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 2009-06-08 #N
AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 11, 2 June 8, 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 NO. 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 N 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 -16 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 property. ❑ 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: L,ZWe_W_ hittenberg Director of Development Servi s Communications received - 3 Attachments: (5) NOTED AND APPROVED: &-vid-carman Manager My 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 PIR�LB�s * W CITY OF SEAL BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT. To: Mayor and City Council Attention: David Carmany, City Manager From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Servic77 Date: May 28, 2009 SUBJECT: COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED — PUBLIC HEARING DE NOVO — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09 -3, 210 MAIN STREET (WAKI SUSHI) Provided for the information of the City Council are three written communications received regarding the subject matter. The letters are from: ❑ Unknown, received May 11 by the City Clerk; ❑ Scott Levitt, received May 11 by the City Clerk; and ❑ Ellery Deaton, received May 18 by the City Clerk. Attachments: (3) \\SBNAS \UsersTWhittenberg\My Documents \CUMCommunications Received Memo.05- 28 -09.doc MAY 1. 1 2009. CITY CLERIC CITY of SEAL BEACH r� CU a M -d e 'i -L AA Liclfee�. kj Z( 0 Az/J v�Y C pJfi Ne- oi swim C(.)J (A k/I 1zlf �-.77�, Ljle &-e-It J J,Vize.- /J s � s4 .' ) cj � o � sp i SCOTT L. LEVITT ATTORNEY AT LAW 2552 Walnut Ave. #230 Tustin, CA 92780 V: 714.263.0643 C: 310.748.7888 F: 714.263.0647 May 11, 2009 City Council /City Clerk City of Seal Beach City Hall 562.493.9857 562.431.4067 _1 IN MAY 112009 CITY CLERIC CITY OF SEAL BEACH SENT VIA FACSIMILE / ELECTRONIC MAIL RE: Support of Sushi Restaurant on Main St. Dear Members of the City Council: This communication is to serve as a formal letter in support of the application to open a Sushi Restaurant on Main Street and to allow the restaurant to serve Beer & Wine. Also, I am formally requesting that Charles Antos replace Ellery Deaton on the Planning Commission effective immediately. The Planning Commission, for the past three years, has consistently made decisions that are in direct violation of the codes of the City and the laws of the State. Each and every time Commissioner Deaton does not like an application, she votes against it regardless of the validity and soundness of the application. In the present case, a restaurant proprietor has requested a CUP to open a sushi restaurant in a vacant space on Main Street where a former yogurt shop has shut down. The first time the applicant applied, the Commission lead by Deaton, denied the application because they said there were too many full liquor licenses on Main Street already. The applicant re- applied for the CUP and requested only Beer and Wine. Deaton then cited parking as a condition to deny the permit and stated that she received several calls against the proposed restaurant. This reasoning is absurd, much like her voting record. The building is in a retail zone, zoned for restaurant use. The applicant is not expanding the building in any manner. The parking that has existed for decades remains the same. Deaton and the other commissioners have taken it upon themselves to unilaterally rezone the zone. Of course this is not legal, and 1 am sure all of the members of the Council realize this. Gentlemen, it is time to put a stop to the Planning Commission serving its personal agendas and that of their friends. This City's taxpayers (those that actually own property in Seal Beach), have spent over $3.5m in litigation over the past few years, do you really want another lawsuit and incur more expenses? This City has several vacancies on Main Street and all need to be filled. I implore the Council to stop catering to the same dozen residents who want nothing new in this town, and start representing the people of the City and those who will be living here for the next fifty -years rather than those who can do nothing but talk of the past fifty years. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, Scott L. Levitt, Esq. & Shannon C. Switzer, Esq. 132 13`h Street 133 14`h Street May 14, 2009 City Council City of Seal Beach RE: May 11, 2009 Letter sent by Scott Levitt to the City Council Dear Members of the City Council: 0� 1 GPI ®b G� It has come to my attention that Mr. Scott Levitt wrote a letter to the City Council regarding the denial of the application submitted by Waki Sushi. Mr. Levitt's letter is so full of misinformation and false accusations; I felt a response was necessary. Before responding to Mr. Levitt's inaccurate statements, however, I would like address my understanding of the Commission's decision to deny the application for a CUP for Waki Sushi. The Planning Commission denied the Waki Sushi restaurant without prejudice and recommended that the applicant not be charged for the appeal. This is an important point. "Without Prejudice" meant that we were neither for nor against the project and were looking for direction in how to proceed from the Council. Waki Sushi is the third new restaurant use to come before us. In other words, they are taking over a space that was not previously used for restaurant use and moreover has a higher parking need than the previous business had. With the downturn in the economy, restaurants that serve alcohol seem to still be viable while other businesses are leaving us with empty storefronts. It is my opinion that the Commission, being an appointed body, should not be the ones to make the decision on the changing face of Main Street. The elected representatives are the ones who will be held accountable for the ultimate changes that happen to our community. We are, of course, bound by law to follow the Main Street Specific Plan that calls for a mix of uses. If we go to an overabundance of restaurants with wine and beer, we will not only be increasing the number of liquor licenses in a 3 block area that is already over concentrated, we will be throwing the mix of businesses into question. I am looking to you for direction. With that background, I now address the Scott Levitt letter. 1. Mr. Levitt makes the statement in paragraph three of his letter that "The Planning Commission, for the past 3 years, has consistently made decisions that are in direct violation of the codes of 2the City and the laws of the State." I would ask that our attorney directly address this false accusation as we have had our City Attorney present at every meeting and all the Commissioners and I have been very careful to follow his legal advice. 2. In the fourth paragraph, Mr. Levitt incorrectly states that Waki Sushi came before us on two occasions: once for a full liquor license and once for beer and wine. That is false. They came before us only once and that was to open a restaurant with a CUP for beer and wine. 3. Also in paragraph four, Mr. Levitt stated that I cited parking as a reason for denial of this CUP. Parking is an issue in Old Town for many residents -. Perhaps Mr. Levitt lives far enough from Main Street to not be affected, but the Planning Commission needs to be concerned about all the residents of Old Town as well as fostering a vibrant and healthy mix of businesses on Main Street. 4. In paragraph five, he states that this area is zoned for restaurant use. Correct, but, there is the Main Street Specific Plan which is codified and calls for a mixture of businesses. Mr. Levitt chooses to ignore the Main Street Specific Plan. 5. Finally, I'd like to call your attention to end of his letter where he accuses us all, council and commission alike, of "catering to the same dozen residents who want nothing new in this town, and start representing the people of the City and those who will be living here for the next fifty -years rather than those who can do nothing but talk of the past fifty years." The last time we heard this same argument from Mr. Levitt was when he built his own three -story home and supported 3 stories for Old Town. Those dozen citizens turned out to be over 72% of the citizens of Seal Beach. Thank you for your time, Ellery Deaton ATTACHMENT APPEAL OF VONG AND JANE P RECEIVED APRIL 13,200 ,ff RECEIVED APPEAL APPLICATION APR i• 3 2009 TO CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK CITY OF SEAL BEACH "� "t' "'r , r• Foe:Oif ce Use Only Y: a2 :i1 9.: ''r y .:s ,t;• .. :ai_ t y�yY 1..?i �r %�:•. ,_v 'h ri- '^,', -Ct i•�,•:'+ ;'r �cJ �:.^N.: _'•rr'S..x.�A•� =_•�i i',4.'' -e:. _!a'•--��; �F� ,I" +�t y .3 .,t�...;, `+".•'r5 .1 y:. r• � -.••. �': .� Y�y���.f��;r• =. {.+'�.:. '3.._ t..�: -. :'�,,yc,L�• Y _ ... _a•�•�!.. ;f..�_. +•.t. ��� •- Y�i.••.�r= ..rc:R•7'o-Cr�+,�� n•_�'' !. t_i ^`...y'�r'.R.... �.•::. ... t•.. }� •.. Plan 'R ResolU46n Planning Commission Date: �T- 7 -� i t rw' . P��'r Y_ Commission Action: =;'`' = { APP.roval {' Denialrs�� _ . •'ttier., lanning � ., -.�.. ��,•. . {., • `';� �-. r -1 ;�. -.$ . y.'::Y.$�H •'t�'ir.•_, council Date_• t. A' r`:It; ✓k_::i= :.t..i' •.a. r_ i�y�.r.•t ��'''+�= ={ 't�i.:a�s::'': •t' - Date'Appeal Filed : - f"° ' y• •�T., r'` .NyoswN._ . — ��:yy 5 •D+�JF{{• �k'+ dK ;�f�� .�. ` - 1 - ; � v �: .•4 . .. .M 3 .�i � - _• r ''. � �� i "�•'- y'�.. � ••.�Y : J'.�:/•.. 'J��.: F �' . :..i • _ i.'i k 7 .l''•e.: Y J 'l Yt#_ 1 r — % a(o�i .� n� i { .L . tiM 4i—n_- LN.� o•;� ._ iI�.• T'r '��e'��..__ . .�F+" .• ..r .� � .g�.at •r s , 1. Property Address: i 1C) missions being appealed, the sp( inclu fjor statements indicating (Signatu'rd.of Page 33 f s4--- i FAX: desciibe' action of the Seal Beach ng No. why ., theecision of the Planning inditions of approval being appealed, the Planning Commission may be in Oiglature'bf owner) fr (Pri t Name) (Date) Rev. 6/06 A M April 15th 2009 City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Attu: Seal Beach City Council SUBJECT: Reason for Appeal On April 8, 2009, the Omirman and Planning Gomntpoaers application for Weld Sushi CUP 09 -3. As the applicants for this that you reconsider the decision made by the Commissioners. Frr reference to the Mhdu Street Specific encourage more people to visit Old To establishments that offered Asian dini� restaurant would benefit the city in CMI that -the .tyro restaurants were rely shortly after. We acknowledge that there ' eflncem with such a significant is its I ova,; bdi taken before. We have inquired a boutlt}iezpos cities but we were told from the start `' i not all6w it IEigs durrent 9itt}$tidd, we B-0. Malin g paymd2* within• the store: There applicants and.bwe believe that this applicati V :- address an overall'parkmg issue. If parking w thaicity shoal&'; -have informed the avt w:. rres{w tauran� add g-diversity and eatly, there--,-' - an addition of two new believe thate addition of a Japanese �itarally div atmosphere. It is unfair d,3tet this,applicatioa is Icing. denied %g thin the City. However, if it is lressed.and actions should havd been Y of �` ''� arrestaurant in other ;and garding parlQng did i Es' cFOw - riow responsible for gnificant fmaacial bwden upon the - auld not be jeopardized in order to biggest concern, then we believe that A15o'`giv the see oftlie restaurant, we acknowledge that space is limited. However, due to the small space: available we believ that this establishment will provide an abno here of u tha_ uKiso�ial gatherings, asp g g rings, We acknowledge that alcohol is a general concern City. However, the sale of beer and sake within the restaurant is an essential part of the Japanese dingy experience. Furthermore, it is not a beverage that will Iicourage belligerent drinking or loud parties. We request that the City Council take these issues into consideration. