Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1995-08-09 I I I Approved: Attest: 7-24-95 I 8-9-95 Clerk and ex-off1c of Seal Beach of the Seal Beach, California August 9, 1995 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:45 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling the meeting to order for a joint workshop session with the Planning Commission for the purpose of reviewing and receiving comments regarding the second Draft Main Street Specific Plan. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Mayor Hastings Councilmembers Brown, Doane, Laszlo Chairman Campbell Commissioners Brown, Dahlman, Law, Sharp Councilmember Forsythe Brown moved, second by Hastings, to excuse the absence of councilmember Forsythe from this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Doane, Hastings, Laszlo None Forsythe Motion carried JOINT WORKSHOP - DRAFT MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN The Director of Development Services mentioned that there have been several press releases as well as a mailing announcing the holding of this joint workshop. He recalled a similar meeting several months ago for the review of the Background Studies Report, that being a preliminary document to the preparation of the Main Street Specific Plan, and based upon input from that workshop and information received from the mail survey that was sent to all residential properties between 5th street, 12th Street, Pacific Coast Highway and Ocean Avenue, as well as information obtained through interviews, and other sources of input, the Draft Main Street Specific Plan has now been prepared for review. He invited suggestions from the Council, Commission and public as to improvements that might be made to the Draft, areas that are thought to not have been addressed, etc. so the document can be finalized for consideration under public hearings and be as reflective as possible as to what the Main Street Specific Plan is envisioned to be. Mr. Paul Zucker, Zucker Systems, stated that the Background Studies Report previously considered is basically the same with only a few changes, most notable would be the deletion of what became a controversial description of certain undesir,able 8-9-95 buildings in the downtown area, that amendments to the General Plan have been prepared that will be considered during the . public hearings in that the Specific Plan is subservient to the General Plan, also, the provisions of the zoning code that relate to private development have been incorporated into the Specific Plan, which is an attempt to simplify implementation of the Plan. .He noted the boundaries of the Plan consist of the C- 1 zone, the public uses that abut thereto, and the two C-2 parcels on Pacific Coast Highway, which makes incorporation into the zoning code possible. Mr. Zucker said the basic goal of the Plan continues to be the recognition of Main Street as the heart and soul of Seal Beach, however noted that there have been some additions, one being the desire that visitor serving uses not overwhelm resident serving uses even though Main Street serves both, there is also a recognition to the effect that on days of the most desirable weather in a community such as Seal Beach it is impossible to meet all of the parking requirements. In reference to key changes in the land use area, he noted that medical and professional facilities are currently allowed by right on the first and second floor, the new Plan proposes such use by right only on the second floor, allowed only by use permit on the first floor, as other uses would be sought for the main pedestrian level; coffee houses, which are small establishments, would be permitted by right where they are currently handled through a restaurant application; there are a few uses that were allowed under the old C-l zone that are now prohibited by the Specific Plan such as ambulance services, drive-in windows, electric cart sales, minor services, etc., those uses deleted in that they were not felt to be appropriate for Main Street. Changes relating to dimensional requirements, the attempt being. to be reflective of the small human, pedestrian scale of Main Street; the current required lot width of seventy feet has been reduced to twenty-five; the lot area has been reduced from seven thousand feet to two thousand seven hundred fifty; the current thirty foot height limit is being retained however proposed that anything over twenty feet be set back ten feet; the existing ten percent landscape requirement has often been waived as being impractical on Main street, the suggestion is to drop that requirement and add a provision to require landscaping between any parking and the sidewalk area; the current tree requirement has been retained as well; a provision has been added also to prohibit lot mergers over the size of six thousand square feet in that the charm of Main Street is the small uses that front the Street. Mr. Zucker stated that design provisions are quite close to what was reflected in the Background Study with only a few changes that were based upon the public testimony, examples being that facades are required to be fifty percent transparent and restricted to fifty feet; the use of transparent glass with only limited tinting allowed; in reference to concerns expressed at last meeting with regard to an attempt to get buildings to the property line, as rewritten for some flexibility, a building is allowed to be located to four feet back from the front property line; new buildings will be required to go from lot line to lot line; trademark buildings are prohibited; and the textured sidewalk provisions of the current specific Plan is carried forward; all of which is proposed to encourage the pedestrian atmosphere. As to signs, current provisions allow pole or free standing signs in the C-l zone, those are felt to be inappropriate for Main street thus are prohibited in the Draft Specific Plan, however a new provision allows for projecting signs of no more I I I I I I .. .