. Bicycle Facilities ......................:..................................................................... 99 14. Street Li htin g g .....:......................................................................................... 99 15. Paving Surfaces ..........................................................................................100 16.~ Rear Alle s y ...........................................................:........................................100 VIgI. AB 1600 .............................................:..:.................................................................. 102 .~ Main Street Specific Plan ~ ~ Zucker Systerras t r '~~ APPENDIX -~ A MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN B. C-1 ZONING REGULATIONS C. WINDOWS /TRANSPARENCY 1 D. SURVEY OF COMMT.TNITIES E• PARKING UTILIZATION TABLES F. OPINION SURVEY AND SUMMARY OF RESPONSES G. STREET LEVEL 1994 LAND USE SURVEY LIST O~ FI~URE~ III-1 NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONSES BY BLOCK FACE ............ 17 V-1 SPECIAL LAND USES ........................................ ............. 42 . . VI-1 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROLS ...........................................:............... 55 VI-2 PARKING RESTRICTIONS ......................................... 57 ............................ ..... VI-3 STUDY PARKING AREAS - ... ...................... ~.: ............................. ............... 58 VI-4 FIRE STATION LOT .......................................................................................... 71 VI-5 10TH STREET & CENTRAL LOT ..................... ................. 72 ....................... VII-I URBAN DESIGN ISSUES .......... 7 ............................................:...................... 7 VII-2 FACADE CONTINUITY ........................................ 85 ....................................... VII-3 STREET TREES . .................................................................................................. VZI 91 -4 BUILDING HEIGHT : .... ................................................................................... 96 M i S a n treet Specific Plan Zucker S stern y s -.., LIST OF TABLES i I-1 Summary of Opinions Concerning Main-Street ...............:....:......:............ 3 III-1 Survey Respondents ...........................................................................................: 16 III-2 Number of Responses to Survey by Street .....................................:..........18 III-3 Image of the Area Responses ..........................................................................19 III-4 What Survey Respondents Like Most About the Main St. Area... 19 III-5 What Survey Respondents Like Least About the Main St. Area _ 20 III-6 Respondents' Feelings About Whether There- Should Be More Of, Kept the Same; or Less Of Selected Businesses .........:........21 IlI-7 Percent of Business -Local vs.Tourist .:...............................................:..... 22 - .III-8 Main Street Respondents' Opinions Regarding Creation of . A Business Improvement District for Main Street ............................. ~3 III-9 Improvements Desired for Main Street .................................................... 25 ._~ . III-10 Who Should Be Responsible for Providing Main Street Amenities? ............................................................................................................... 26 III-11 Does the Main Street Area Have A Parking Problem? ................... 27 III-12 There Is A Parking Problem But Seal Beach Is A Beach Town and Needs to Learn to Live With It ............................................:..............27 III-13 Do You.Favor the Use of Parking Meters on Main St.? .................28 III-14 Solutions to Parking Problems ..................................................................... 28 III-15 Do You Favor the In-Lieu Fee Parking Program? ..........................29 III-16 Who Should Rand Parking Improvements? ........................................29 --~ Main Street Specific Plan - Zucker Systems • ;e -~, V-1 Land Use ...................................................................................................... . .....:....... 45 V-2 Establishments Serving Alcohol ....................................................................... 49 VI-1 Eighth and Tenth Street Beach Lot Parking Fees ...............................60 VI-2 In-Lieu and Parking Mitigation Program Participants ..................62 VI-3 Parking Lease In Old Town .................................................:..............:............63 VI-4 Existing Funds for Parking Improvement .......:......................................63 VI-5 Bonding Ability from,In-Lieu Program ..................................................... 64 VI-6 Saturday Non-Peak Season Parking Occupancy Analysis.......~......65 VI-7 Saturday Peak Season Parking Occupancy Analysis ........................ 67 VI-8 Parking Inventory S~.mmary ....................................................:.................... 73 _ .,~ _' Main Street Specific Plan ~ . Zucker Systems I: INTRODUCTIOl~ AND SUMN.~R~' - In_our proposal to prepare this Specific Plan, we suggested the following opuuons: / Current ]Land Use Mix - Seal Beach downtown currently has a unique mix of residential serving commercial (both retail- and service), visitor serving commercial, public and semi public uses,- parks and open -space and residential. Tlzis mix presents one of the best "small town" mixes we've seen anywhere- in the State. This type of mix can be very fragile.- The Specific Plan study needs to-document the mix, look at -the trend of the mix, predict the trend, and help the City determine the appropriate mix. Both the commercial area ar~d residential areas need to maintain Zong term viability. / ~~ Seal Beach. downtown currently has a delightful mix of . architecture appropriate fora "small town" atmosphere. The views and trees tend to pull it all together. The last thing we believe the City needs is the unifying, "cutesy" design concepts - contained in many downtown design guidelines. We see the design guidelines focussing on a few key variables that -can reinforce the current feel of downtown and help preserve it for the future. - / Parl~ng There may well be an overall shortage of parking. However, an - .even more serious issue appears to be parking management and the distribution of parking spaces. Parts of downtown have excess capacity, other parts have inadequate capacity. The City currently has a number of actions underway to address this issue. The Specific Plan needs to look at parking needs and supply but . also must look at parking management.- The City should also recognize that the management needs will change over time. - Although there is considerable science anvolved in parking studies - -there is also a large component of human interaction. We won't really know how people will respond to parking time limits or fees until they are put in place. These variables can be adjusted to : achieve desired results. - - J Main Street Specific Plan 1 ~ Zucker Systems / AIleys Most of the alleys do not lend themselves to dual store front entrance schemes or public ~prz~r~king`schernes used in many communities. This is due to the small size of parking areas, loading needs, and concerns for how these areas relate to the abutting residential uses. We see the need to do some detailed alley planning as part of the Specific Plan. / Change Dynamics The City should think of downtown as a dynamic organism. The Specific Plan will help establish the vision and set measurable goals and parameters. It. wilt also show how these should be monitored and used over time. For example, land use issues include vacancies, sales tax, nuisance complaints, changing products and markets and beach usage. Parking issues include price, length of stay, and over all demand. After completing our detailed research, we believe our initial impressions continue to be sound. However, we believe there is little planning that needs to be done in the alleys. There is considerable agreement of opinion amongst the people we interviewed, the opinion survey and our personal observations. ~ Most importantly, there appears to be agreement on the vision for Main Street 'as follows: NISI®N The Main Street azea `is