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at ianepark15 „gmail.com or yonUwk99(a ail.com. car at (714) 349 — 3328. s o Received From: on/ Address: 24 0 .4 City of Seal Beach Department of Development-Services 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 Telephone: (562) 431 -2527 RECEIPT Date: / �P Appeal to City Council / Non - Public Hearing Matter $100 Appeal to City Council / Public Hearing Matter �,. Concept Approval (Coastal) $ 750 $ 100 Conditional use Permit (CUP)' ' $ 750 Environmental impact Report t $ �15000 General Plan Amendment _2�0'" Height Variation Maor Environmental Assessment Initial Stud -A $ 50 Major Site Plan Review A $7501: Microfilming p2ges @ $.75 per a9a'i ek$jt.50 Vw $ Minor Environmental Assessment eterminatio _" $ 50 - I Minor Plan Review "<_ ( "PAID" Stamp) - --_-_� Rev. 9116!08 APR 1 3 2.009, - - -� - Punned Unit Development - �' �•," $ 750 $ 2,000 Planning Commissiorr me -retation t. $ 200 Pre - Application Copference `$i. $ 100 Property Profile. _ �s $ 75 Sign Application. Sober Living Invesfi ation Fee $ 50 $ 500 Special Event permit $ 'Specific Plan ,' �.� -. �. $ 10,000 Temporary Banner. w enfatikFinal Ar $5 Tentative % Fnal Tract a - $.750 $ 2,000 Unclassified Use Permit -. $ 750 Variance Waste _ $ 750 jo Diversion Administrative Fee Waste Diversion Deposit Fee $ Xeroxing 8'r4 x 1 V $.25 per page. Larger $.50 per page. $ A Zone Change OV ���� Z� 2,000 te•- 001, 082 Bullding Plan Check 001 -3w085 - ' i=filming 00'!08 Plan gees Amount to Be Paid $ 001 -30945 Sale of Printed Material 001 -30961 Waste Diversion Admin Fee 001 -20269 Waste Diversion Deposit ( "PAID" Stamp) - --_-_� Rev. 9116!08 APR 1 3 2.009, ACHMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER 09 -16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09 -3 FOR THE ESTABLISHbViENT OF A NEVI RESTAUR.AN;I' AND THE ON- PREMISE SALE' OF AL OHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE PROPOSED S�Z' MW AT 210 MAIN STREET, SEAL BEAC � THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION OF THE C1 OF SEAL BEACH HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. On March 5, 2009, ong & Jane Ra (the "Applicants' filed application with the Department of Developer Services for conditional Use Permit 0! requesting approvals of the following requests. ❑ To establish a new restaurant; and ❑ To allow the new restaurant to operate with a 3,41 (Beer & Wine — Eating Place) ABC license. as follows: The ap entitlements for a i & Wine — Eating California Enviror Alterations in Lan use limitation and Pursuant to l4 Mil2i" fRC L for CONDITIO.,U Lur ant and to allow the ABC license is categoric Quality Act pursuant to imitations), because the p involve either a property ie of RI . T- 53I31rstaff has determined PERMIT ' = or the requested land use : estaurant to - erate with a Type 41 (Beer iy exemp from review pursuant to the Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor posal involves a minor alteration in land excess of 20% slope or a change in land Section 3. ti' lily noticed ub'lic hearing was held before the Planning Commission on April 8, 2009; 15-- caasrd � e application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ppltcant was in attendance, with persons appearing in favor of 09-3. At the public hearing i�e a 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 April 8, 2009 indicates the following: (a) On March 5, 2009, Yong & Jane Park (the "Applicants' Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 1 of 5 Planning Commission Resolution 09-16 Conditional Use Permit 09 -3 210 Main Street (Waki Sushi) April 8, 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 () ] P PAY Orange County assessor's parcel # 199 - 043 -12. (d) The proposed restaurant is approximately 1;08'1 square~feet in size and the proposed floor plan shows approximate) ,,1. seats at tables and an additional:: =8 -r. : 0 seats at a bar area located along the southern interior�&ffx-L,,o erestaurant. (e) The subj edWroperty is a rectangular shaped property that is 25' -0" feet wide by 117' -6" feet deep. The Himposed lease sp cep-' r the restaurant shows an approximately 21' -11" by 55' -9" area. e'poerty is developeii•7with an existing single -story retail building fronting Main Street, as well as atwo =story residal property with a single car garage at the rear of the building. ::� -_. discretionary approvals or'use permits °from on the property was "Sweet Berry Bhs`s "` "grandfathered" as a permitted use within known as "Grandmas Cookies" prior to the no record'�o"f�the; roperiy receiving any previous b City. Th most`�ent business that was located yogurt shop' '_s,pevious business was i Main Street Specifics: lan zone, and was also ffBli invent of the fraz en yogurt shop. (g) Aside from thief dential unit on the premises, the nearest residential prop ertiessare located to the rear of the subject premises, east of the alley to the rear of the property, approxima# ly 75 feet from the proposed business. The surroundin # land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, SOUTH, 4 and WEST me.sses 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 �{ §'44o this resolution•and pursuant to §§ 18 -1250, 28 -2503 and 28 -2504 of the City's Code, the Pl "a �ommissionym- kes 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) April 8, 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 p, osed use is inconsistent with the General Plan based on the following: (1) The proposed project would result in adverse addition to the commercial character of Main Street by providing for an over - concentration of restaurant businesses within the Main Street area, which impacts parking availability or both residents of the community and visitors to the City. 3 a (2) The proposed restaur=ant<use:cannab_p;ov�ide any on- site parking, resulting in adverse impacts to parking availaliili or.boreKr . eli the community and visitors to the City within the Main Street Specific Plan area and°th"` TH...oinr�ng residential areas of the City. s= (3) The proposed ise -,of the subject premises as a restaurant with alcohol sales is incompatible wi the Burroundn�g neighborhood given thej existing overconcentration of restaurant uses an in particu &'& M'staurant uses with alcohol1 licenses within the "Old Town" area of the City as set forth in !-' Rlanning Commission Staff', Report. There are currently 17 restaurants- aperahng within the Um Street Specific Plan area that have on- premise alcohol licenses. addition the are 2 bars ocated within the Main Street Specific Plan area. (b ;, Th groposed use,`` %sed by the project applicant, is inconsistent with the int andpirrpose andvision establi the Main Street Specific Plan based on the following• •;._ -,(> (1) NW! oposed resta�Iffi ocated within a Census Tract, 995.11, that has een identified by the D'epartment of Alcoholic beverage Control as being over - concentrated. Issuance of an additionWcohol sales license would be incompatible with the goals and�§+po 'cies of the Main Street Specific Plan, based on the alcohol and drag related incident and�arrest information entered into Mricord of the public hearing. (2) The recoof alcohol and drug related incidents and arrests�pre5ented by See ©lice Department, and included within the Planning Commission Staff .rte- .. ort, regarg the Marn Slre�et Specific Plan Are'findicate a direct correlation with alcohol sales and these types of inUdddU and arrests, and Rather indicate that restaurants with an alcohol K� / license generate more such incrdents fl t - establishments without alcohol sales licenses. (3- a 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 parking availability for both�r�,esidents of the community and visitors to the City within the Main Street Specific Plan area andthe adjoining residential areas of the City (c) The building and property at 210 Main St. are inadequate in location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property, based on me- touu. Wmg -W;— (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 i Planning Commission Resolution 09 -16 Conditional Use Permit 09 -3 210 Main Street (Waki Sushi) April 8, 2009 restaurant shows an approximately 21' -11" by 55' -9" area. The property is developed w. 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. (2) Based on the configuration of the proposed restaurant's floor plan, the use would encompass a floor area of 1,087 square feet. The-required parking ratio for restaurants is 1:100. Thus, the proposed restaurant would need 1 k� ; arling spaces. The proposed restaurant use would be `grandfathered' forthree (3) parking spaces, based on the MSSP parlting requirements for general retail uses O). Thus, the lZinicipal Code requires 8 more spaces. As noted above, the applicant c otpro 'iix an, o site parking, resulting in adverse impacts to parking availability for bo resider foie canuni ; . and visitors to the City within the Main Street Specific Plan area and the adjoining rest ential• eat of the City.'` (d) The propos use esresult `' a conflict with the Specific Plan's goal to establish and maintain a balanced mix of uses iffifserve the needs of both local and non -local populations based on the followmg., (1) s p osed restaurant with on- premise alcohol sales would result in an adverse addition to N . c mmerci character of Main Street by providing for an over - concentration of restaurant businesses.. Thin the Main Street area, which impacts parking availability for both residents of the ty and visitors to the City. There are currently 17 restaurants o• ttng`'9 thin the Main �. Specific Plan area that have on- premise alcohol licenses.- � ditia tkiei;.• 2 bars locafed'tbin the Main Street Specific Plan area. _ (2) '13W9,\ NO' osed resta ntfisslocated within a Census Tract, 995.11, that been identified by the State Deparment of Mo olic Beverage Control as being over- concen ed. (3) The recd - ••-r f alcohol and drug related incidents and arrests presented byr± - e Police Department, and incl ed within the Planning Commission Staff Report,regarding the �� ' Street Specific Plan cate a direct correlation with alcohol sales andhese types �£' ciiients and arrests, and indicate that restaurants with an alcohol ceiis�e genes ore suc�acidents that establis eats without alcohol sales licenses. =}• 4) Th roposed use of the subject premises as a restaurant with alcohol sales 'is incomg ewith the surrounding neighborhood given the existing overconcentration of alco ;.tenses 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 parking spaces within the Main Street Specific Plan area, resulting in additional adverse impacts to parking availability for both .residents of the community d visitors to the City within the Main Street Specific Plan area and 1V adjoining residential areas AW of the City. 1" (e) The use will not contribute to the unique character of Main Well nrl'- a qt tiesbat 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 character of Main Street by 4of5 Planning Commission Resolution 09 -16 Conditional Use Permit 09 -3 210 Main Street (Waki Sushi) April 8. 