-.. , 8-9-95 than four square feet and to project no more than three feet, which is felt to be conducive to creating a pedestrian atmosphere. with regard to parking Mr. Zucker said a few changes have been made for uses that are felt to be highly desirable in that the parking standards have been lowered, as examples, hardware and furniture stores have been proposed at one space per thousand square feet, pharmacy and drug stores have been raised from one space for every three hundred square feet to one per one thousand, and retail establishments have been raised from one for three hundred square feet to one for five hundred, all of which is felt to be much more consistent with this community; restaurants have not been changed and remain at one space per one hundred square feet, however coffee houses, being a different category, is one space per five hundred square feet. Mr. Zucker mentioned that an AB 1600 Report has also been prepared, the fees that have been collected have basically been through development agreements, yet the goal is to develop a fee structure for parking without relying on a variance or some other process to accomplish, the proposal is that if the parking standards can not be met a fee would be paid of approximately $3600 per space, slightly more than what is currently charged. Additionally under AB 1600 there is a requirement to provide a revenue and an expenditure scheme which has been submitted for consideration as a three phase program, some of which may be controversial as to decking of the 8th street lot, parking meters on Main street, etc., and basically the belief is that there is a parking management issue rather than strictly a parking problem. To a question as to whether the Draft contained provision for parking credits or shared parking during the evening hours to benefit the, restaurants, Mr. Zucker responded that there is no such provision in the Draft, most likely intentional as their observation is that the heaviest parking demand is from restaurants, and as set forth in the Background study the times of day when there is the greatest parking demand is almost entirely during restaurant hours, therefore the inclination is to not give a credit in the Main street area. Mayor Hastings invited comments from the public. Dr. Rosenman, 8th street, said his questions relate to the basic overall scope, relying in part on conversations with the prior city Manager, one of the issues in terms of the concept of a Specific Plan was some type of matrix for things like alcohol serving and selling establishments, a more definitive addressing of the liquor sale issue in view of the already existing over- concentration, however he found only a comment regarding liquor sales. He noted that the current CUP process continues to exist in the Draft Plan, however it was his understanding that as originally conceived this document would greatly eliminate the need for that process given its variability and in turn would establish a uniform process, therefore he did not see the tightness as anticipated with this document. Dr. Rosenman said he was likewise unclear as to the non-conforming building language, one area in particular where it is not specified as to what degree Code compliance would be required upon conversion of the use of a non-conforming building, as an example he claimed that had this document been in effect at the time BJ's was under consideration there would have been no grounds to impact the development of that building. He asked also who is responsible for the payment of parking fees, the land owner or the merchant, requested an assurance that what is being done with regard to coffee shops is in conformity with the desires of the Planning Commission and will be consistent. Dr. Rosenman said that due to the timing of this meeting, August rather than late September 8-9-95 . for instance, there will likely be considerable input at the Commission and Council hearings. Having just obtained a copy of the Draft Plan, Mr. Brian Kyle, Seal Beach, said his comments would be limited at this time, however noted that while the 1984 report cited a deterioration of Main Street, this consultant says that the Street looks great, and a number of consulting firms are now looking at the Seal Beach Main Street as an I example for their towns, noted also that other cities have made grants available for upgrading their downtown areas, this Main Street has asked for nothing and the business o~.ers have and will turn the Seal Beach Main Street around on their own. Mr. Kyle said the intent should not be to place undue restrictions on the Main Street business owners or the landlords, also requested that every business owner be informed of this Plan as it is their interest at stake. Ms. Gail Olsen, Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to any shared parking arrangement, concurred that parking during dining hours is the most difficult, also stated she would like to see a provision where no more liquor sales establishments would be allowed. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach, recalled a reference in the document to a Business Improvement District or Association, which she said has been considered before, and made reference to a news article that complimented the Main Street businesses for not taking the City in as a business partner. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, referred to Policy 12 that recommends that the lights used in trees at Christmas be retained year-round, suggesting that the Fire Department should approve all lighting if it is to be left up. She mentioned that a BIA was considered some years ago, that was divisive, was voted down, and whether that faction is needed is questionable. Ms. Corbin complained that the businesses are taking over the public right of way on Main, Street with benches, I items for sale, etc., and to that there should be some consistent policy. Councilman Doane said upon review of his comments from the prior workshop regarding this issue he found nothing that would now change those comments. Councilman Brown made reference to the recommendation for parking meters under Phase Three of the AB 1066 Report, to which he reported receiving comments from residents and business persons alike who have mixed feelings as to meters, however it seems as if they would resolve a number of problems, the parking of beachgoers as an example, and requested further input regarding that issue. Commissioner Dahlman expressed his opinion that Phase One appears to be a phantom solution by reducing the parking requirements and then claim the City is in greater compliance with its requirements, to which he stated that if Main Street business parking requirements are reduced the parking will overflow into the residential neighborhoods even more than it does now, and inquired as to what current parking requirements are and the proposed changes. Chairman Campbell inquired if signage of the 8th Street lot has been changed to allow public parking after 5:00 p.m. and on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. The Director of Development Services responded that to make that change requires Coastal commission approval as the lot is in the Coastal Zone, and the Commission has indicated they would not consider a change of parking requirements on one lot until they have the Plan for the entire area, therefore the desire is to bring everything to the Coastal Commission as part of the public hearing process before the Planning commission, the Plan needing to be in at least a consensus stage at the Planning Commission level before submittal to Coastal. As to a time frame, the Director offered that by the time the environmental analysis is completed public hearings at the Commission level will likely commence about October. He noted that the 8th Street lot is posted for no parking, persons could chance parking in that lot, there is enforcement during certain occasions such as special events I I I I . ~';1l"'."+ '. 8-9-95 however is understood to not be strictly enforced at other times. Commissioner Brown stated he had requested the distribution of a newspaper article that speaks to a renovation project in Pasadena, in that case it ended up as an outdoor mall and not thought by all to be a good idea, and in this case the intent needs to be to protect Main street from becoming something like that. commissioner Brown expressed his opinion that the parking fees are quite low, there is no wonder that the businesses accept them as they are because they are actually a give-away by the City, noting that in almost any other city if the rent is $1 per square foot, which goes to the landlord, there is generally an additional common area charge which pays for such things as the lobby, elevator, electricity, parking, tree maintenance, night lighting, etc., yet in Seal Beach neither the business owner, the tenant, or the property owner has that type of charge, it is the residents that provide the parking, tree maintenance, lighting, sidewalk repairs, etc., yet the landlords do not in turn give any break to the businesses, therefore the business property owners are getting a windfall profit from the citizens. He stated his belief that $100 per parking space is not enough in that a space is about three hundred twenty-five square feet and if the rent is $2 per square foot that does add up, which ~s a bonus to the property owner, and it should be the property owner that is required to either provide parking or pay their share for parking rather than the citizens, possibly $25 per space per month to which he made a comparison to garages that rent for $100 per month. As to parking meters he said they would also be unfair in that the citizens now pay for providing parking spaces through their property taxes and would in essence be taxed twice if they also had to pay a meter when coming to Main Street to shop. He asked that the cost of parking spaces be looked at carefully as to what would be a fair number. Commissioner Brown cited problems in the past in determining when an initial use becomes another use, suggesting that the definition of a coffeehouse be tightened up and more specifically defined so that such use now does not ultimately result in a restaurant type use. He agreed with other speakers that there needs to be guidelines in the Specific Plan with regard to the liquor issue, a uniform plan that would apply to each establishment on Main Street as to the allowable hours of operation, etc. As to lowering the parking standards for businesses Commissioner Brown said it appears that the document as presented is trying to encourage certain kinds of businesses, to which agreed, however expressed his opinion that the parking standards should not be lowered in order to entice a second of an existing type of business, that there are other ways to encourage or discourage a business. Councilman Laszlo noted that the City went through a similar process some ten years ago, and he did not necessarily agree that the businesses would not agree with this. Mayor Hastings commenced her statements with page one by noting the statement that "The Main Street area is particularly important because it is the heart and soul of Seal Beach" however on page three that statement becomes redundant and she would prefer it to read "That the Plan recognizes Main Street as the cohesive agent for the City that is geographically fragmented"; under Uses Subject to Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit on page nine, the Mayor stated that #3, coin operated amusement machines as a secondary use, #5, entertainment cafes, including any proposal for amplified music, should be deleted as an inappropriate use for Main Street; under the same heading stated the Business and Professions Code references were confusing in that their content is not specific as they relate to an exemption for any temporary on-sale and off-sale liquor licenses. Commissioner Brown suggested that Horticultural Nursery, under the heading of Permitted Uses, should be moved to the CUP Issuance Section given the question as to whether more than one nursery would be 8-9-95 desirable on Main street. The Mayor questioned why the recycling facilities