particulazly important because it is the heart and soul of Seal Beach. The vision for Main Street is small town America. Important features include a family town with friendly people who caze for each other. A pedestrian oriented area where people walls and feel safe on the street at night. An area with both azchitectural and economic diversity with a mix of business, housing types and institutions. The key question is how to~retairi this vision for Seal Beach. Town after town; across the country has learned the high price of prosperity. What were once del-ightful small towns and' main streets have become just another boutique heaven. Seal Beach will change. The question is what direction will the change take and what will be its pace? Some forces such as the big box retailers are outside the City's control. Other forces such as Main Street Specific Plan 2 Zucker Systems ~ r architecture; liquor licenses, and :parking can be heavily controlled or impacted. ~~ There are many complex inter-related issues to be considered for Main Street. Opinions on these were gleaned from our interviews, the opinion survey and our own experiences. To assist readers with the review of this extensive background report, we've summarized much of_this material in Table I-1. As can be seen there is considerable agreement on many of the issues. TABLE I-1 Summary of Opinions Concerning Main Street ~ - TOPIC INTERVIEW OPINION CONSULTANT'S OPIlVIONS ~ SURVEY FINDINGS Draft Vision for - Main Street Agree Agree Agree Land Use ..l Alcohol=serving J businesses need caieful control. ~-Yes Yes ~- ~~Yes - ~_:--There is~concern in relation to amplified music. Yes Yes Yes More retail is desired. Yes --~.-~ Yes ~ .Yes De--sue-n Eclectic archi- tecture is appropriate. Yes Yes - ~ ~ Yes Design review for buildings. Maybe Yes Maybe _~ Main Street Specific PIan 3 Zucker Systems TOPIC INTERVIEW OPINION CONSULTANT'S _ OPIlVIONS SURVEY FINDINGS Who Pays? Main St. and .City ~ ~. should share. ~ Maybe .Maybe Yes Create a Business Improvement District. Maybe Maybe Maybe Based on the work completed ; to .da.te, some ~ of the key -choices or alternatives for the City include the following: Land Use 1. A unifi~~d.approach to alcohol serving businesses and businesses with music should be developed. 2. The number of certain .types of businesses could be directly regulated. An alternative approach would be to encourage certain types of businesses and discourage other. types through parking _. regulations. For example, parking could ~be waived ~ entirely for certain types of uses like retail, drug stores, grocery stores,. etc. Parking could be required for ~ restaurants or stores exceeding ~ a certain size. 3. Stores exceeding a certain size could be prohibited ~in~ order to maintain the scale of Main Street. Design 1. Design controls could be adopted requiring design review for remodels and new buildings. As an alternative, design criteria could be written to be applied in the use permit process, for building permits, or only. applied to selected uses. It appears ~ that minimal rather than maximum controls may be desired in order to continue the eclectic design theme. _~ Main Street Specific Plan 5 Zzccker~ Systems II. INTERVIEWS ~~ 1. BACKGROUND As part of preparation for the Specific Plan, twelve interviews were held on May 13, 1994. The interviews were held on a one- on-one confidential basis with members of the City Council, Planning Commission and Community representatives. The interviews were intended to help focus community issues, assist~in preparing the questionnaires to be distributed to residents and businesses, and to help establish a vision for downtown. 2. VISION OF SEAL BEACH - WI3AT PEOPLE T,7KF THE MOST There is virtually a unanimous agreement on what people like the most, expressed by the words "small town". As expressed by one person - "a big time, small town feeling"; or by another, "like dropping a small town from Iowa into southern California." Small town means: Mix of business Pretty Some character Different than the rest of southern California Variety of buildings Quaintness . Friendliness; very friendly people Architectural diversity Family town -family oriented Interplay of residents Physically isolated Large sense of community Feel safe walking the streets at night, low crime rate People care for each other People value education Economic diversity Comraderie ~) Main Street Specific Plan 7 Zucker Systems Small town doesn`t mean Balboa Island Belmont Shores Huntington Beach Long Beach Consultant's Comments: Our impression to date can be characterized by the following draft vision: VISION The Main Street area is particularly important because it is the heart and soul of Seal Beach. The vision for Main Street is small town America. Important features include a family town with friendly people who care for each other. A pedestrian oriented area where people walk and feel safe on the street at night. An area with both architectural and economic.diversity with a mix of business, housing types and institutions. 3. WHAT PBOPLE T,TKF THE T,FAfiT Some of those interviewed couldn't think of~ anything they liked the least - i.e., "it's great as it is." Others suggested: / Traffic in residential areas . / Lack of parking ~/ Anti-business attitudes ~ -~ ~~ / Special events help food places but not services and retail / Attitude of business owners / Darkness on Main Street / Trees breaking up sidewalk . / Stores close too early / Too many beauty shops - no retail / Economically the pits / Rents are too high / Restrictive climate for business / Too many alcohol serving businesses Can't buy anything here, i.e., suits, refrigerators, cars Main Street Specific Plan 8 ~ Zucker Systems / Crowds in summertime _ ~ ~/ Business community isn't in sync with the rest of the town ~ _ ~ . 4. LAND USE ISSUES People like the current mix of uses on Main Street. However, some feel it would be desirable to: / Have more retail, things people' can buy / Have less beauty parlors / No more alcohol serving businesses /Have more unique businesses . / Businesses. that would bring in other new businesses / Resident entertainment - no amplified music Have 20-25% more high end business ' Ho~~vever, there appears to be considerable reluctance to try to regulate the~mix with the exception of alcohol serving businesses. Issues include: A feeling that many retail businesses can't compete on Main Street with the large chain stores in surrounding areas. . In the final analysis the market will dictate anyway, can't swim upstream. This is a beach town, some of the uses go with the territory. There is a high turnover of businesses. Mix is irrelevant. Like to grow dollar wise ~ but not at the expense of the ambiance. Only businesses who want to come here are tourist oriented. Mix is an unsolvable problem. -~ ---- Main Street Specific Plan 9 ~ Zucker Systems . Restaurants, bars and liquor .licenses were .subject to much discussion. Many people feel the area already h~as`too. many liquor licenses. However, one person suggested this is a red herring. The only reason there are so many liquor licenses is due to many restaurants. This shouldn't be an issue for restaurants primarily serving food. Some suggested that after 11 p.m. restaurants actually function like bars. There is some concern about inequity of current regulations regarding closing times. The concern in relation to liquor licenses is the potential for increased noise, crime and a diminishing of the family atmosphere. Some consider a couple of locations as the only real problems. Consultant's Coaiinents: It appears that the plan should include a clear policy in relation to liquor licenses and terms ~of,operation: ~ It may or inay not be appropriate to limit other type of uses, however; incentives might ~be created to encourage certain uses and discourage others. 