2009 providing for an over - concentration of restaurant businesses within the Main Street areaiwhich impacts paridng availability for both residents of the community and visitors to the q =. . (2) The record of alcohol and drug relate ancients and arrests presented by the Police Department, and included within the Planning CommiMon Staff Report, regarding the Main Street Specific Plan Area indicate a direct correlation with cohol sales and these types of incidents and arrests, and further indicate that restaurants with -alcohol license generate more such incidents that establishmeots without alcoho sales licenses. (3) The proposed use of a .subject premises` as a restaurant with alcohol sales is incompatible with the surrounding n 'g barheo given the existing overconcentration of alcohol licenses within the "O _Town ea -o ~ e .0 set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Section 6. Based upon the fc Conditional Use Permit 09 -3 without prejudice. Section 7. The Planni Council waive the appeal fee if this deep applicant. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Plan at a meeting thereof held on the,- 8th;?apri12009 AYES: Commissioners Deadton NOES: Commissio % s None ABSENT: Commissioners Bello 5of5, Commission hereby iereby$• ecommends that the City to the city Council by the project i of the City of Seal Beach vote: Ellery Deaton Chairperson, Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: APIRDES, 2009 15. Conditional Use Permit 09 -3 210 Main Street (Waki Sushi) Applicant/Owner. Yong & Jane Park / Gary Putnam & Yvette Request: Establish a new restaurant use with a Type 41 (Beer Wine — Eating Place) ABC license within thg Main Street .Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions; aria -dopiionk of tes . tion 09 -16. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff repo (.tai` Report s one file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided som :background infar I tion on this item noting; that the facility proposed for this restaura use is in the 200" lock of Main Street and was the previous location for "Swee Berry Blip " a frozen, ' ogurt shop, and for many years before that was 'Grandma's Cookies,A an is located just north of the Bank of America. The previous uses of the building ar classified a dessert shop /coffee house under the standards of the Main Street Specific Pfan''(MP nd that type of use has a different parking require e . t` t art restaurant useUENdicated in the Staff Report discussion on the re ut .ements to "in= ieia arking" based =o . that Jiference in parking standards. On the e of the grope Fe _spa two- storyLs , ;, tture, which is a singie- car garage with a li..ing unit above it, and e- ront building for the proposed restaurant use itself is singl tory. Both the buildings -are' old enou hat Staff could not find building permit records for the initial construcfivrt of eithe of these structures. The general position .,af Staff is that these use are nonconforming and when new applications come7S ore the Planning Commission (PC) they must be made as confomlIng as pass! b e` Within the MSSP there are a number of findings that must be madeddIA.00der to a rove. requests for Conditio al Use Permits (CUP), as shown on PP as 3 of the Staff Report: ❑ The use is consistent wriit erouisions of the City's General Plan, and is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan. • The use is compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general, and not detrimental to them- eighborhood. • The subject property? ,; adequate in size, shape, topography, and location to meet the needs of the use rof the property. The use is consistent with the intent and purpose and vision established for the se doessr%a °f'conflict with the Specific Plan's goal to establish and maintain a tialancedm�x�ouses that serve the needs of both local and non - local populations. ❑ TheMtrse wrll contribute to the unique character of Main Street and the qualities that provide Main Street a sense of identity. 1 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 `cti. ;parking 6 requirements. For a dessert shop /coffee house use the parking standard is t9: parking 7 space per 500 sq. ft. of building area; for a restaurant it is 1 parking space peYAP " sq. 8 ft. in this case 11 spaces total are required, with-3 spaces grandf'athered based-.on the 9 size of the current building as a dessert shop use, leaving a netdeficiency of 8 spaces. 0 The Cites in -lieu parking. fee is $3,500 per space, so the t - alrequ�rd fe , to alloy r the • g, 1 conversion to a restaurant is $28;000. The PC has given�S aff°0(-nerdErection ori.a_fairly 2 recent application on Main Street to spread that payment schedule o as fa , 3 realistically possible with a 7 -year time period the longest time allowed for the payrnVent 4 of fees, but the actual terms and conditions are som_eWing that would be negotiat d: 5 between the business operator and City Staff. 17 The discussion on the proposed alcohol, as opposed r e restaurant use itself is 18 found in the Staff Report beginning o ; P ' Alcohol uses on Main Street have 19 always been a concern to the commty ands 1 =996 there, was a major revision to the � 20 MSSP that set in place the in -lieu fee of $3,508-1the�requi ement for a CUP, and when 21 the MSSP was going through the revision process;. Acre was extensive discussion 22 about the City trying to establish umencal cap on alcohol licenses allowed on Main 23 Street. That discussionbe en. PSG, »`Ci . Council the public went on for 24 approximately one and' -one -half yeaW! TtW- ._ d result wasKti at the City determined not 25 to impose any numerical caps on alcohoie[icenses permitted of gin Street, and would 26 leave this to the discretion of the City through tte CUP process information from the 27 Department of Al hol and Beverage Co as to ow many licenses could 28 occur within the Main Street/Old Town area a pears on Page 5 of the Staff Report. 7 29 Those numbers are; ; {determined by ABC on what ts; called a census tract basis. There 30 are two,ccensus tracts that comprise Old Town, with the tract numbers of 995.11 and 31 995.12`�=_:;T.hey basicall, split Old Town down Central Avenue; one tract is Central 32 Aveno: the ocean an - e other tract is " Central Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway 33 „(PCH). ABC�~has a . "tio: tha is determinedon a statewide basis for what puts a 34 w; - particular census tract � iat I AK- over ndentrated situation, and this number is 35 ,; determined on a yearly basisby=sfate BC 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 z .has 29 licensed locations in these two census tracts, and on Pages 5 and 6 of the Staff 41 a detailed listing . of�each of those licensed locations is shown with the name of od 42 ft w'business, the address, and the census tract. In 1995, as a result of consideration of 43 a application for -.ga p oposed restaurant in the 300 block of Main Street, the PC ;:�. 44 dete . matidn��was o approve the restaurant use and deny the alcohol sales, and when 45 the matfer=even ually 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 an alcohol license application in the Main Street area, so tonight's Staff Report does not make a recommendation on the alcohol sales, but presents the infon-natiog that is consistently provided on all application in the Main Street area. Staff is recommending approval of the restaurant use, but does not make a recommendation. fo&ffie alcohol sales. The standard conditions for an alcohol license are included in tM Staff Report, should the PC determine to approve this. Staff has also provided the info7maation on Page 12 showing which conditions would need to be removed, should the PC-consider approving the matter without alcohol sales. For the record StafPreceived a letter from the Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce in support of CUP 09-3 and also a letter from Warren and Mitzi Morton indicating their opposition t approal .,CUP 09 and requesting that the matter be denied. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Larson asked if Condition No. vm. .. a .,:9�' hould read °... indica the availability of beer and wine ...° Mrf V�/hitienberg�indicated that that would corrected. Commissioner Eagar asked if the pc pose res urant is to ;be located in Census Tract 995.12. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this wa correce� Commissioner Eagar noted that this census tract has 14 alcohol licenses. r: UVhittenberg stated that there are 14; however, 3 would be the number indicated by ABC," to of be over concentrated. He noted that Staff has combined both=t cts. as Staff ha hnrays looked at Main Street as a whole, but due to po�putation growth;, sine the 2000 census Main Street was split into �: e' two census tracts. Gha�rperson Deata Eli— that t enmber o'f licenses along all P .. of Main Street, which is 19, is the numbe Rat would be relevant Public Hearinq the public hearing. 3z Th applicant, YongPaiicstated that before closing escrow he was not aware of all the 33 licensing requiremen s; 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 .i succeeding without the ability to offer beer, sake, or wine to its customers. He stated 37a- that he hopes to open the %restaurant as soon as possible, and cannot wait 6 -12 months 3 to receive approval for an alcohol license as restaurant sales would not be strong 39 enough for it to succeed. Me requested approval of CUP 09 -3. 40 41 a Seth Eaker spoke in favor of CUP 09 -3 citing diversity of uses along Main Street and 42 noting that restaurantArlepresent the engine that drives destination travel on evenings 43 -and-weekends. Re. noted that there has been a recent increase in ethnic dining choices 44 creatir=tg a�positive'and diverse dining experience for residents and visitors. With regard 45 to alcoho 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 & period 3 of time. He recommended approval of CUP 09 -3. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton close Nte public hearing. Commissioner Comments VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF DISCUSSION. Chairperson Deaton: There were a number of people who talked to�"abbtlt this and, frankly, I expecte• there to be a large concern with the alcohol p itsdnot expect there to be a long a concern with the restaurant itself. The feedbac that pen 1"e= ave me was the "diversity of use has to do with the diversity of parking demand," and in some ways 1 have nev thought of that. The reason that we wa i o= : ave restauran . is so that we have foot traffic for our other businesses, but also, the�`other businesses need places for their patrons to park, and if the restaurants are going oh, ke u all of the parking because of their higher parking demand, then there is no p ce o he people to park and go to the other businesses, which are the o. es that, frankly, re suing more trouble in town right now than anyone else. W ahave:�a resa_ y seen a number o businesses go out. I know I just saw Main Stre,F. c�ancial, Th ti ``" �€ Center the clotlnag store, although we did get another clothin re in there, Yoh. °`isz really nice. a act a T -shirt store that went out, but the n we got a children 'shop in there. [ th�rik the biggest concern to the residents thatialked to me is parking, parfang, parkingand after that was alcohol, which, frankly, surpr,sed me. I thought the bigM MY con em would have been alcohol. I had a woman w9--.called me today who said, " love sushi and I would love to have a sushi restaurant, T ut lzan't walk down Main Street =and I can't find a parking spot." She said than was absol ` Knot appropriate to ad et another restaurant. - l would like to�propo'.se sso�methi: E and see what my fellow Commissioners think. I would like to `continue this and sen' Otto Cc,�and ask the ince they are the elected and they are really the ones that needo grapple with this hat to you want to do on this ?" I mean we have the in -lieu parking, wl�cgreal;'he City makes money off of it, I guess, but it doesn't mitigate anything. It doesn't give us any parking spaces. What we need are parking spaces before wegcan put in another intensive use for parking. So I would really like to continue it and ask that the CC tell us: "What do you want to do about more restaurants on Main Streat?" "What do you want to do about more alcohol permits ?" 