listed as #12 were included; making reference to discussion of annual parking passes for the beach lots on page 19 she suggested that the Specific Plan should not be specific as to an amount, rather should be an undetermined amount; agreed that the residential parking permit should be no more~than $10 annually as it was initially meant to only cover I the cost of issuance; with reference to page 20, third paragraph, she urged that through the Specific Plan or by separate resolution the Main Street businesses need to be more cognizant of the four hundred plus parking spaces that exist behind their businesses; as to buildings that are nonconforming only by reason of an inadequate number of parking spaces, page 23, sections C.2 and C.3, questioned how new parking spaces are to be supplied for the difference in building area between an existing building and a new building, or for the existing building between a prior use and a new use; under Policy 6, Parking Management Plan, she spoke favorably of changing the Merchants Parking Permit Program to only allow parking in the beach lots, thus freeing the 8th Street lot for public parking; as to the fourth proposal of Policy 6 listed on page 24 which states to "work with the merchants to conduct a program so that employees do not park in street curb spaces", the Mayor said she would prefer the language be changed to read "to conduct a program to disallow employee parking in street curb spaces"; that the sixth proposal be worded "analyze city employee parking needs at the 8th Street lot and open any non-needed spaces to the public or as merchant employee parking", deleting the word "either"; proposal seven should be worded "change the beach lots from a flat fee to an hourly fee...", deleting the word "variable"; as to proposal eight to "install parking meters in I the public parking lots located in the 100 and 300 blocks of Main Street" she said she would not be adverse to that as long as meters are kept off of Main street; with regard to Policy 6, subsection "c", the Mayor said she felt proposal one was inconsistent and rate alterations would be confusing to the public, that a fee dependent upon demand is not appropriate, rather an hourly fee should be established and held to; to proposal two she asked that the words "if this is a problem" be deleted and retain the wording "adopt a computerized system that records license plate numbers for enforcement"; and to proposal six, stated her opposition to meters on Main street. To Policy 6, page twenty-six, Missing Trees, questioned why private interests can not plant the trees, as private residents do, rather than the city, the city should only be responsible for designating the type of tree; Policy 10, Undergrounding utilities, the Mayor said the 200 and 300 blocks should be addressed as well as the 100 block of Main Street; to Policy 15, page 31, screening of Parking Lots, said that will be given consideration down the line however is good to have in the Specific Plan; Section 8.a.Goal 3, Parks, Recreation and Community Beautification; Land Use Element, with regard to development of a master plan for "street tree planting and other community beautification programs with emphasis on major arterials entering the City", suggested that Seal Beach Boulevard be specified as it is presently not conducive as a I thoroughfare, an entry into the City, or a shopping area; on page 37, the paragraph commencing with "The Retention of the Administrative Offices" she indicated her understanding that the Electric Avenue Park was designated as "Greenbelt Park", and if not, the name should at least be consistent; said that Section i.3.1.e, Seal Beach Pier, etc. on page 38 repeats the statement under Section 3.1e on page 37; with regard to Page 6, Table 2 of the AB 1600 Report, stated she felt the estimated cost of a parking structure on the 8th Street lot was somewhat low. Commissioner Brown questioned what the $165,000 for beach lot amenities was for, also stated he felt there is some confusion I I I ......:. . 8-9-95 as to what is a background study, what can be done, what is the recommendation, the zone changes, etc., possibly those could be separated for easier understanding. Mayor Hastings commended Mr. Zucker and the staff for their efforts in compiling the Plan thus far and indicated her interest in commencing the public hearing process. Dr. Rosenman, 8th street, referred to Policy 17 on page 34 entitled Bi-Annual Main street Review, stating his preference that that Policy be more specific as to how a bi-annual review 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 was 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 area, 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 no, 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 of 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 establidhed, those issues will still need to be addressed at some point in the future as 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 surrounding residents the best option to fully explore a proposed use and make a determination as to whether or not it is appropriate. He stated the attempt was to establish a strong 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, etc., the coffee shops thought to be a more pedestrian oriented use than a restaurant. The intent was to limit the scale of coffee shops by the maximum of twelve seats in that a larger establishment 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 8-9-95 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 most 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 $100 versus $3600 per space per year, the Director explained that those persons that have I been paying the $100 per space per year will remain in that program or they will have the option of converting to the one time fee of $3600. With regard to the Business Improvement District or Business Improvement Association, the document merely offers the ability to explore that option again, noting that many of the business operators and property owners on the street feel it is time