5. DESIGN ISSUES The existing diverse, eclectic architecture is strongly supported. No one wants a uniform design scheme or theme -a "cookie cutter town". Buildings that were criticized generally consisted of contemporary glass, metal, or hard surfaces. A number of new remodels are liked including B.J.s, and the Christian Book Store. Although some favor creating a design review process, others strongly feel this is unnecessary. Specific design suggestions included: / Year-round lights in the trees /More benches {some said there are already too many) /Window boxes, barrels with flowers /Keep height limit low / Better lighting / Repair sidewalks / Replace existing trees . / Bury power lines Main Street Specific Plan ~ 10 Zucker Systems C is ~, i i7 u 0 ~} Consultant's Comments: The eclectic architecture is totally appropriate for the small town theme. Although in theory design review can .help to keep this theme, in practice, design review can be difficult to administer and often leads to unintentional results. Amore appropriate approach for Seal Beach could be to set certain additional requirements in the Specific Plan without adding a formal design review process. Criteria could also be suggested for those uses requiring a use permit. 6. SIGNS There were no complaints or suggestions concerning business signs. Evidently the current ordinance is working quite well. Some discussion took place concerning signs demarking or advertising Main Street. There was little or no support for an .arch over Main Street or any large signs advertising Main Street. Some more modest signage at Pacific Coast Highway could ~be _ acceptable. . ';) -' Consultant's Coxnynents: We agree that an arch or large sign advertising Main Street would appear to be. out of character with the small town image. 7. PAR]E~TG Generally people feel there is ~a parking problem in downtown. Differences arise as to what to. do about it. One person suggested you could level everything and there would still be a.problem. Some feel the problem has been magnified~more than it is. It is suggested that in a beach town you need to learn to live with it. It was also strongly suggested that the problem may be management of existing spaces rather than the need for new spaces. Some felt the problem is beach users rather than shoppers. Main Street Specific Plan 11 ~ Zucker Systerris Problems are suggested as: ~ During the summer Fridays and Saturdays Mealtimes, particularly noon Short term in and out parking The two-hour limits are not well enforced People who work in businesses leave cars on the street People with lot stickers still park on the street City employees park on 8th Street instead of using the city lot Competition at 5:00 p.m, between residents and restaurant workers . Residential garages are used for storage or illegally converted to apartments The overriding concern for adding parking would be -who pays, and how to fund any improvements? Specific issues were discussed as follows: a Decking the Beach Lot • A few people support decking of the beach lot if it could be _~ funded and not block the views. ~ Most however were less - than enthusiastic due to concern of view blockage, law enforcement and crime issues, further tipping the balance to tourists, negative impact on the character of the beach, - and "it would be ugly". b. Better U ' tilization of Beach Lot Everyone felt the beach lot could be better utilized. Ideas included: Open at night ~ - Variable fee schedule for short-term parking Merchants validation progra~rn Educate people that they can use stickers on this lot Use for restaurant valet parking Shuttle bus during peak restaurant hours _) Main Street Specific Plan 12 Zucker Systems c. Decl~ng 8th Street (.Ere Station) Lot ~ People were split down the middle on the issue of decking the 8th Street lot. Some felt that this would be a good solution if not too costly or ugly. Others felt this would introduce additional traffic into a residential area, add noise, destroy the village small town atmosphere and would be ugly. It was suggested that this lot is .already used after 5:00 p.m. by the public when .the parking control of£icexs go home, and that the lot should be signed to allow that type of public use. ~ . d. Parl~ng 11Reters There were mixed views on the topic of parking meters. Some felt they work well as demonstrated in other communities. _ They raise revenue and help to manage the " time limits since today people rub off the chalk all the time. The cost/revenue of parking meters is not well understood. If used they should be more aesthetically attractive than the _~ prior meters. Others were strongly opposed to parking meters. It is suggested that they do not fit the small town atmosphere, are aesthetically unacceptable, and create a subtle negative feeling with customers. It was suggested instead that the merchants pay the equivalent of the meter revenue. Another idea was to allow residents to park at the meters free. _.,:_: _. e. In=~ " ~eu Fees There is considerable confusion surrounding the in-lieu parking program. Some consider it illegal and unfairly enforced. In some cases it's viewed as punitive. There is no clear program for spending the dollars. It is negative to new uses vs. existing ones. However, merchants and property owners in other parts of town must pay for parking so why not on Main Street? Main Street Specif c Plan " 13 Zucker Systems = f. Other Ideas Better utilization of 1st Street lot ~' Decking City lot in the 100 block of Main Street Diagonal parking on Electric Consultant's Comments: The parking issues will be~ examined as part of the specific plan. It is very clear that there is first and foremost a parking management problem. The appropriate number and type of spaces will be examined in the study. S. AT T FYI A number of issues were raised concerning the alleys behind Main Street. Some felt they could be better utilized for customer parking, others felt this would add to noise and general intrusion into the residential areas. Issue and ideas included: Limit the hours that back door entry and exits can be used Better lighting More uniformity to the backs of the commercial buildings Remove some storage in favor of parking 9. ISSUES a Communication and Implementation A major issue appears to be the' lack of good working relations between owners, businesses and residents. Some see the Business Association as being negative ~on most issues. Others see the city in general as having a negative business attitude. There appears to be a lack of a good forum to pull everyone together. b. Who Pays A big issue is who should pay. Some feel the NIain Street area is a net financial deficit to the city so merchants and owners should pay for all improvements. Others feel Main Street is important to the entire community and should be supported on a broader basis. ~ Main Street Specific Plan 14 Zucker Systems ., _,,~ ~, ,~ ~'~ III. OPIrTION SURVEY 1. oVERV1EW Some caution is in order for readers of the survey responses. The survey can be helpful in shaping the Main Street program, but is only . one of a variety of factors to be considered. Furthermore, opinions tend to have a short shelf life and can change based on new information. ' ~; 2. SURVEY RESPONSES An opinion survey, as shown in Appendix F, was mailed to 1200 property owners, residents and businesses in the Main Street area at ~ ' the end of September and. into October. ~ , i '. 502 surveys were returned for a return rate of 42%. This is a better than normal response rate for this type of survey. -' Survey respondents are shown in Table III-1. There was a good mix of owners and renters, both for businesses and for residential respondents. ~ ' ~- -~ TABLE III-1 , Sinvey Resg~ndents ,. TYPE # RESPONDING .% ~ ' , Owner of a business ~in the area. 80 ~ 14 Owner of a business property in _ the area. 65 12 I reside in the Main Street area as a renter. 207 38 . I reside in the Main Street area and own my dwelling. 200 36 - ~~ 552* 10 0 , * Note: Some respondents fit more than one of the categories. "' ~ Y The responses by block are shown in Figure III-1 and listed in Table III- . k 2. Responses were generally evenly spread throughout the Main Street area. -- - _~~, TABLE III-3 ~.~ Image of the Area Responses RESPONSE ~ NUMBER PERCENTAGE Statement represents your image. 418 91% Statement does not represent your image. 39 ~ 8% No Opinion ,~ ~ 1% 462 100% 4. WHAT PEOPLE T,TKF, THE MOST I~.espondents were asked to list what they liked the most about the Main Street area as summarized in Table III-4. As sho~yn in the Table, the respondents mostly value the small town diversity that is friendly, safe and close to home. It is also noteworthy to see the large number of _ respondents that value the restaurants. TABLE III-4 ~lzat Sau-~rey Re~pon~ I.i'ke"Most A-~iotat The Ndaia~Street Ai ea TOPIC Intimate small town Diversity Friendly people Safe, friendly Close to home Restaurants . Nice place to walk Unique/Quaint Close to beach NUMBER OF FAVORABLE RESPONSES 180 100 ~~ 72 70 . 