'How do you want to hale this ?" because once we give an alcohol permit, we may ge an alcohol permit for ushi and two years later the sushi restaurant is gone and that ffledhol permit is still there. One of the big problems that we are hearing about now is Vhat the, idewalks are not clean enough because of the different alcohol- related esta[shrnen__,;; .a"n so forth. I don't feel confident to make this decision on behalf of the elided 1 2 4 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Massa- Lavitt. I agree with you that CC needs to make a decision on what they are going to o about the parking issue. They can't keep collecting money and not provide any parking spaces. Your thoughts are °right on" there. I don't want to keep this business, however, from being able to move forward pending an action of the CC. I think that would be a true hardship on this business. So I would want to move ahead with these gys and have them go in and have their beer and wine license. The poi "it is well takethat a sushi restaurant generally does not foment the' kind of rowd: behavior that maybe a Clancy's or Hennessey s or that an O'Malley's does at ce Ruff es o the year or on the weekends, but because of that I do not want to see' poi= be bet ,hove ahead. I would like to continue on with your thought, Chair Deaton, t re otxtRteU. o the CC that they come up with solutions to the problems down here. Maybe we need a parking structure. I don't know where they are oing io�put it, but its been done. .t would take a good deal of thought and work, bu -�ttioselunWof things can happen in dense downtown, and maybe it's time for the = to °bite a u[let° and come up with a solution. AW Chairperson Deaton.- I cannot in conscience go forward with it. WithMMOIJ1co1 how the constituents down here f el about it, and 1"rting up with no parking in the eigborhoo WIg it gives pie -.a know that there are o e establisFirne town that t e will all be back and y, "Hey, we've alrea Y een here, alcohol permit." I d • n't know how we waui, . ustifv, for approved coming in and saying, "Wait a Is it poss ble to do a Alglq moratorium just on Quinn Barrow: permits out there, knowing alf block off of it and ending ;al problem to do that. I also itnutte we give this one, they . HOW —git's our turn to get an qLn V, a restaurant we just mine Street? It may be possible. The only prohibition would be if we have done that before in the City. You should only do a moratorium once. Lee and I were actually talking about this in the past and we don't know if there has been a moratorium on the issuance of CUPs � n Main Street in the pastibut we would have to consider that, number one. Number $bo as you know, the AEC is the only body that has that power, so you could °recommend it to the CO. With respect to considering these different suggestions of the Corti rssion ther i a way to accomplish what the Chair wants; however, o continue :, ; Y P h t this rn atter and?send -it up to the CC wouldn't work, because they are the appellate body of this body; an so if they provided input while this is still within your jurisdiction then basically they would be "tainted" from the process and would not be able to hear any appeals. So there are other ways to accomplish what you would want, but I just want to point that out. �& Chairperson Deaton: Would the appropriate way to do it maybe be to deny it and then if it gets appealed, then the CC could address it at that point? f_ Quinn Barrow: That's one of the ways, but there are really 3 different 1. You could deny without prejudice. Essentially that means that for them to they would not have to wait a year. 2. There is also the issue of there could be a 3. Another way is the CC always has the-0 way it is not an appeal, but in essence e de novo before the CC, but that is s appeal fee. Chairperson Deaton: Well then, I think what I and waive the aaoeal fe Quinn Barrow: You would make motion would be appeal�ywithout pe Commissioner Larson: Commissioner Larson: gesiio�n i,;,riaive the fee to appeal. roer to call4tru s up for review and that would still ha the same type of hearing nay that they uld not have to pay the deny it without prejudice the 19-C can waive that, but your nmend to the CC that they can is and I guess we all share it. My understanding of the hat he wasn't aware before he closed escrow, everybody st there are licensing problems and zoning problems, and a are not having a meeting for a month. if we go ahead and deny it then it can go on to CC. That's right. Commissioner Eat: When is the Council meeting? Lee WhittenberF: First off the Commission needs to make your decision on wffiat y,, think is the best decision because you may deny in anticipation that and appeal m N, sb, ..,if an appeal is not filed, after 10 days your decision is the final decision. Chairperson Deaton: KK +)srFe •�,q Which is fine too, but the whole things is wel" e a pro ern he e, and it is not limited to just one particular application and we're to get ourse . -es in serious trouble b ,. ,y "piecemealing this decision." I think we ally eed to get El ction from CC and I like Quinn's suggestion that we do it that ay so ifiat�we're not ";m ddyinq the water." Lee Whittenberg; Keep in mind that assuming IG, rss�ontagoe; and recommending to =•Go ncil that aa1 „ 1 X is a 10 -day period tfile the appeal, depi City, assuming one as applied for. If it May meeting, it deends on publication da things, so it justid,,epends on when those t something may get�tG,CC, and I can't give you 1, h-at happened to OR Commission had said O` Lee Whittenberg: That business eventually wine tasting business as my suggesti on the down "tie road of denying the application fee be wairre" . i an appeal is filed, there tg upon wh-ek at ens submitted to the hickly, we rn�ght'e able to get it on a > for newspap rs and a number of other gs fall int place, as to how quickly definite answers on that. that got to Council, where the ed not to activate this CUP and it was reapproved for a ed to a restaurant. :specially without Commissioner Bello here tonight, who also the responsibility is beyond us. I agree with that. 1 share your concern. I think I know what it is. You remember that some time ago we went back with what to do with a property that backs upwto Gum Grove Nature Park on their setbacks. Well, we sent it up to the Council and they sent it back and we sent it back up to the Council and they sent it back. Chairperson Deaton: In this case we have an application though, and I think it has Jtofte dealt with!Mthin a certain period of time. �� . Commissioner Larson: You've convinced me and I'm not sure that people won't say we've been unfairl have to face that, that some of the deals we make hirnk we're being fair and •: trying to do what is best for the City, and ift� Gou0ncil :says give as many P Y y O we want tolsto -then that's fine too. permits as you want, then its fine. If the sa . Chairperson Deaton: r yp The bottom line is that they are the,(efecteQand they are tkie"ones who are going to be held accountable for the decision that we make. AY Commissioner Larson: Yeah, that's right. 1'll„s" ffin—d yo—u - Motion, fthasn't I am kind of tom them start their that's not includii Lee Whittenberg: because I am always ess, but then, we're send of Seal Beach. of business, and I would like to see ed" with alcohol permits here and The other option that the commission has this evening you can approve the Conditional Use Permit for the restaurant use without the alcohol. Chairperson Deaton. }:-, n't feel that that's the right way ' �. g y to go because I've had so many complaints about she � 4jaddrig issue. and if we get more restaurants, I mean, how do we, when do we op. M7M at.po[nf do we stop giving restaurants, so I would personally like the Council to direct'iis''If they say, "You know, we're just going to bite the bullet," you know, maybe eventually people will go down and use the beach lot and blah, blah, blah, I 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 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. ,D, Commissioner Larson: Former Mayor Antos will then bring up his lifelong goal to build parkin under Eisenhower Park. Commissioner Massa- Lavitt: y � G,�� Y: Is there a way that we can tie; well, what we have is a m-ofion °to den :i and be deny the restaurant and the ABC license. WOUId we then, BONN, recommendation from the PC ask the CC to either direct the PC or to themselves to come up with solutions for the parkinwfssues on Main Street? Chairperson Deaton: I think there are a number of things to ask, add ane of them is: 1. What about more restaurant use. Does'ifiisbothercyou or not? 2. What about the alcohol use. Does this bottler-yo&%r not? 3. How are we rather than just accepting mo eey:. en people don't have parking spaces, how do we ?mitigate t e parking issue? Like Mr. Larson says here has been a play floated out tfie%e farr- �aflong time, and that is to roll back Eisenhower Park, put parking rande it, and rolFE;'se • hoover Park back over the top, but the you're asking people to, .gym they cold park down at the beach now and they dowant to walk down there " This is a big issue. This isn't an easily solved issue, a !0§83, do believe that this is a Council issue and not a Planning How many spaces Chairperson Deaton: They need to pay for 8 is paces and they are grandfathered in for 3. But these are °virtual spaces," they're real. is no place,, ut them. I can see your point now. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ChaiMerson Deaton: Go on the computer and you play these virtual shopping trips and you're•payrig money for all of this stuff, but it's virtual, its not real. Commissioner Larson: But when you open up parking you open up Sunday parkinfpLand the permiRto the church, take away parking permit from a swim school tha .'wasn'tall owe do It's probably the most difficult thin that can happen to ; "' P Y 9 PP Aa Beac[iR " .ere :�s fas# no parking. We've got a couple of lots that the City of Long Beach manage brings people in from shuttle buses. Chairperson Deaton: I know that Staff has been working on this with various members of the community oq,n� new ideas on how to handle the parkin d-iffe'rent ideas have -come up, and, of course, Ws just like bringing up parking meters again: Everybody : as a different opinion and a different idea, but the fact is that we're at the pla `5nrhe the rubber meets the road." With the economy the way it is about the thi g being really successful are restaurants that are serving alco 01. What we are oolong at is turning Main Street into a very undiverse use of resiaurarit'�,aMtfi- alcohol permifs I don't think th Belmont Shore, oing to happen. In have the same issue. how many M Commissioner Massa -Lavitt: comma F ity, downtown 2"' Street tell me, "I don't want to be Belmont We are Belmont Shore, only on a smaller scale. There's no place else to put parking, and it means cutting off awhole use potential on the street. That means we will have no more new restaurants on Main Street until this issue is settled. EU:nless ome go o.u�ofbusiness. The problem is we have not faced, until now with Pho Basi Leaf; 1 - WN Mist happened, and now this, non - restaurant use buildings that are being WWI o restaurant use. Oh no, and the Wine Cellar. Those three are brand 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 l 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 ways there and turn that into a parking lot. I AP Commissioner Massa- Lavitt: Shopping in front and, you know little stores in front and a structure Why don't we call for the question? I'll call for the question. Lee Whittenberg: If I might just restate the motion, it is to Chairperson Deaton: It is to deny the application without prejudice appeal with no appeal fee. Commissioner Larson: We don't have an �derstanding if the ap a liquor license. l gOther he wants the liqu Chairperson Deaton: him the opportunity, III the restaurant and the parking. before we vote, should the applicant ... to the CC to hear an operating without 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chairperson Deaton: The question has been called for. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Larson to deny Conditional Use Per prejudice and recommend to City Council that the appeal fee be waived. MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 —1 AYES: Deaton, Eagar, Larson, and NOES: None ABSENT: Bello O.K. that's four zero to deny the application without go to an appeal process to the CC without payingjadi Lee WhittenberF: We don't have a resolution before you a the discussion and fold it into a reso ut present to the applicant for him to use as Commission at that same time. Chairperson Deaton: So now we're at the Quinn Barrow: Yes. of the agenda; udice and to allow you X1 in time, b what we will do is take 'll haver mpleted by tomorrow to japl';and we will provide it to the What I wouldIlke to " no. is I would like U. make a motion, and if it works for you guys, what I would like to' is ask the C w � direct us, specifically, on what they want to do about Main Street restau ran, liquor# ermits, etc. It's one thing to address this as one thing, but now we need some direction on how they want us to handle Main Street, with the understanding thai,there are 19 liquor licenses just on that one street there with the understanding that we have a parking issue. Where they eventually park is in the neighborhoods, and so people coming home at night are competing with the people that are eating on Main Street fo` park. It's a knotty issue that I would like directions on this. Is Chairperson Deaton: the Specific Plan? 40 41 42 44 46 46 It may not open up the Specific Plan. It may just simply be an interpretation of the Main Street Specific Plan. Lee Whittenberg: I think those are some issues that if the Commission approves the suggested *motion that is before them, we'll have to huddle with Staff and see how p,,at process wou d work out and present something to CC and they will probably end lying us direcue as to how far they want us to go with this. Quinn Barrow: If I could interrupt, I just want to make it clear t We#J your application without prejudice, you have . Clerk, and the PC is recommending to theC that the any appeal fee. Number two; technicail. your issue is suggest that you direct Staff to male a . atim trc, present it to the Council at the next a ailab - C.C�rneetin us direction. Chairperson Deaton: Can I go forward Quinn Barrow: Not with a motiorbut I if there is no objectio II the Council and yo can direct Staff to make it Council to consider_ What are we directing Chairperson Deaton: it that the PC has denied wgm an appeal with the City 'Bider your appeal without R the agenda, so I would of this discussion and then the Council can give are going to send this transcript to exactly the points that you want the I think there are three items: the parking issue, the restaurant issue, and the alcohol permit issue. _ meet! II do is preRa�ra verbatim transcript of the discussion that's gone on; that will ,itted to: Do'Uncil. The next available Council meeting it will be able to be on �w ;the -� ,r'127 Council meeting, because their agenda is done for the April 13 th 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Commissioner Bazar: So we're directing Staff to make sure that these points are brought up to they will then come back and direct you? A Lee Whittenberg: They may; they may not. We don't know right now. Commissioner Eat: I want something to be concrete coming out of this; I want something I know this has been "a sore subject for eons." _ Lee Whittenberg: The best we can do and the best and then it is up to Council to dete Chairperson Deaton: But his comments will be concrete coming out of ft Lee Whittenberg: That is correct. information to C to that request. he would like something ACHMENT 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 Applicants: YONG & Location: GARY PUTNAM & MAIN ST. SPECII;1 MR N AREA Code Sections: - 28- 1250RST2503; 28 -2504 Recommendation: STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TiE NEW RESTAURANT AND IS NEUTRAL ON THE GRANTING OF E TYPE 41 ABC LICENSE; THE COMMISSION MAY EITHER AAPPROVE OR DENY ALL OR PART OF CUP 09-3, THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 09 -16. 7-1Conditional Use Permits \CUP 09-3 210 Main Street (Waki Sush) \CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Reportdoc FACTS LI Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 On March 5, 2009, Yong & Jane Park (fine "Applicantsl filed an Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Per a it ® The subject property is described as Orange County 12. 9 7 n The proposed restaurant is approximately proposed floor plan shows approximately 1 seats at a bar area located along the southeri The subject property is a rectangular shy 117' -6" feet deep. The propose I approximately 21' -11" by 55' -9" area. 'hi single -story retail building fronting Main property with a single car garage at the rea There is no record of thi f'. pert from the City. Th e.. ost recent i 'Sweet Berry Blis y", a frozen yogui 'grandfathered' permitted use was also known s 'Grandma's G yogurt shop. ® Aside from th residential unit on the pry are located to th; M-Nar of the subject pre pro proxlma #e1p3 5 feet from the p The surrounding land ❑ NORTH, SOUTH, Plan (MSSP) zone. ❑ EAST — Residentia Sergeant Tim Olsen application and has n( potentially be anotherl square feet in size ana Sat tables and an additio � 'on of the restaurant. S hdt is 25' -0" feet wide by -lie e restaurant shows an veloped with an existing as a two -story residential approvals or use permits led on the property was is' • ess was apparently Specific Plan zone, and ablishment of the frozen r§, the nearest residential properties , east of the alley to the rear of the :d business. S follows: businesses in the Main Street Specific in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone the Seal Beach Police Department, has reviewed the icerns regarding the subject request, other than it could lishment serving alcohol on Main Street. 09, the Planning Department has not received any comments to otices published and mailed regarding this application. CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 2 r' Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment o a sushi restaurant with a Type 41 (Beer &Wine — Eating Place) AB ,G license at Zfu Main Street. There is no previous history of any use permits or di cretionary actions by the City at this address. The Main Street Specific Plan allows for restaurants, gas weii'as`o : = remise premise alcohol sales businesses, subject to approval of a Conditional 'se` The use must be found consistent with the following findings, as specified in the The proposed business isto 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. Tiiersu acizp "ely does not provide any off - street parking spaces and is classified as a --gal, "an�cc�riforming 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 Apn18, 2009 date back to 1958, and does not now comply with the established parking sta 4P pfflards of the City. b� Pursuant to the provisions of the MSSP, the proposed restaurant use would be 'grandfathered' for three (3) parking spaces, based on the MSSP parking requiments 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 squarefeet. Restaurants are parked at a ratio of 1:100, meaning a 1,087 square foot restaura wt ould require eeven (11) parking spaces. Since the lease space is grandfathered far; 3 spaces' the�:pro'ect would require an additional eight (8) parking spaces. This cou accomp,tis ed through either securing eight (8) off -site parking spaces, or the payment of an adit�ona 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 to J, e c mplete language of the Ma lm Street Specific Plan Zone parking standards . The oai dn`= deu fee that would be required to be paid for the proposed restauran# is $ 28,0000 _a Per MSSP requirements, the ma)dm4go a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Th Saturday, and Holidays. The proposed sushi are identified within Specific Plan Zone, Municipal Code. Th ❑ Provision of ❑ Eclectic ❑ Building Th set forth in Seci pplicable urban it trie Main street spec 253.A.1, 28- 1253.A.4, store fronts; fagade se buildings. aours would be from 7:00 m. to 11:00 p.m. Friday, ante witl%W efal urban design factors that ecific Plan�ari the resulting Main Street !850 throng. 8;:257 of the Seal Beach n ~factors identified ==tiy�staff include: s views idt- shops, offices, and re without national trade , # ark buildings; and mited to 35 -50 feet in wid , _ reinforces these identified urban design factors specified a and further co plies with the provisions of Section 28- e -ftn 28-1263-A 6., which discusses transparency of andi6'fa de�width and appearance of interconnecting Staff feels that the proposed sushi restaurant would be a positive addition to this area f 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 'sting 1 and 2 -story commercial buildings along Main Street, as well as the residential ant ithat is located at theIrear of the subject property and therefore noise impacts to the reealneighbo d& to the northeast are anticipated to be less than significant. The�res-identlaG,;udi -at the rear of the property is built to both side property lines and will help to attenuat 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 Report 4 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 Overconcentration of alcoholic beverage licenses: Overconcentration of alcoholic beverage licenses has been an issue wit�tiin.;tEie city in the past, particularly in areas with high crime reporting districts. The State's coholic Beverage Control Act, Regulation 61.3, says that if an area has both high crim Viand 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% request to ABC that the City be placed under Regulation 61.3. The purpose of this:_reggest was to give ABC Syr a basis on which to deny a license request. However CYrs,a rave a CUP application in an over concentrated area if it so desires.