to form some type of organization to more actively promote the street, make improvements to its appearance, the BID and BIA mention is to simply encourage such an effort. As to the mixed opinions regarding parking meters, the Director explained that the revenues generated therefrom, which could be substantial, could be funneled back into Main street to maintain and improve the area, provide a means for tree plantingl landscaping, permanent tree lighting, etc., and those programs 'are included as revenue sources and expenditures in the AB 1600 Analysis. He clarified that under AB 1600 fees can be generated that are only sufficient to cover the costs of improvements that are planned to be undertaken, and to a question posed with regard to the applicability of AB 1600 to parking, the Director clarified further that the document states that the AB 1600 Analysis does not apply to the existing development agreements or those agreements that require the payment of $100 per space per year, however by going through the AB 1600 Analysis the same $3600 can be collected without having to go through a development agreement, basically it is a I condition of the issuance of a permit to operate the business. He again emphasized that the fees can not be greater than what is needed to accomplish the improvements to be undertaken, and on the other hand, to increase those fees requires further review of the programs that are intended to be undertaken, acceptable programs could include installation of meters in the parking lots, upgrading the fee structure of the beach parking lots, and to that, if people are going to be encouraged to utilize the beach lots, particularly in the evening hours, there needs to be lighting improvements, some landscaping improvements, improvement of handicapped access, etc. to make people feel safe and comfortable in using those lots. As to reference to the improvements made in Pasadena with their outdoor mall, the Director said there is strong agreement with some of the things they did, some of their ideas have been incorporated, and in some ways Main street actually functions as an outdoor mall, a number of small businesses, most of the parking is provided by the public on the street or in the lots, the Specific Plan basically trying to combine those parking resources that are now used by customers coming to Main street, encourage that the parking be used in a more efficient manner, particularly the beach parking lots, so that the demand on the residential side streets will be lessened from what it is now, which is thought can be accomplished by the programs identified. I The Director confirmed that validated merchant parking is part of the parking proposals of the Specific Plan. As to the proposal to' reduce the parking requirements for local community servicing businesses, the Director said the staff and the consultant spent considerable time on that issue, and possibly the suggestion to put some of those uses into the conditional use permit category is something that should be explored further, however of concern is that'as property values increase there is demand for rent increases and some of the local serving businesses can not afford to stay in business if they also have to maintain large parking areas, whether they have the area or I I I 8-9-95 are paying for it, the purpose in proposing to reduce the parking requirements is an attempt to keep those local businesses in town, as an example there were a number of complaints when the auto parts business left and was replaced by an art gallery, and there is like concern as to what Main street might become if the hardware store, barber shops, the post office, etc. were to disappear, the Specific Plan being one way to encourage those types of uses to stay in the area, especially since there are not many other inducements if compared to other cities that may offer rebate programs, business improvement loans, redevelopment agency financing, where Seal Beach does not have those capabilities, however the parking and reduction of the cost of parking is one thing that was thought could be offered. The Director confirmed that this is an attempt to encourage resident serving businesses more so than visitor serving, that one reason for leaving the parking requirements for restaurants as they exist, which are fairly substantial, is that it was thought those requirements along with the fee structure proposed will preclude applications from being submitted to replace any retail or office use which in turn will require an increase of the parking several times over, an example being twenty-five to thirty spaces at the $3600 becomes a rather substantial amount in addition to Conditional Use Permit requirements that may be imposed. The Director offered that the comments made will be taken into consideration in preparing the second draft of the Plan for formal public hearings, and possibly indicate where there are differences of opinion and propose alternatives for consideration. Councilman Doane recalled that staff had alluded to a computerized recording of license plates to deal with the street curb parking problems, and asked if a study is going on or could that system be adopted prior to adoption of the Plan itself, noting that it has been observed that there is a definIte increase of the number of persons coming to town, parking on Main street, and erasing the chalk marks from their tires to avoid citation. The Director said his understanding is that the acquisition of the hand held computers is not an inexpensive item to acquire and it is uncertain whether there are funds budgeted for that purpose, however that could be an item included under Phase One of the program. Mr. Zucker cited the comments as being very helpful. He explained that a larger coffee house could be allowed however it would then fall under the use permit category yet the coffee house parking requirement would apply. In considering the larger use through a use permit there is full control and if they violate the use permit and become a restaurant it would first be an