64 . .~~~~ 41 31 ~ . 27 16 .J Main Street Specific Plan 19 - Zucker Systems s TOPIC Privately owned and interesting shops Trees Post Office Unpretentious Shops and services Grocery store B ofA NUMBER OF FAVORABLE RESPONSES 11 8 7 6 6 5 . 5 5. WHAT PEOPLE T,TKF, THE T,FAGT Respondents were asked to list what they liked the least about the Main Street area as summarized in Table III-5. The overabundance of bars and liquor licenses was mentioned the most often, closely followed by parking problems. Problems with drunks, Homeless and panhandlers was also prominent in the responses. TABLE III-5 What Survey-poradents Ike Least bout The Main`Street-Area TOPIC NUMBER OF RESPONSES Establishments:witH liquor licenses ~=~particilarly bars , 97 - Lack of parking ~ ~~ 82 Drunks, homeless, and panhandlers 53 Traffic 31 Tourist shops and art galleries ~ ~ 23 Beauty shops ~ 20 Lack of diversity 18 Skateboarders 14 Gangs 13 Lighting 1S Iv~vn Street 5peci~c Plan 20 Zucker Systems TOPIC' NUMBER OF RESPONSES Property maintenance 12 Trash overflowing g Lack of entertainment 8 Lack of restrooms and restroom maintenance 7 6. BU~gNESSES A variety of questions were asked to obtain respondents' opinions about businesses in the Main Street area. Respondents would like to see more restaurants of all types including outdoor. Also high on the list were bookstores, clothing, grocery, coffee houses and pogurt. Retail'of all types was general favored. Respondents overwhelmingly would like to see fewer bars, liquor stores, beauty shops, nail shops and T-shirt shops. Table III-6 asked a similar question using closed end questions. TABLE ffi-~ ondents' Feelings Abort ~9'hether There Should Be - M®~ of; t the Saan~; ®r I~ss of S~le~ted B~ne~s TYPE OF BUSINESS MORE OF KEPT THE LESS OF Grocery stores 263 288 10 Book stores 233 172 6 Retail shops _ 229 185 10 Restaurants' ~ -~° 187 182 ~ . 30 Entertainment establ. 139 168 ~ .107 Clothing stores 128 ~ ~ 235 ~ 24 Appliance stores 76 234. 76 Furniture stores 73 206 78 Services (office, financial) 69 250. 72 Medical care 63 227 50 Fast food restaurants 43 182 171 Hardware stores 39 365 3 Bars 22 218 191 Services (beauty, nails, etc:) 20 182 184 Liquor stores ~ 17 234 154 Main Street Specific Plan 21 Zucker ,Systems = Respondents were asked about a number of business related issues and answered as follows: / 32% approve of amplified-music / 86% approve of non-amplified music / 48% would like retail businesses to stay open later at night / 26% would not like them staying open / 26% had no opinion ' / 79°!o feel the .current mix of resident-serving vs, business- serving uses is about right, but / 41% would favor limiting the number of visitor-serving businesses. Businesses were asked to indicate the percent of their business that was local vs. tourist and visitors as shown in Table III-7. Percent of Visitor and Local s'Businesses (Averaged by R~aondents) TYPE OF BUSINESS % LOCAL % TOURISTS Insurance 100 & VISITORS Pets 100 0 0 Medical 97 3 Advertising 95 ~ .5 Hardware 95 5 Professional 90 ~ 10 Cocktail Lounge 90 10 Travel Agency ~ 12 Clothing ~ 85 15 Liquor Store 85 15 Boutique 80 20 Music 80 - 20 Jewelry 75 25 Nails ~ Nursery 70 30 Beauty Shop 70 ~ 65 30 Restaurant 63 35 37 Books 60 40 Main Street Spec~iic pI~ 22 Zucker Systems ,: - TYPE OF BUSINESS % LOCAL % TOURISTS & VISITORS . ~ ~ Gift Shop 60 40 Psychotherapist 60 40 Dental 60 ~ 40 Bicycle 60 40 Bakery 50 50 Rubber Stamps 50 50 Frame & Gallery ~ 45 55 Retail 43 57 Legal 40 60 Sporting Goods 40 60 T-Shirts 30 70 Drugs 25 75 Real Estate 23 ~ 77 Antiques ~ 20 80 Art Stare 20 80 TaglBookkeeping - 20 80 Video Rental 10 90 Businesses and business property owners were asked if they would favor creation of a Business Improvement District for Main Street. - ~ - This question was evidently misunderstood since many residential people responded. Since a district would normally only be funded by business, we separated res pondents from Main Street as shown in Table III-8. Although more respondents, favor than oppose an improvement district the high number of no opinion and rio answer indicates the issues may not be well understood. - . . . TABLE III-S Main Street giesgondents' Opinion Re: Creation of ,A Business Improvement Iistrict for Main Street CATEGORY Yes No No opinion No answer _~ NUMBER 16 12 18 _7 53 PERCENT 30% 22% 34% 13% Main Street Specific Plan ~ 23 ~ Zucker Systems _ 4. FOOD AND BEVERAGE ESTABLISBNIENTS . Frequently, the biggest conflict between a commercial center and an adjoining residential neighborhood is between the residents and the nearby eating and drinking establishments. Restaurants and their related activities, i.e. liquor sales and entertainment, serve both the community and visitors. They also may cause some or all of the following problems: Noise Impacts Food Odors unruly Cliental Parking ~ Congestion Some establishments have none of the above problems, while other may at times have all of them. How these problems are addressed make for a successful or poor business/residential relationship. In the old town of Seal Beach there are 23 restaurants of which 14 serve • liquor, see Table V-2. Also there are two bars which serve no food and three other businesses licensed to sell .liquor for off-premise - consumption-Seal Beach Liquor, Nip `n Stuff and Johns Food King. Seal Beach requires all business • establishments which serve or sell alcoholic beverages to have a conditional use permit regardless of how long they have been established. In 1985 only twelve restaurants served alcohol. ~ In a ten year period three additional licenses have been issued and one has been forfeited. • Table V-2 also indicates which eating establishments serve alcoholic beverages and their closing hours. A maj ority of the. establishments are licensed to sell only beer and wine, and generally close between ten and eleven o'clock in the evening. The two bars. and four restaurants with general liquor licenses (permitted to sell distilled alcohol as well as beer and wine) are allowed to stay open later. All establishments are closed by 2:00 am. ~ . Main Street Specific Plan 48 Zucker Systems Table V 2 . Establishments ServingAloohol Beer/ General Entertain- Closing Hours Eshabbshment Wme ag~t Su F a Food and Beverage Seaside Grill X 11:00 12:00 Taco Surf X ~ 10:00 10:00 Pasta Grotto X 10:00 11:00 Don .Juan's Taco X 9:00 9:00 Hennessey's X X 1:30 ~ 1:300 Papillon X X X ~ 1:00** 1:00 V4:alt:s:. wharf X X 11:00 12:00 BJ's Pizzeria X 10:00 11:00 Main St. Cafe & Grille X• 10:00 10:00 Mandarin 'Garden X Bayou St:'John X 10:30 10:30 Cafe Lafeyette X ~ ~ 9:00 10:00 Ruby's - X 10:00 10:00 Kinda Lahina X X 11:00 12:00 El Burrito Jr.* X 10:00 12:00 Beverage- Clancy's X ~ X ~ 2:00 2;00 Irisher X X 2:00 2:00 - OffSite Consumption Seal Beach Liquor X X 11:00 12:00 Johns Food King X 10:00 11:00 Nip `n Stu$' X X 2:00 2:00 *pending - **Sun.