`, ABC calculates the total number of ABC lice total County population by the number of ABC per capita. ABC then takes the latest US Cei Tract in which a license is to be placed an c people per license. If there are more Ilcen: considers that census tract over canncentr•.atei available census data) is 1 on -sale license pe sale license per 1,751 people. Based on the information Census Tract 995.11, phi Tract 995.12. Cei Avenue, Fifth Stre Town" northerly of The following to for both Census Ptract 995.11 id Marina Drive, boundary up to P pares a than tl The cu the folio subject icates the current ABC is Tracf Highway County and divide = e. ;rmine a ratio of licenses statistics for the Census Jthe ratio of a number of irnber allowed, the ABC ratio (based on the last a census tract, and 1 off was gathered regarding is located, and Census n,' sAtherly of Electric "Yencompasses "Old ng regulations and permits issued ; ensus �' Tract Populaoi . 2000 y On Sale Mowed On Sale ave Off Sale .Allowed Off Sal® Have 995.11 3,416 , 15 2 3 995.12 2,766 3 14 2 4 Total 6,182 7 29 4 7 licensed off -sale estaurishments in Census.Tracts 995.11 and 995.12 are: ❑ Seal Beachquor, 112 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ❑ Angelo's lZban Deli, 133 Main Street (Tract 995.11) Dolphi tlarket, 1430 Ocean Avenue (Tract 995.11) Q; a> West Beach Liquor, 462 Pacific Coast Highway (Tract 995.12). a- €!even, 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 f' Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit o9 -3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 The licensed on -sale establishments in Census Tracts 995.11 and 995.12 ark ❑ Rivers 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) El Thai on Main, 117 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ❑ Irisher, 121 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ❑ Beachwood BBQ, 131 Main Street (Tract 99..'t" ❑ Old Town Cafe, 137 Main Street (Tract 99511)' ❑ O'Malleys, 140 Main Street (Tract 995.11) ❑ Hennessey's Tavern, 143 Main Street Tract 95.11) ❑ Waits Wharf, 201 Main Street (Tract ❑ Woody's Diner, 209 Main Street-19 tact 99 ❑ Ruby's (at the Pier), 900 Ocean Avenue (Tracf 9".11) L ❑ Kinda Lahaina Restaurant,.90KF@cean Avenue 5ract 995.11) ❑ El Burrito Jr., 909 Oceaq;lve " u," bract 995.11- - ❑ Main Street Wine Cellar, 302 Mai Street (Tra' 995.12) 13 Athens West, 303 Main Street (TraM 996NS ❑ The Abbey, 306 Main Street (Tract 995. !jp4 ❑ Three Twen Main, " $Main Street (Tract995 12) ❑ Cafe Lafaye�" , 330 -Mai ". Street (Tract 995 2} ❑ Patty's P ace, 550 Pacific Caast.Nighway #10 .12) ❑ Yucata , rill, 550 Pacific Coast-"Hig�hway #111 (T •act�995.12) ❑ Resta grant Koi, 600 Pacific Coas =- hway #A (T act 995.12) ❑ Thai sine, 600 Pacific Coast Highway #108 'ract 995.12) ❑ Finbarrs Italian Kitchen, 620 Pacifi °��oast Highway (Tract 995.12) ❑ Kamik Sushi, 1013 Pacific Coas `,ighway (Tract 995.12) ❑' Blackb�oafd istro, 1198 Pacific Coas Highway #A (Tract 995.12) ` Mahe Restaurant, 1400 Pacific sffiHighway (Tract 995.12) ve's Oite Piace, 1500 Pacifc�coast Highway (Tract 995.12) 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 ="i "s are that neu - -liquor licenses have been an issue along Main Street in the pas particularly" a streets close proximity to residential neighborhoods. The 'aFd'my.. Main 5tree �ec:�fic 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 Maln Street PC Staff Report 6 1' Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09 -3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 Beach's old town charm is the c lose proximity of its residential commercial establishments. This arrangement is highly desirable.° the There is obviously a balance between the existence of restaurants, off- p'remise"lalcohol sales uses, and other visitor and locally serving businesses within the Main 'AStreet Specific Plan area, and the purpose of consideration of alcohoequests through the Conditional Use Permit process is the mechanism the City has chosen to evaliL& this type of land use request.' -. y The issue of noise and other effects of overconcentratiorrl- w rt}i'fz6f�„cio a RIiilis regard as well. Much of the fear regarding overconcentration comes from he %ar t at .�..:. excessive noise, calls for police services, or other ill effects will result as a result 6Vthe new application. This is the thrust behind regulaf�'orr fi • detailed above. However:; this regulation gives cities the individual autonr o analyze-the applications on a case A:, by case basis. In this case, the applicant sees the abili to conduct a sushi restaurant where drinks such as sake (rice wine) aXFNIGNAnticipated anese beers ar ommon compliments td sushi dining. This type of a use X. to generate excessive noise concerns, based on typical clientele of s ;,.us'nesse , r other operation- related impacts to the adjacent commercial and residential land uses. In November 2005, Staff regarding the Plannina _Vt alcohol sales liter 2005 meeting, St locations on Main overview of public approved at both level. As a rfrs 1t of that thatSta ake, a i to pro, ous co .Mthin the MarKZS -Ifeet d provide the Co n at (302 Main Street items, as well as a Department of Alcoh regards to granting alcol -1 the current number of liter that Staff not give a specific RECOIV MENDA ide_m €ermation to the City Council fsiderattoof CUP requests for new is PlanArea At their December 12, a backgfi3un on approvals for two I Main St re , and also provided an Pion as t ow alcohol licenses are uerage Control, as well as the City with no objection from the Council, the Mayor requested ral position in Planning Commission Staff Reports, with es; that Staff , resent information in Staff Reports as to ;oular area in question and the impact; and recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relevant testimony, n or oral, presentef during the public hearing, approve the establishment of the sed sushi restaurant; and is neutral on the granting of the requested Type 41 ABC The Commission determination to approve or deny ail 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 April 8, 2009 ❑ Is Conditional Use Permit 09 -3, as it may be proposed to be 0nditioned regarding business operations, consistent with the provisions of _Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a Main Street" S�peciffc Plan zoning designation for the subject property and permits off - premis alcoholic sales subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit? L3 ° Is Conditional Use Permit 09-3 also consistent with the maining ele , ents of the City's General Plan, as the policies"-of those ele ants are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element? ❑ Is the proposed use, as may be proposed to be fI n, ioried�egard in, business operations, consistent with the intent and purpose and vision estaiitishedfor the Main Street Specific Plan? ❑ Is the building and property at 210 Mai - reet adequate in size, shape topography and location to meet the needs ,of i[e proposed use of the propeity; as proposed to be conditioned? ❑ Is the required adherence to apoffeable buildin an fire codes sufficient two ensure there will be adequate waft' ?supply and utilities- r the proposed use? ❑ Would the proposed use not conflict ittthe Spesffic Plans goal to establish and maintain a balanced mix of uses H, at 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 provides . a Street sense of idenm ❑ Will the propos else comp,. ':'gall applicable City'Council Policies, such as the policies Wouncil has a mop . ' concerning a s? If the Planning Com n'ssion determines it canniake affirmative findings for the above items W.consideration„ Staff would then preps a the appropriate resolution for this re nest; ?ir c uding a iffip�osition of the folio og conditions for on- premise alcohol a es; as we s any 500b al conditions deemed appropriate in conjunction with a restaurant: t4.' 1. 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 pace on said premises. The applicant shafftcomply with all restrictions placed on the license issued by the State of Califemia's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). AI1I<r.atcotiolloWbeverages sold or consumed on the premises shall be in accof dfice 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 premises indicating that law prohibits drinking outside the licensed prerti 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 n the premises. 5. It shall be the responsibility of the applicanttlicensee -4 rwide all empki�ees that sell or serve alcoholic beverages with the knowledge nd {skiI enablir� tfiern to comply with their responsibilities under State of ta- lifomia t � 6. The knowledge and skills deemed necessary for zesponsible alcoholic beverage' service shall include, but not be limited to t efbllowing topics and skills, development: • State law relating to alcohol! beverages, particularly ABC and penal provisions concerning sales to�rninors and intoxicated persons, driving under' the influence, hours of leg i open _fio and penartigs for violation of these laws. • The potential legal liabilities of ovine - employees of businesses dispensing alcoholic beverages to patrons:;wlao may subsequently injure, kill, harm themselve s or 000- victims " as a;, result of the excessive ❑ Alcohol asa'drug and its eff:' on the body "iit h'vior, including the operation offinotor vehicles. r ❑ Methods of dealing with intoxi tomers artd;recognizing under age 7. T_he following; organizations provide train# programs, which comply with the • ❑ Provider: ;Orange County Health Care Agency Alcohol & Drug Education Prevention Team (ADEPT) a Program: '-' Serving Alcohol Responsibly (BARCODE) Telephone::= (714) 834 -2860 * Karen Keay They will schedule appointments host: $12.95 per person 8. The hours of operation shall be: CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 9 r Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09 -3 210 Main Street Apn7 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 A 9. No video games or similar amusements shall be permitted on the unless a separate conditional use permit is approved for that use. 10. Litter and trash receptacles shall be located at co outside the establishment. Operators of such estal and debris on an appropriate basis so as not to q shall be no dumping of trash and /or glass bottle between the hours of 10:00 p.m, and 7:00 a.m. 11. In the event staff determines security Rroblem 4rc, of this permit may be amended, under a proced Seal Beach, to require the provisions of additional 12. The project proponent shall p _ y th accordance with the provisions of Conditional Use Permit. 13. The establish hereafter generated schedule applicant/c Chapter 7. 14. The propos,�d1 "Ofitha Oi, an e _ Chapter of a grease c required by the 15. This CUP shall "Acceptance of presence of the the Planning Del elapsed. mended. Shaul establishment, 01 subject CUP for )r to mitigate the r {ufred in -lieu :ctiert ..28 -1,2 iapter lations of wlaints bit tanning Corr e onsideratic eKA.veltoc locations ins de and s-sI1411 removem =trash n the site, the Conditions �f The Code of the City of ?tY measures. king fee of $ 28,000.00 in prior to issuance of the Noise Control ", of The Code t Gihjapte!r now exist or may ,received regarding noise nission reserves the right to n and may require the rmpiy with the provisions of int shall comply with all requirements of Section 9.25 Management an °Discharge Control ", as the regulations 3t or may hereafter be amended, including the installation and ap�°other devices or systems that may be become effective for any purpose unless /until a City itions° form has been signed by the applicant in the or of Development Services, or notarized and returned to mt; and until the ten (10) calendar -day appeal period has lifcation7of1this CUP shall be applied for when: The establishment proposes to change its type of liquor license. 