illegal use, be in violation of the use permit, and would then require more parking. Commissioner Brown noted such a change of use situation has occurred in the past, it is difficult to deal with, thus the suggestion to have a strong definition in place. Mr. Zucker responded that possibly the definition could be enhanced somewhat, however pointed out that every alternative that may occur can not be defined, again supporting the use permit process as the best control. Commissioner Dahlman said in turn that if there is a more lenient parking standard, there may be no more applications for restaurants and everyone will be opening coffee houses. Mr. Zucker clarified that the section relating to the General Plan is basically commenting on that Plan as it exists, the intent was not to revise that document, however by statute there is a requirement to make a statement as to consistency with the General Plan, and at some point it may be desirable to revise certain inconsistencies in that document. He noted also some confusion with the Background Studies and the Specific Plan, the language is actually background, the policies that apply are the 8-9-95 policies themselves, the preliminary material is meant to set a basis for the policies, also there is a requi~ement to meet some state statutory requirements in the Specific Plan, to which interestingly enough a study by the State showed that very few specific plans throughout the State met those requirements, and this document, if adopted, may be one of only a few meeting the statute requirements. He offered that that may cause some I confusion however anything that deals with private developments in the Zoning Code will be helpful as far as implementation is concerned. Mr. Zucker said what is trying to be done is very difficult in that from the very beginning of this process it was pointed out that there is actually quite a good mix on Main Street now, the challenge being how that mix is going to be kept, pointing out that many communities have failed in their attempts, also that he could not guarantee that this effort has every ingredient to deter that from happening, however some things have been done very deliberately, taking an eclectic approach, a total different approach from communities such as Pasadena, Berkeley, and some Orange County cities that have gone much more to an architectural type of control, and emphasized the need to get into the mode of viewing downtown from a management perspective. He noted that when the prior Main street Specific Plan was developed the situation was totally different, the downtown had vacancies, people were concerned, and today the downtown can been deemed to be fairly stable and the concern would be if it will become something that is not wanted, will the tourists overwhelm the community, etc., therefore the two year review, and the public comment that that review needs to be more specific is good. with regard to parking he once again emphasized the management issue, and in spite of the expertise of the parking consultant, he said there is no one who knows precisely how people will react when a I regulation is changed, which in turn initiates a reaction, therefore the importance of the management aspects. As to the beach lots he said it may have sounded as if the rates would be changed frequently, however that is not the suggestion, rather, that a rate structure be selected, put in place, then observe for some period between six months up to two years the response of the persons parking, and maybe then implement a change, pointing out the beach lots as a tremendous resource, the problem being how to get people to park there. It was suggested that the language of that proposal be clarified somewhat. Mr. Zucker offered the speculation that if a better control of parking is what is desired then there must be better management of the parking regulations, again, the opinion is that there is adequate parking if it is controlled and managed more efficiently. Dr. Rosenman, 8th Street, asked if Mr. Zucker or the parking consultant would comment on the parking meter issue, and asked that the issue of nonconformity be thoroughly addressed. Mr. Zucker offered that parking meters are as much of a psychological issue as they are a parking/traffic issue, a lot of small communities use them, however have for a number of years and they are used to them, meters may also be as much a political issue as it is a technical issue, however there is no I question in terms of their control of parking, getting more turnover, less people violating the parking regulations, parking meters a good way to begin to do that, as to the computer idea he said he believed it is still experimental and used 'thus far by only Palo Alto, the computer may be an idea for Seal Beach to try and could possibly be an alternative in lieu of meters. Mr. Zucker acknowledged the importance of being very specific as to the nonconformity issue as it does change the nonconformity approach whereby the current ordinance states that after a certain number of days an entire building is treated in a sense as if there is no use, that thought to be ninety days, I I I . 8-9-95 and for any new use that comes in there are fairly tight restrictions, including all parking requirements, which can serve as a disincentive to filling a building, and if there were presently a substantial amount of vacancies he felt that the nonconforming clause would be readily acceptable given the understanding that the city would prefer that any vacancy be filled with the kinds of preferred uses as quickly as possible. Restaurants, believed to be the key issue, and even though they would only be required to provide the parking differential between the prior use, which would likely be retail, and the new use, there is a major penalty for a restaurant to locate here, possibly requiring up to twenty-five to thirty more parking spaces, which is an issue that the City may want to give further consideration. Mr. Paul Wilkenson, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, stated his