--11:00 5. ISSUES What makes a community special is often the very same factor that causes .pressure for change. The more charming a town appears, the greater the demand upon the community from the outside. ~ The need to serve the visitor brings with ~it new businesses that can change the character of the town. Main streets like Seal Beach's have disappeared all over the country. Typical issues include: If they become very tourist popular, tourist uses and chain stores out bid local uses, driving up the rents and driving out local uses. Traditional small one-of-a-kind stores have trouble competing with the big box retailers and chain stores. .J lYlain Street Specific Plan 49 Zucker Systems It is normal to want to protect the special character of the community. '~ Other communities in similar situations have also experienced the conflict between the town and :visitor. We :surveyed a number.::of communities : which ~ have. to some :extent retained their ~ special character (Appendix D). When examining these communities and what they have done to .retain the essence of their original commercial center, it must be noted that frequently.no action or limited action has been as' successful as a full program of regulations and constraints. ' Techniques used include: • Limiting building square footage while prohibiting large retailers. • Letting the market dictate uses. • Setting quotas for certain types of commercial uses. • Requiring discretionary permits for certain uses. .J J Balboa Island and Laguna Beach, two communities that were surveyed are examples of two different approaches to town center protection. Each approach appears to be at the opposite ends to the spectrum from the other, and yet both communities have to some extent retained their community character even though there has been considerable pressure on their town centers. Balboa Island has no special zoning or restrictions. They rely on the market to control commercial uses. Laguna Beach, on the other hand, has adopted a specific plan for its commercial areas. Their Plan contains seven subareas (3.or~4 blocks each) .which identifies uses allowed by .right. ~ All other uses may be permitted within any subarea with a conditional use permit. Bars and restaurants are open as late as 2:00 a.m. All live music must, be inside a sound proof building with air conditioning and fixed glass. The hours of operation are limited by the permit. Smell control is frequently a condition of any restaurant approval. The City also depends on the adjoining residential neighborhood's. monitoring. If there are any public complaints regarding a use, the Planning Commission rehears the item. Main Street S~ectific Plan 50 Zucker. Systems ~e ,~, ~, To assist us ~in understanding how to keep Seal Beach vital and to protect its village quality, we interviewed owners and managers of essential village uses (grocery, drug, hardware stores etc.) to see what they thought about Main Street and what types of positive actions might be taken. Ideas included: Downtown needs to liven up -- perhaps with more live music. There needs to be a solution to parking problem -- it is a beach . related problem that impacts the whole town and should be addressed as such. Government needs to be more business friendly. City's parking Iots should be open on weekends and in the evenings. The sidewalks need to be upgraded -- they are a safety hazard. A new City Barking lot should be built at Central and Tenth Street. Store fronts need to be upgraded. Something should to be done about the many newspaper racks along the street. The problem of panhandlers needs to be resolved. There was no consensus amongst the businessmen regarding what the central~district needed. However, they all to.some degree felt that City Hall needed to be more positive to the business, and that perhaps, there were too many restrictions. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . In addition to the businessmens' recommendations and the planning approaches utilized by other small communities, Seal Beach might also consider: • Eliminating or reducing the parking requirements for desired . uses. • Increasing the parking requirements for less desirable uses. lYla1II btY'eet -5~eG7~C P~I1 ~1 ,,~ Zucker Systems ~ ~ All of the above should be evaluated for Seal Beach. The key for Seal ~ Beach is, to design a program that fits Seal Beach's unique community q~t5'• 1 Main Street Specific Plan 52 ~ Zucker Systems APPENDIX D Survey ~ of Communities ` 1 RESEARCH FOR SEAL BEACH Ashland, OR-(502) 488-5305 They have a mixed use zone requiring commercial on the ground floor and residential above. Strong design and sign controls guide the appearance of the development. They limit square footage of any building thus prohibiting Walmarts etc. Parking must be in the back 'or side, and the number of spaces allowed cannot exceed the city's standard by more than 10%. The City is assisted in their objectives by a strong State law that prohibits urban sprawl. They let the market control the mix of commercial. Without available land to expand out, the -citizen's commercial needs are met within the community. Avalon, Catalina, CA-(310) 510-0220 They depend on tourism for survival. Therefore, they do not limit the mix of commercial uses. They relay on the market to decide what is commercially viable. They have both a commercial zone and acommercial/residential zone. They utilize the entertainment permit as a method to regulate sound impacts\. Balboa Island, CA-(714) 644-3215 . The City has no special zoning or restrictions. They rely on the market to control uses. Berkeley, CA-(510) 644-6534 They have a complex system of commercial zoning. Their ordinance identifies different commercial overlays areas. Each area has a quota for each type of permitted commercial use. For businesses that stay open after 10:00 p.m., a . discretionary permit is necessary. Restaurants and night clubs need a special permit. (I sent for a copy of their ordinance.} Huntington Beach, CA-(714) 436-5271 The City's zoning does not addresses the number of any particular types of commercial use permitted. They rely on their policy positions for approval of special permits. All restaurants, bars etc. require a CUP. They have a very vocal community which influences which application receives approval. If a use is near residential development, the use may stay open until 11:00 p.m. on week nights and up to 1:00 a.m. on weekends. Laguna Beach, CA-(714) 644-3215 The City has adopted a specific plan for commercial areas. It contains seven subareas of 3 or 4 blocks each. Each subareas calls out permit uses allowed by right. Other uses may be allowed with a conditional use permit. It depends on the neighborhood. If there are anv. public complaints regarding a use, the Planning Commission rehears the item. Bars and restaurants are open unti12:00 a.m. All live music must be inside a sound proof building with air conditioning and fixed glass. The hours of operation are limited by the permit. Smell control Provision of t.yormation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 ATTACHMENT 4 NIINYTTE EXCERPT RE JOINT WORKSHOP - DRAFT MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN, AUGUST 9, ~ 1995 Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking Stahas.CC Staff Report 24 . ~ ' Page Seven - City Council Minutes - August 9, 1995 that that Policy be more specific as to how a bi-annual review j will be done, by public hearing for instance, and how changes ." will be made to carry out the intent of the Plan, to avoid vagueness as to the procedure. Having expressed appreciation to the Council, Commission, and public for their comments, the Director of Development Services explained that the main import of the Draft Specific Plan is to try to establish what the long-term goals are for Main Street and how land uses in the future will be determined on that Street. To a suggestion from the public to place a cap on the amount of restaurant space that would be allowed, the number of liquor licenses, and a determination of a standard for hours of operation, particularly restaurant usage, he noted-that the Council and Commission have dealt with those issues for. a number of years, and in looking at the processes that other cities go.through it vas not felt to be an appropriate choice for this City, explaining that some cities have put a per square foot cap on restaurant uses, limited the number of establishments, etc., and to his knowledge of where that has been done it has been a fairly involved process and in~some cases substantial court expenses have been realized as a result of those decisions, as well as extensive background and marketing studies that are necessary for a.city to provide the.nexus for placing a cap on certain uses in an .a=ea, therefore it was felt that the City did not have~the economic capabilities to do many of those difficult studies. Also, the process that the City currently uses gives the option to say either yes or ao, allows for the review of a new establishment on the Street and a determination if that use is compatible with the area, even though that sometimes becomes a contentious process, it is uncertain if that problem can be resolved~given the interface o! residential uses, a twenty foot alley, and commercial uses, and .even if there is a cap on the number of certain kinds of-uses or if specific• hours are established, those issues will still need to be addressed 'at some point in the future es someone will contend that someone else was allowed a use by right, the person