9The establishment proposes to modify any of its current Conditions of Approval. CUP 09 -3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 10 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 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 fin`s 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 litte . Eli 18. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised wt ff` n 'z(fl T =a 't date of final approval, or such extension of time as. may be granted t Planning Commission pursuant to a writte request for extension submitted; the Department of Development ServicesvaV mirR. _. Yof ninety (90) days prior such expiration date. 19. The term of this permit shall be fi�mi s from the date of ABC approval of the' new Type 41 license. At the era = o tf�ednifial term, the= pplicant may apply for an indefinite extension of CUP 09 -3. The commission may grant an indefinite �z extension provided that all the conditiont°.', ,pproval have been met and no significant police or other problems have" >occu_rred. The applicant is hereby advised that a ne p.1111--f fi nand accompanWgIfee m ust be paid to the city prior to considerraafion o iii efinrte xtension. 20. The applicant ill prominently dispfay.fhese Conditions, of pproval in a location within the businesses' customer areal t at is accepts le to the Director of Developme services. 21. Tluhe applicant Mall indemnify, defend and Id harmless City, its officers, agents and employees collectively "the City," here?inafter) from any and all claims and osses, hatsoeve x occurring or resultin > to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furntsbin or supplying wor= c, services, materials, or supplies in le connection with tFt�" °perfamlance of use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted heretri a-nd : n. fa, 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 befrimited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's Choi in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawstitsxor actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, }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 033 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 11 1 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 If the Commission determines to approve CUP 09 -3 without a recommends that conditions 2 -7 be deleted and that condition 1 be approval as a restaurant use only. Based on the determinations of the Commission, Staff will Resolution for consideration by the Planning Commission on A. i Olivera, AICP Planner anent of Development Services Attachments (5): Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment Application Main g'• City COunci $tam Alcohol Licenses ar Specific Plan Area attachments) '.ity Council Minute ;roject Plans CUP 09 -3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 12 ipare the a 6, 2009. Plan Zone S' Staff indicate priate ort re: PrNnilr1 aPlnformation — I.n -Lieu Par NNIssues, Main Street fed December 12, 2005 (with selected December 12, 2005 f• Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 13 I I CITY OF SEAL BEACH PUBLIC HEARING AP City of Seal Beach MAR 5 2009 . J. pWrtment of &q _ o- -ment Services p 4hj�qs- 43 Describe Proposed U21b: — I D ffir-nWe fiwqww�Wb proposed .65ghbe ho K-Ifle proposed improvements are appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood: la-vvI'tj ZS11?a"e-m Page 7 Rev. W06 I aAk) cw54 1 Property Address: b, M Aim 2. County Assessor Parcel No: 3. Applicant Name: Address: Phone: Work 73-- 3+-7,57 FAX: (-I L E-Mail Address: 4. Property OwnerNarne: Chu �m A- 0 Aft f% 0 Cr-% City of Seal Beach MAR 5 2009 . J. pWrtment of &q _ o- -ment Services p 4hj�qs- 43 Describe Proposed U21b: — I D ffir-nWe fiwqww�Wb proposed .65ghbe ho K-Ifle proposed improvements are appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood: la-vvI'tj ZS11?a"e-m Page 7 Rev. W06 I aAk) cw54 Des"Cid'be how Prqp," in the approval of this Permit would be detrimental in any way to init\r I 12. Proof of Ownership Please attach a photocopy of a picture I. D. and a 6hotocopy of the applicant. Dead provi(!& by or Signed and notarized Property Ow'ner's Affidavit to bd completed and attached to the Page 8 Rev. 6106 Environmental Information and Checklist Form General Information 1. Name and address of Developer or Project Sponsor. Person: Zip: Zip: -' , " 5. EAsting zoning: EAsting General Plan: S: Proposed use of Vie: �Ce.ba�.e 'Qct.� c�ixe, --ice (Ahc Page 11 Rev. 6106 16. For C. D. Household 17. For commercial A. Type of F B. Whether C. Square fc U' "' Gross bu 18. , indicate the: nits Unit sizes: q,pnces or rents: :ts, indicate the: borhood, city or regionally oriented-,g ►.tomb t,b�t,� 6.j of sales areas: '5f- area: ! facircties: Ijbw g For industrial projects, indicate the: Page 12 Rev. 6108 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 Are the following ibfins applicable to the checked yes (atta additional sheets as Discuss below all items in., existing features of any bays, tidelands, aes or hills, or substantial alteration of Change in scenic views or vistas from eAsting residential areas or public lands or roads. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project 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. 6105 �&i Awl Environmental Setting 33. On a separate l including informs cultural, histod and the use ath� 34. On a separa _ pC, plants and anrma ot land use apar mment home quality or quantity, or alteration of existing patterns. 27. Substantial change in emsting noise or-:vib`�rat in the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of -0 percent or 29. Use or disposal of potei#ially hazardous i such as to )dc substances, i am�riai es o exp 30. Substantial change in demand for municips (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.), 31. Substantial ` increas . sit fuel consun (electrici l, natural gasp ei). Y m. 32. Relations : itowrger projedt or series of projects. levels Age;..ga ° one project s %60-0.* exists before the project, top' raph P:._: stab! '= ar�its amb animals, and any or scenic aspeeis =� Describe any em - stivctures on the site, structures. Attacft P graphs of the sm. le, describe the surrounding properties, including information on and any cultural, histon l or scenic aspects. Indicate the type Jential, commercial, etc; ' intensity of land use (one- family, `shops, department st -igs, etc.), and scale of development aback, rear yard, etc.) Attach photographs of the vicinity. Page 14 Rev. MG u Environmental Impacts (Please explain all "Potentially Significant Impact"; "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" and "Less Than Significan 'wilmpact" answers on separate sheets.) _ Potentially Significant Impact Page '15 Less r Less No Impact N O Rev. BIDS 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 ait quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumula ' cotisiderabT :y net increase of any ria pollutant -' which the projects region is non - attainment under a' pplicable federal or state ambient t quality standard (including releasi :.nag emissions which exceed quantitative #E sholds for ozone nrticant �pac. Less Than Potentially Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated nrticant �pac. No Impact El] Page 16 Rev. 6106 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 e movement of . any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident o rp r-ataz wildlife corridors, or impedde, a use:a native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with afi: local policies or ordinances pro ecting biological resources, such .as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with provisions of an adopte 4, Habitat Cor`servation Plan, Natu, ommunity Con � servation Plan othe approved ' ocai, regional, or state habitat conservationrpl 1P_ CULTURAL RESOURCES — ,W0. the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of Aa historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? 6b) Cause a substantial adverse change the significance of an rchaeological o�r�ca pursuant tom j. 064.5? c) Qoffl tl}igor Indicectiy destroy a unique paleontoiogica resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Potantially Significant with Less Significant Mitigation signi Impact incorporated a o c Page 17 0 0 u d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? NA. 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 IS6 area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology $pa ial :- Publication 42. (Ii) Strong seismic grow shaking? (ii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ('iv) Landslides? b) Result in substar&soil erosion or Re) Be locate-ran a ge logic;Unit or soil that is unstable, or tha wiet ldpbecome fit' S'r �'�%'• unstable as a result of the projQd. ' potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading; subsidence, Irquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expa ive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform AW Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life, property? e) ave sollaz indapable of adequately suppwfi"� the' se of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Page 18 0 M Rev. 6/06 !II Less Than Potentially Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Page 18 0 M Rev. 6/06 !II 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? y c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an eiasting or proposed school? d) Be located on a site wk!dh�is ' , cludedf on a list of hazardous atedals sites compiled pursuant Government Code Section 66962.5 ai t as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environmen7t` e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, e�e�such a plan has not bee ,, adopted, •"tn two miles of a Pw pubfrc >aitpo:• or public irpart, would °- a.