familiarity with the Seal Beach parking situation in that he did the 1984/85 study. with respect to parking meters he stated they are obviously a double edged sword, they were invented in the 1930's not to make money but to assure turnover, to curtail a vehicle from taking a single space for an entire day, generally those spaces that were most proximate to businesses, making parking more convenient for customers while employees parked further away. He said as that relates to the Seal Beach situation it is a very delicate balance because parking is a resource, particularly in the downtown area, at this point basically a publicly provided resource as there are no large lots that are privately maintained, and the businesses that do provide parking for their customers tend to be a magnet for those persons destined for the businesses who do not provide parking for their customers. He made a comparison to the City of Irvine where five spaces per thousand is a common requirement for retail uses where it is a space or two for Seal Beach, largely because in this community people tend to walk in. He cited ten spaces per thousand or one per hundred as seeming like a large requirement for restaurants yet the demand much of the time for a successful restaurant is more than that, and it is hoped that office spaces during evening hours are vacant to accommodate extra demand. Mr. Wilkenson again noted that meters are a management resource, and pointed out that the parking study showed that the spaces along the curb are first choice and generally full, yet the beach lot on the 4th of July was twenty percent empty, that being eighty spaces, the in-lieu program being a means of providing spaces for those businesses that can not provide them on-site, and the goal of the program is to provide a possible fifty spaces over the next eight years yet eighty of those are already in the beach lot, again citing parking as a management issue which is basically a City resource, an option also would be to meter the curbside spaces and make the beach lot free. He mentioned that Laguna Beach has a parking pass program whereby a pass can be bought for use in the meter in order to bypass that inconvenience. Mr. Wilkensen said in his professional opinion he would not disregard meters because on a relative basis the City has enough spaces, they just need to be available to the persons who are parking for a lesser duration. Mayor Hastings asked how merchants can be encouraged to inform their customers that parking is available behind their business location. To a reference to four hundred thirteen parking spaces, Mr. Wilkenson said he would prefer to research that number as he thought it was a combination of spaces in the off-street lots as well as the incidental spaces behind the business locations. He suggested that first of all employees should park behind the business if they are not willing to park elsewhere, they should not be using street parking, pointing out also that in most instances unless there is a rear access door it is an inconvenience for customers to park at the rear of a business and then walk to a front entry, - 8-9-95 also that most businesses do not want a rear entrance for security reasons. The Mayor indicated her desire that parking at the rear of business locations should be addressed in the Specific Plan, to which Mr. wilkenson offered to look at further. Mr. Zucker mentioned that the rear parking was looked at at some length during the early phases and it was deliberately decided to not put an emphasis on a rear entrance I facade clean up, felt to be inappropriate given the interface with the residential, also it could be argued that having those areas not well known to tourists could actually reinforce the local interest in downtown if the spaces are known and available to them. Commissioner Dahlman concurred that parking meters are not a fund raising issue in that the most efficient way to raise funds would be directly from the business people rather than introducing the overhead of collecting and patrolling the meters, the purpose of this proposal is to affect the way people park, yet meters are no improvement over the manner in which parking is controlled now thus the behavior of those who park will not change. Mr. Brian Kyle, Seal Beach, said he did not feel that meters on Main Street is a practical idea, people will simply feed the meters, and he could not support meters on the Street. Mr. Kyle offered a reminder that at the time of the 1984 Taskforce Main Street was in a blighted condition, stated he would not like to see government get involved or place additional pressures on the businesses, they are not making a great deal of money yet the street is healthy at the present time, offered that it is difficult to keep a good tenant, that rents in inland areas are greater than those locally, the businesses are not asking for help from the City, and he would not like to see vacancies start to appear on the street. Commissioner Brown stated that rents in Seal Beach are not lower than other areas, also the Main Street property owners are not I providing the parking as is required in other areas, the public is paying for the parking, and there is no corresponding decrease in the rents to match the common area that the public is providing. The commissioner claimed that some businesses that have been able to provide adequate parking are successful however on the other hand there are some that provide no parking, that unfair to those who try to follow the rules. Mr. Kyle said to a great degree the town has grown with the buildings that were already here, and for instance if the theater or the hardware store were to be sold it is quite likely that a new owner could not afford to meet the parking requirements, which could amount to a number of spaces, therefore those two businesses could be lost to the community, and offered that from a vision standpoint whatever is contained in this Plan will affect Main street long term. He noted that the report from the 80's said there was no parking prOblem, these 