had no knowledge of it or~did not like it, thus does not like the process, therefore again it was felt that the public hearing process gives the business people and the•surroundinq residents the best option to~fully explore a proposed use and make.a~determination as to whether or not it is appropriate. a He stated the attempt was to establish a~stronq definition of coffee shops, no more than twelve seats and no more than one thousand two hundred 'feet of total building area, anything exceeding that is not a coffee shop and would fall under different requirements, this use primarily attracts people • already on Main Street for some other purpose or an establishment may attract a clientele prior to their embarking on their business day, atc.,~the coffee shops thought to be a more pedestrian oriented use than-a restaurant. The intent vas to limit the scale of coffee shops by the maximum of twelve seats in that a larger sstablishment would tend to have a greater impact on the Street, however pointed out that enforcement is something that will continually need to be dealt with. To the question as to who pays the parking fee, the property owner or business owner, the Director noted that the City has no concern as to who pays the •fee, only that the fee is paid, the process utilized in most recent instances has been through a development agreement entered into with either the property owner or the lessee with consent of the property owner to enter into such agreement, in cost cases the property owner is the signatory on the agreement yet the issue of who pays the fee is up to agreement between the property and business owner. As to a question of clarity of the 5100 versus $3600 per space per year, the Director explained that ] ~ Provision ofln~vrmation-Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area - City Council Sta, fJ`'Report December 12, 2005 ATTACHMENT 5 ALCOHOL- AND DRUG-RELATED INCIDENT AND ARREST INFORMATION, 2004 AND FIRST QUARTER 2005 Alcohol Licenses & 1n-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 25 - Provision ofl.- . motion -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Sta, f}'Report December 12, 2005 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2004 CALENDAR YEAR INCIDENTS AND ARRESTS -CITYWIDE Total Incidents . AOD Incidents and % of Total Total Arrests ~ Total AOD Arrests and % of Total 11,493 (100.00%) 1,374 (11.96%) .,452 (100.00%) 303 (67.04%) . CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2004 CALENDAR YEAR ON-SALE ALCOHOL SALES INCIDENT REPORTS - - ~ ~ CITYWIDE .~ .2004 Calendar Year Total Events and of Total ~ Total AOD Events and % of Total Total Arrests and % of Total All On-Sale Locations 589 (100.00%) 162 (100.00%) 32 (100.00%) -Citywide (44) ~ ~ , All On-Sale Locations 380 (64.52%) 106 (65.43%) 20 (62.50%) -Main Street (18) ~ ~ ~~~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH = 2004 CALENDAR YEAR . S_ ETTING GROUPS BY AOD INVOL-VEMENT: INCIDENTS AND ARRESTS -CITYWIDE Incidents - Arrests ~: Setting .Group Total AOD •AOD % ~ -Total AOD ~ .AOD Residence 3,110 414 ~ 13.3 ~ ~ 58 ~34 58.6 Vehicle 1,632 234 14.3 ~ 153 128 ~ 83:7 Open Space 4,191 398 ~ 9.5 121 91. 7.5.2 Alcohol Outlet 394 205 52.0 20 -19 95.0 Other Location 2,166 123 5.7 100 31 ~ 31.0 TOTAL 11,493 1,374 12.0 452 303 67.0 Alcohol Licenses & 1n-Lieu Parking 3tatus.CC Staff Report 26 Provision oflnformation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Sta„~Report December 12, 2005 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2004 CALENDA_ R YEAR ON-SALE ALCOHOL SALES INCIDENT REPORTS - MAIN STREET Business Name Address Total Events and % of Total Total AOD Events and % of Total Total Arrests and % of Total The Grill 101 Main 2 (1.19%) 1 (1.12%) 1 (7.14%) Clancy's Saloon 111 Main 53.(31.55%) 37 (41.57%) 5 (35.71 %) Taco Surf ~ ~ 115 Main ~ 7 (4.17%) 1 (1.12%) 0 (0.00%) Pasta Grotto 117 Main 0 (0.00°/Q) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%} . The Irisher " 121 Main 28 (16.67%) ~ 20 (22.47%) 2 (14.29%) Rector's Taco House ~ ~ ~ 131 Main 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) . 0 (0.00%) Old Town Cafe 137 Main 1 (0.59%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) O'Malleys on Main 140 Main 23 (13.69%) 12 (13.48%) 2 (14.29%) Hennessey's ~ Tavern 143 Main 12 (7,14%) 5 (5.62%) 1(7.14%) Walt's Wharf ~ 201 Main 9 (5:36%) ~ 4 (4.49%) 1(7.14%) BJ's Chicago Pizza 209 Main .~ , . : 9 (5.36%) . 2 (2.25%) 0 (0.00%) Main Street Cafe 303 Main 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) ~ 0 (0.00%) The Abbey ~~ 306 Main ~ 8 (4.76%) 4 (4:49%)~ ~~ 1 ~ (7.14%) Bayou St. John 320 Main ~ 0 (0.00%) .0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) Cafe Lafayette -330 Main 1 (0.59%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) Kinda Lahina ~ ~ 901 Ocean ~ _ 9 (5.:36%) .2 (2.25%) 1 (7.14%) EI Burrito Jr. 2 909 Ocean 6 (3.57%) 1 (1.12%) 0 x(0.00%) TOTAL 168 (100%) 89 (100%) 14 (100%) Alcohol Licenses & 7n-Lieu Paddng Stat°s.CC Staff Report 27 l ~ , Provision of t.., vrmation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 Total Events Total AOD Total Arrests Intersection Location and % of Events and and % of Total % of Total ~ Total Main and Ocean (Includes Pier, 777 115 6 (100.00%) Beach, and Beach Parking Lots) (93:39%) (93.50%) Main and PCH ~ 55 (6.61 %) 8 (6.50%) ~ 0 (0.00%) TOTAL 832 123 6 (100.00%) ' (100.0%) (100.00%) CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2004 CALENDAR YEAR ON-SALE ALCOHOL SALES INCIDENT REPORTS - MAIN STREET AND OCEAN AVENUE, BY BLOCK Block Location Total Events and % of Total Total AOD Events and % of Total Total Arrests and % of Total Main Street - 100 Block 126 (75.0%) 76 (85.4%) 11 (78.6%) Main Street - 200 Block 18 (10.7%) 6 (6.7%) 1 (7.2%) Main Street - 300 Block 9 (5.4%) 4 (4.5%) 1 (7.2%) Ocean Avenue - 900 Block 15 (8.9%) 3 (3.4%) 1 (7.2%) TOTAL 168 (100.0%) 89 (100.00%) 14 ~ (100.00%) ~ * * ~ .Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 2g = ~ ~ ., Provision oft.. rnzation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Stcr}}'Report December 12, 2005 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2005 CALENDAR YEAR - FIRST QUARTER INCIDENTS AND ARRESTS -CITYWIDE Total Incidents AOD Incidents and % of Total Total Arrests Total AOD Arrests ~ and % of Total 2,352 (100.00%) 239 (10.16%) 86 (100.00%) 56 (65.12%) CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2005 CALENDAR YEAR - FIRST QUARTER ON=SALE ALCOHOL SALES INCIDENT REPORTS - CITYWIDE J 2005 Calendar Year (First Quarter) Total Events and ~ % of Total Total AOD Events and % of Total Total Arrests and % of Total All On=Sale Locations 140 (100.00%) 37 (100.00%) 32 (100.00%) -Citywide (44) All On-Sale Locations 83 (59.28%) 23 (62.16%) 2 (62.50%) -Main Street (18) CITY OF SEAL BEACH - 2005 CALENDAR YEAR - FIRST QUARTER SETTING GROUPS BY AOD INVOLVEMENT: INCIDENTS AND ARRESTS -CITYWIDE Incidents Arrests Setting Group Total AOD AOD % Total AOD AOD Residence ~ 643 59 9.2 9 5 55.6 Vehicle 378 '56 14.8 37 29 78.4 Open Space 886 82 9.3 23 17 73.9 Alcohol Outlet 50 18 36.0 1 1 100.0 Other Location 395 24 6.1 16 4 25.0 TOTAL 2,352 239 10.2 86 56 65.1 Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking Status.CC Sta$Rcport 29 t Provision oflrformation-Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 ~~''~. r . CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2005 CALENDAR YEAR (FIRST QUARTER) ~ ~~ MAIN STREET INCIDENT REPORTS Business Name Address Total Events and ~% of Total • Total AOD Events and % of Total Total Arrests and % of Total The Grill 101 Main 2 (4.76%) 0(0.00%)~ 0(0.00%) Clancy's Saloon 111 Main 8 (19.05%) 2 (8.00%) 0 (0.00%) Taco Surf ~ 115 Main 2 (4.76%) 2 (8.00%) 0 (0.00%) Pasta Grotto ~ 117 Main ~ 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) The Irisher '121 Main ' 13 (30.95%) 12 (48.00%) 0 (0.00%) Hector's Taco House • 131 Main 0 (0.00%) 0 (O.OQ%) 0 (0.00%) Old Town Cafe 137 Main ~ 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) , 0 (0.00%) O'Malleys on Main 140 Main 5 (11.90%) ~3 (12.00%) 0 (0.00%) . Hennessey's Tavern 143 Main 5 (11.90%) 4 (16.00%) 0 (0.00%) Walt's Wharf . 201 Main 1 (2.38%) 1 (4.00%) 0 (0.00%) BJ's Chicago Pizza 209 Main 3 (7.14%) 0 (0.00%) ~0 (0.00%) Main Street Cafe ~~ 303 Mairi~ 1~ (2.38%) ~0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) The Abbey 306 Main 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) Bayou St. John 320 Main 1 (2.38%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) Cafe Lafayette 330 Main 1 (2.38%) 1 (4.00%) 1 (100.00%) Kinda Lahina 901 Ocean 1 (2.38%) 0.(0.00%) 0 (0.00%) EI Burrito Jr. 2 909 Ocean 1 (2.38%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) TOTAL ~ 42 (100%) 25 (100%) 1 (100%) l Alwhol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 3 Provision oflr.,,,rmation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council StafJ'Report December 12, 2005 Total Events Total AOD Total Arrests Intersection Location and % of Events and and % of Total % of Total ~ Total Main and Ocean (Includes Pier, 39 (100.0%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (100.0%) Beach, and Beach Parking Lots) Main and PCH ~ ~ 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0. (0.00%) TOTAL 39 (100.0%) 0(0.00%) 1 (100.00%) J Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 31 7 ., Provision oflry„rmation-Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Staff Report ' December 12, 2005 ATTACI3MENT 6 SEAL BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE; MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE,~SECTION 28-1256. IN-LIEU PARHING PROGRAM Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 32 ~ , Provision oft~.,~rmation-Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Staf `'Report December 12, 2005 SEAL BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE, MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE, SECTION 28-1256. IN-LIEU PARKING PROGRAM "Section 28-1256. __In-Lieu Parkirta Program. A. Participation in Program Required: In the event a use cannot provide the off-street parking spaces required by Section 28-1255 and Section 28-1256, such use shall not be established unless there is full compliance with all the requirements of the Main Street In-Lieu Parking Program as established in this Section. All or~ part of off-street parking space requirements may be satisfied by compliance with this Section: B.. - In-Lieu Parking Fee. The In-Lieu Parking Fee and the formula for calculating said fee shall be established by Resolution of the City Council. . C. Existing Uses -Parking Deficiencies: Any use which pre- exists the effective date of this ordinance and which is presently operating under the authority of a discretionary land use entitlement and/or development agreement shall remain subject to the terms and conditions of said approval and agreement. As a condition to those entitlements, the applicants agreed to participate in any in-lieu program established by the City Council. This Article constitutes the in-lieu ~ parking program referenced in the resolutions conferring those ehtitlements and in. those ~ certain development agreements. D. Processing In-Lieu Parkins Program Applications: Eligible persons or businesses desiring to participate in the In-Lieu Parking Program established herein shall submit a written application for participation to the Director of Development Services on a form prescribed by the City. if the Director determines that such application meets the requirements set forth in Sections 28-1255, a-t sea. of this Code, the .Director shall, within thirty (30) days of the completion of such Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 33 Provision oflnformation-Alcohol Licenses and In Zieu Parking Issues, Main Strew Speck Plan Area City Council Staff'Report Decemiser 12, 2005 -' application, calculate the applicable in-lieu fee and grant permission to participate in the program, if the Director makes~the following findings: a) Participation in the In-Lieu Parking Program will not create any significant adverse traffic safety impacts, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or parking impacts. '~ b) Participation in- the In-Lieu Parking Program will not ~be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The Director may deny the request to participate in the program, if the Director is unable to make the findings set forth in subsection 1. 3. The Director may restrict the applicant's participation in the program, if the Director determines that such restriction is necessary to make the fndings set forth in subsection 1. 4. The Director's decision shall be in writing, and shall be served upon the applicant by certified mail, return . receipt requested. --~ E. A eats: The decision of the Directof may be appealed to . the Planning Commission by any aggrieved person, in the time and manner provided in Article 29.4 of ~ Chapter 28 of the Code. F. ~Payments and Deposits: 1. Payments.of-.lra-Lieu Parking Program Fees shall be made pursuant to the schedule adopted by Resolution of the City Council. In no event shall a' certificate of occupancy be issued for any participating use in the Main Street Specific Plan Zone prior to the receipt by the City of the first installment or, if applicable, full . -payment of the In-Lieu Parking Fee. 2. Funds collected from the In-Lieu Parking Program . shall be deposited in a segregated City In-Lieu Parking Program fund. Such fund shall be used exclusively for the purpose of promoting, managing,. operating, increasing and maintaining the availability ' Alcohol Licenses & Ia-Lieu Parking Status.CC Staff Report 34 r' '~ ~ Provision of t.., ..rmation -Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speciftc Plan Area Ciry Council Sta, f~'Report December 12, ZOOS of parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of Main Street. G. Transferability: In-Lieu Parking space payments paid for pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance shall be credited only to the use for which participation was granted, and shall not be assigned or otherwise transferred for use on any other property. H. Expansion, Intensification or Change in Use to a Use which Requires Additional Off-Street Parking Spaces: Should the use of any property within the Main Street Specific ~ Plan Zoning be~ proposed for expansion, enlargement, structural alterations, intensification or conversion to a new use which requires additional off-street parking spaces, the owner, lessee or sublessee of the property shall provide the required additional off-street parking, either on-site, within 300 feet of the property on which the building is located, or through payment of in-lieu parking program fees, or additional in-lieu parking program fees, as required by this Article. .,~ I. Acceptance of Terms and Provisions: An applicant's participation in the program shall not become effective, and a certificate of occupancy shall not be issued, unless and until the participant first executes and submits for recording on the title to the property a covenant accepting the terms of the approval, in a form to be provided by the City Attorney. Said covenant shall be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder and shall also be maintained in the office of the City Clerk. J. Violators Punishable by Fine and Imprisonment. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this article is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than six months, or both such fine and imprisonment.n J Alcohol Licenses & In-Lieu Pazldng Status.CC Sta$Report 35 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 /~TT~4CHMENT 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTE EXCERPT - DECEMBER 12, 2005 CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 16 12-i 2-05 West er Avenue, and for public utility services. The Director clarified t e bonds are id by a special tax assessment that is leveled on rivate properties that included within the boundaries of the CFD, a future purchasers of the 'Hess park development parcels and bull ' swill pay, as part of their tax bill, the cial tax assessment. Yost moved, second by Lar to adopt Resolution mher 5415 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY NCIL OF THE OF SEAL BEACH TO ESTABLISH CITY OF SEAL BEAC OMMU FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-01 (PACIFIC GATEWAY BUSIN C ER) AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN C OF SEAL BEACH COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICT N0.2005-01 (P IC TEWAY BUSINESS CENTER)." By unanimous consent, full reading esolutio umber 5415 was waived. AYES: Antos, Larson, tt, Yost NOES: None ABSENT: Ybaben ion carried Yost moved, s nd by Larson to adopt Resolution Number 54 titled "A RESOLUTI OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF SEAL CH TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS WITHIN PROP D CI F SEAL BEACH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005- IFIC GATEWAY BUSINESS CENTER)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5416 was waived. AYES; Antos, L_ arson, Levitt, Yost NOES: None ABSENT: Ybaben Motion carried The City Manager returned to the Council Chambers ITEM "AA" !ALCOHOL LICENSES / IN-LIEU PARKING /MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN The Director of Development Services stated that at the request of the Mayor, staff has provided Council with information based on current applications that the Planning Commission considered regarding requests for new alcohol sales licenses or expansion of existing licenses from beer and wine to a full liquor license. Council concerns and staff responses: • High crime area -Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) used statistics from the 2001 census -Old Town is' comprised of two tract areas. The City has more current information and using that information the areas would not be considered a high crime area. • Approving In-lieu parking -The way the ordinances are constructed, it gives the Director of Development Services the authority to make a written determination with a 10 day appeal period - it goes before the Planning Commission if an appeal is filed within the 10 day period. • In-lieu parking does not create any new parking spaces and only impacts public and residential streets -California Coastal Commission does not recognize in-lieu parking and has different parking requirements. • Asked for Chief of Police opinion on the number of liquor licenses and does the City currently has a problem. Response: The old crime data from ABC indicates an over concentration of crime in the area -currently does not believe there is a problem. • There is a difference between bars and dinner restaurants that provide hard liquor with meals. Want to help establishments to be successful. • Planning Commission should not turn down a request just because they request full liquor licenses. • Problem with the Conditional Use Permit with regard to granting liquor licenses i5 that the license runs with the property and the establishment changes and can operate using the old establishments approved license. 1 u 1 v 12-12-05 1~ fl With no objection from the Council: • The Mayor requested a change In the ordinances that would give the Planning Commission the authority to make the determination whether in-lieu parking should be granted through an application process. • The Mayor requested that the staff take a more neutral position in the Planning Commission Staff Reports with regards to granting alcohol licenses -present the information as to the current number of licenses in that area and the impact - do not give a staff recommendation. Yost moved, second by Levitt to receive and file the staff report. AYES: Antos, Larson, Levitt, Yost NOES: None ABSENT: Ybaben Motion can'ied The M Joint Po (RMC), Sta Beach to e a member resolution i In Novem pursue th restoration that can to too large o of allthei project to r and $25,000 a year there after (this value of services of any employees emphasized that this agreement would that any of the agencies would have. many years to accomplish and the restoration not only the water quali requested that he termed out of offs attend the meetin suggested Counci great opportunity f be done but the J the JPA has been Seal Beach, after Conservancy wou be meeting in Jan the wetlands unt' Cerritos W etlan Seal appoint e other e JPA. tall to g, and n entity This is ources of the st year tated that this is a fo he purchase of s onetary contributions and in-kind consultants). The City Manager e last hope of restoring the wetlands restoration of the wetlands will take eal has a self interest in the e but an environmental project, but since he will be hat will be able to fter he leaves - he the restoration will . The formation of ach and the City of the State Coastal t effort (they will w d be the Los Yost moved, econd by Larson, to adopt as amended Resolution Nu er5417 entitled "A SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY SEAL BEACH, C IFORNIA, APPROVING THE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS OINT EXERCIS OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF AL BEACH, ITY OF LONG BEACH, STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY, D THE R ERS AND MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY." Amending Section 2. read " thorize the appointment of City Council member Paul Yost to represen the of Seal Beach to the Board of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority and aut izes the appointment of Mayor Pro Tem John Larson as the alternate." By un imous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5417 was waived. anager said that the resolution under consideration is to enter Agreement (JPA) between the Rivers and Mountains Consei t astal Conservancy, the City of Long Beach, and the Ci sta the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (Authority) an o of the uncil to serve on the Authority Baard of Direct Th s to appr a budget amendment to fund the City's are of th ber 2004 Council discussed this issue and thorized s e formation a JPA to assist in the acqu' ion, plannin of the wetlands ea. One obstacle has be the need for a ke title of the prop and manage it while i being restored. f a project for any o agency to handle t the combined res nterested parties will ve the ability t andle the complexity estore the wetlands. will cost City $3,000 for the fir be allowed to s eon the A ority Board ce that the C ncil appoint a lternate t gs and will tinue to represent a City a Iman Lar as the alternate. H also s or the C' to not only have a say as how PA will so shield the City from any li ility app ed by the RMC, the City of Long e Co it adopts the two proposed resolutio Id a the only agency left to approve this j ry). The money has not been allocated an entity is formed to accept the title, this Authority (JPA). ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS .- I ~ R ~ ~ ~~ ~ (TENANT IMPROVEMENT) , / 110Y f9N[F~ / I G r '"" 210 MAIN ST. ~ ~3 ~d~1 t• ~ ' SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 ~ g~~ ~~~Hi y '' / ` _ . --- ~`~ ~ ~ ' ~ aR Qv fr91 s9 , rfro -- / MO MG ~ Q IRNEI f MNR 1Ep -_ / GS IEIFN (` O ~~/ 1 ~•i 1~_ ' ism- '\ .~ Q NgFCT Y11E NNR 509f 4%PE OF LOIN ~ ®~ ss uW O 2 _ ~ o F ~ ~F ,/ \'~ yr /~' p FFaoaCl /foNfS alo Ilw Sc >OUNT NIPROTEUENT ONLT. SGl NIOI G fONO LJ 1150N0 W ON S R '4 ' RY d15! 1 i f N0110 % c~-r- ~, i ~ ~~,~ r : f ~ j _ ~1 N ~"~'d'G1°'a0 I . II~ ~~' _ ~! ~ /~ 1J NNYN NNY IYl 5s 1) NNRNR 111E SNNf fRFN11N11 >) f11Y10 ~ STOYS. 1 q (pNppRNN TP[: w1 1FET Y A E l T TO E CNNSOE TO 491 RESTNNANT E7057WR 'INN-N LOOIFA, WNN-N FRFEIDt NO CNfNf[ FJISIWC IIfYt SISIEII REYNN NO CHANCE NEW 5191 CANTER ~ c C F'YT ~ /+/ ~~ B~•/ / ~ ~ )~Y R I. .• , p STY[ R N%• T. l NRN Ipl algsNCT Gpw B NEW REST 800115 WCRAOE NEW °uu,N MFNTP~AS n91~IK REFRICEIMTOR~ SIISR CA56 NEW COOgNC COIAPNEN; IIOOD 5'K1CY (y~ ice' ~~I'1~ :~ \ ~ " :/^4~ I / 'i 11)NDOfIKY /iKY36 ~~e Y: ~+ ~ '~ re's. `j ~:~ ±Fn J~fr ~ ' RVl OL L OL IdT100 }! OLIfWOWF S OLD 1>) ONG FFONaNN: ~ i `~ 5t{~ .:..~ •ai• "" i°• • ~~;' ~ ~::: YZ'~wl+• ' 7: ^ 11'R~ Wm4J i~llil ti., •6: ,- ~ L .• _• , . NOOE N W GM19MYl TOW Y CaC.L G fNl! ~ 8~@ P6Q~0 ~ ~ ~ ®!1 F90~0000447 fMAD ~1~C~4 l~4f~ ~` ~ 96~P1r ®R ~® .L~LS~ wn ~ _ 5 g ~ ~ mm~ o N a m r~N SF n m orN S'-11/1' ~ ~ N y , 'O' . _._ ~ or _ m-11 _ I-e 9•a SA' Q ~ ~ -- ~ 3~ a 1 .~ 1 _.- _ .. _ Y~ Y9~~ I 0 1 - __ _ -- - - _ _ _ c __ - W J'- ~ ~ -. .NlN ---- - IIf _ - 1 C70W Nrnw - ,~~ S ~ nd.e _ _ - •---- - - -- ~ - - 1~ _ • N -------• ... RRfR ~ . ~ -- - - PUW ~ • - ® ' i q ---- • ~ - ~~~NT .__ ai 1111N- ~ f ~ ` ~ ~ ~^ RRJ.AREN N ~ 1 k 3~L~3 :573~i:;r i~ir : N. _ ~ . = - _ ____ k-- -- - ~ -- o olrA z _ ~ ~~., r ~ v ~ ~ 1F _ ~ `••:~ ~ ~ _ _ BERYICi ~- mN~o ® ' 4 N Qq wdxau R[QCR c~ wdxaN C061ER ®' -- ®. - _ moF SSS aNr nuxR rr 1 .p-0• 'fir 6191 NFCT --'-- na 1R r_ISt ._ .., QMMUpQAQW4 IGDD M6¢ "' ®B f~6~ P~Im QL~ 9/4'= 9'~'y Coil A