'consultants are saying the same, yet there is a management problem, not a parking problem, and offered that given the application processes, such as the conditional use permit, the city is not going to grow any more, and concluded with a caution as to what is placed in the Specific Plan. Commissioner Brown said he was not certain as to the nexus between the beach lots and Main street, if those lots were opened for free parking they would most likely be filled with beachgoers and he did not I believe that Main street would suddenly become vacant, the free parking could possibly be of some help to the one hundred block but likely only minimal for the two hundred block, his opinion being that the beach lots are under utilized because the fees are too high and they should be an hourly rate. As to a possible adjustment of fees and/or parking requirements, he reported a suggestion from a Main street businessperson that when a business can not provide the number of parking spaces required that they be allowed to provide valet parking utilizing the City lots, possibly make a profit by doing so which could be applied to the in-lieu cost of the spaces. I I I 8-9-95 ADJOURNMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION On the advice of the Assistant City Attorney, it was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Commission, to adjourn the joint workshop session with the city Council at 9:45 p.m. The Interim city Manager requested Council consideration and/or action of an urgency matter that has come up since preparation and posting of the agenda, the item known as the City Composite Plan or Plan "c" relating to the recovery from the County bankruptcy, this item to be considered at the League of Cities meeting tomorrow evening. Hastings moved, second by Doane, to find that there is need to take immediate action on the League of California Cities, Orange County Division, proposal regarding the bankruptcy recovery proposals and pending legislation, this issue having arisen since preparation of the agenda. Noting that a four fifths vote is required to consider this item, Councilman Brown stated his intent to vote against consideration in that he has just come from a meeting at the Sanitation Districts and it is felt that the county debt as set forth in the Plan is greatly overstated, the Sanitation Districts requesting that the Plan not be supported, thus not recognizing the $1.5 billion County debt as claimed, to which he pointed out also that the County has not reduced its costs, labor force, etc. as they had said. Councilman Laszlo noted that it appears the County is attempting to take monies from the Vector Control District as well. In that a vote to not consider this item would be a no action, councilman Brown changed his position, citing the opportunity to address any concerns at the League meeting. Motion on vote to consider: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Doane, None Forsythe Hastings, Laszlo Motion carried The Interim city Manager explained that an ad hoc committee was formed in recent weeks to respond to concepts that are being considered by the legislative delegation and the county regarding the bankruptcy, the feeling being that some of the elements of the plans were not in the best interest of the cities in the county, that the taking of property tax as an example. Councilman Brown stated that this Plan is considerably different from the FOG, Family of Governments, Plan. The Manager said this Plan resulted after meeting with the FOG group, the County, Sanitation Districts and Transit District to determine numbers as best and accurate as they could, the committee suggesting that there not be debate over the numbers but rather they invite city responses to the concept, whether this concept is more acceptable than other plans that may be considered by the legislative delegation or by the County. Councilman Brown interjected that if something is not agreed to by the 21st of August it is quite likely the Governor will send a trustee to the County with a plan to take monies from the Sanitation Districts, the cities, and other agencies. The Manager noted the intent of this Plan is to be proactive for something acceptable to all orange county cities, explaining that the first plan would have sold the rights to El Toro to the Transit District for development along with the sale of John Wayne Airport, those two tied together in order to use the monies from those sales for the County bankruptcy, that proposal upset the South county cities, considerable monies were to also have been taken from Harbors, Beaches and Parks, the Transit Authority, etc. He said the League would like a general discussion towards an acceptable alternative, a plan that would make a strong demand that if a trustee is appointed by the State 8-9-95 I 8-14-95 that the cities, through the League or the composite plan, will have some input as to the limitations that the trustee may have. There was a consensus of the Council to authorize Councilman Brown, with the assistance of the Interim city Manager, to present the City's position with regard to the Plan during discussion at the League meeting the following evening. COUNCIL CONCERNS I Members of the Council spoke favorably of the workshop session for the Main Street Specific Plan, resulting in a better understanding of various issues to be considered. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, August 14th, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session if deemed necessary. It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Attest: ~7JJ; of the Clerk and ex-off of Seal Beach Approved: I Seal Beach, California August 14, 1995 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:02 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Hastings Councilmembers Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Shelver, Interim city Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Brown moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. I AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral communications.