� the project r cult in a safety ,hazard for '•people residing or working 'ill � : 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'? hE implementation .of or physically with an ad�oped emergency plan or ecner��gency evacuation Less Than Potent signifii lmpa 4 13 Page is ' 11 C3 O C3 Rev. 6106 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to -urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Mll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially wlth 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 iat of pre - existing nearby wells woU - •.dibp:�t&-g.. level which would not ripport existing land uses or plann uses for which' permits have been granted)? c) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of, the site or area, including .through tie• alteration of the course oaf a stream cr`river, in a manner which would result ict s 6starntial erosion or slftatGa.,Ar or offs e mod ' Substantidllyy alt "'Na existing drainage pattern of the si-oGatea,, including through the alteraF60o�e course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- ooffsite? e1 Create or contribute runoff water anrhich would exceed the capacity of 4Mst1hg or planned sto ater drainage sysie vide u _e antial additional fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? d Page 20 Rev. slob Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significaf. No Impact Incorporated linpa Impact ®' 13 0 r ,_ d Page 20 Rev. slob g Place housing within a 100 -year flood ha) zard 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 area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? �) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, AIr mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? •`4e Potentially impact storinwatei "ru�cfF. from post- constructio achvites? m) Result in a pote,' s'al for discharge of stormwater pollutaiAs from areas of material storage, -ve hide or equipment fueling, vehicle., or equipment maintenance (Intl i ggwashing), waste handling, azardous,matedals handling or storage,; _O{iyery areas oading docks or l Less Than Potentially Significant with Less an I ) Result in the potential %0iarge of ..Y stormwater to affect the bees _of'' receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater: runoff to cause environmental arm? &p),,Create significant increases in erosion of th project site or surrounding areas? °PLANNING - Would the p of a) Physically divide an established community? Page 21 Rev. M Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Signlflcan# No Impact Incorporated Impa Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land use ® ® ®= plan, policy, or regulation of an agencyD 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 :.:v. - environmental effect? M c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ` ® `c conservation plan or natural community = conservation plan? -; X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the ?° project: vf. - 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 avalla6iti a3 I'dcally- $ `� important mineral resource •.r recovery site delineated on a fora! general plan, spec" fi plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — WoulcW— project result in: Exposure a) of persons }to or generation of noises le eels in excess of standards estab Is the IdWgbieral plan or ®, , : Qise ordina is , or applicable tandards Hof other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generaiio of excessive groundbome vibration or R groundbome noise levels? y c) A substantial permanent increase in noise levels in the vicinity ambient project above levels existing without°the project? d)�A °,substantial temporary or periodic incr•._ezaseir ambient Oise levels in the proms t inanity a , M e levels existing wimout'tfie.spmject7 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 RW. 6 /O6 . 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 the 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 lriduce substantial '� ,) latio n growtlt: an areaeither dire or example, lip proposing new hom and businesses) or indirectly (for exampe, through extension of roads or other it fiastructure)? b) Displace su6siantiai numbers of existing housing; `necessitating the construMon of rapta • ment housing Displace `substantial MUM bers of people, necessitating the construction- f 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 Rovvemmental facilities, need for new or �pllysicaally altered governmental facilities, a --- - - nstrucction oft-which could cause signifi n.'. ental impacts, in order t aintain acceptable service ratios; response times or other performance objectives for any of the Potentially Significant Impact W 0 Less Than Significant with Less Thaw Mitigation Significai Incorporated trripact_; O Page 23 Rev. 8105 No. Impact MINI 0 0 public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the us of . existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated ?� b) Does the project its Q a recrea `i < al facilities or requires the construction o expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPO ION/TRAFFIC — Would . e project: a) Ca ° se incre se traffic which is sbbstantiai 1 erelation tare existing traffic ,; oad and capacity oftestrEet s stem (i.e., result in a subs M. either the number of vehicle 'trips, volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at rntersections)? b) Exceed, either in • ividually or cumulatively, a level of se''ce standard established by the coutri� congestion Z- Management agency or designated r, Sd r highways? c nge in air traffic patt msilaciudirtg either an increase in traffic -levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? �! is 13 C3 X 13 1i C3 "9 O O B Page 24 Rev. 6106 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less an Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated impa ` f Impact �! is 13 C3 X 13 1i C3 "9 O O B Page 24 Rev. 6106 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Significant Mitigation Sigt Impact Incorporated : mj g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? XA UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Re * na Water Quality Control Bow f 4V b) Require or result i the construction of y= new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant a 1rronmental effects? c) Require or result rn. a construction of new storm water � 'iiage facilities or expa � slo - of existi g °facilities, the nstructio-" f whrc could cause ;S- significant environments effects? , d) Have sufficient wate 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 ovider which , yes or may serve <e project that it has. adequate to the _cap,�acity serve p`rojeci�srprolec#eddemand in addition to the pror►rd`e's°existing commitments? Page 25 No Impact X FEW *1 Rev. wos 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� . increased vectors and odors)? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project hay e�potertial:ta degrade the quality o_ he en v1 nmen substantially reduce—f habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop laelow self - sustaining levels, threaten to :eliminate a plant or animal communi N reduce the number or restrict, the ran' f a rare or endangered plant or ani al or eliminate i rta'rrt::e m les of the ma or periods P ] b) Does the project have.� "mpacts ; at are individually limited, but cumuid -W619 considerable? ("Cumulatively considerabl g means that the incremental effects of V project are considerable when viewed .m connection ' eth the effects of pastprojects, the cts of othee current ejects, and the e of probable futu : projects)? c)- ,4;�oes a pcctectnave environmental effects ,11- wtA cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 011 ■❑ Al LIC W C Page 26 Rev. 6/06 EM Q 19WA 6 I Less Than Potentially Significant with r: Less�T;iian Significant Mitigation Si_g ei tacit No Impact Incorporated Impact _ Impact w 0 011 ■❑ Al LIC W C Page 26 Rev. 6/06 EM Q 19WA 6 { C" are 9. Specify any HS.:'Dia uant to Section 65962. 3cf the Government Code: » Mb 4a< w4 & a: 10. Regulatory identTMIZ o�rt,num, m. mwOOr 11. Date of list: 3ly-V °p a Signature: �V c 6ae k,- Page 27 Rev. WOG ly. It Page 28 Rev. 6/06 r r PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA } CITY OF SEAL BEACH } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ` (Name) swear that (I am) /(we are) the owner of the property at at o M ";�C,�t &-Pt\ � (Street Address) (City) and that (i am) /(we are) are familiar with the rulegof and filing a Public Hearing Application. The%irt'formatio Hearing Application is correct to the best. z lSY. (our) this applica`tioA1n —to�do the following woric� 6& Vp \1w T, TukufAm oa (Print Na e) ) (Address - Please Print) _ (City, SUBSCRIBED AN - BORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY O " Public VIP) N 07 :al Beach for preparing in the attached Public and- (]) /(we) approve of (Cate) Pag 31 Rev. was ATTACHMENT 12.5 - MAIN STREET SP CUP M-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 14 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 IC 'PLAN ZONE Chapter 28 a ZONING Article 12.5. Main Street Specific Plan Zone Section 28 -1250. Permitted Uses. A. Permitted Uses. 1. Barbershops and beauty parlors; l 2. Coffee houses. dessert shoos and similar aARM City of Seal Beach Article 12.5 —page 1 Municipal Code r December 2004 = I Coin operated amusement machines as a secondary use; 4. Commercial activities operating between the hours of 2:0t=%a,m. and 6:00 a.m.; 5. Entertainment cafes; 6. Gas Stations located on a major arterial, subje compliance w the performance and developm6nt standards irk osed by Sectiom 28 -2318; 7. Horticultural Nursery, 8. Liquor establishments, if part of a rocer store, provided that the number of such -establishments ape ZNSrh the Main Street Specific Plan Zone shall not �exceed ne time. Permitted operating hours for such est9V Ghments sh�aEl <be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.M., Sunday through T 5day, and 7: aam. to 11:00 p.m., Friday, Saturday, an o1'idays. Any such es ablishments which qualify for tempora,Ay on,14 -1 or off -sale icenses under the provisions of California Buslr:)ess. and Professions Code Sections 24045.1, 24045.2, 24045.31 240' , 224045.6, 24045.7, 24045.8, and 24045.9, as may be amen, ed shall be exempt from this requirement foFa9onditional Use PertF= 9. 10. 11. Medicdloffices an Avenue (first floor); Movie Theaters; Pa .' ing garage; 12. Piste s , o: Pri q eparlc1ng lots; or Ocean Professionau offices facin Main Street or Ocean Avenue (first floor); 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. Mobil recycling units within a convenience zone; Restd`irant, with or without alcohol sales (not including drive -in restaurants). Permitted operating hours of such restaurants shall CNY of Seal Beach Article 12.5 —page 2 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 diectl.; to consumers when interpreted by the Planning Commissio " as meeting the intent of service commercial uses and the General Plan; and 18. Veterinary out - patient clinic. 'c Section 28 -1251. Limitations on Permitted Uses. Every use permitted shall be subject to the following conditions and limitation 157 A. All uses shall be conducted wholly w e_;'i a: a closed building except such uses as: ' B. C. D. 1. Growing stock, only wh in connection 2. Parking lots; 3. Restaurant, semi- egcios Storage shall be limited to on the premises. All operat reason of causes. A Where ny property used for cc prope 'line with property zoned use shaif be established thereon masonry or concrete block wall not prope " Rine, except where a wall ; no separatlock wall need be pro% rikaings Specific Additional Findir Use Permits for evaluate each p No Conditional Specific Plan b+ addition to those and 28 -2504, il 1. for Conditional nurseries; sold at retail be objectionable by ition or other similar mial pure e"s has a common dential purposes, no commercial ;s there is first erected a solid than eight feet in height at such wilding is on such property dine, Permits within the Main Street . igiAlXC' %[jrffi In reviewing applications for Conditional the Main Street area, the Planning Commission shall mposed use in order to consider its impact on the City. Use Permit shall be granted within the Main Street 3undaries unless the Planning Commission makes, in findings required in the Zoning Code, Section 28 -2503 of the following findings: roposed use is consistent with the intent and purpose and established for the Main Street Specific Plan. Article 12.5 —page 3 City of Seal Beach Municipal Code December 2004 = 2. The proposed use does not conflict with the Specific Plan's establish and maintain a balanced mix of uses that serve the of both local and non -local populations. 3. The use will contribute to the unique character of Main Stre the qualities that provide the Main Street sense of identity. 4. The proposed use complies with all Y_p'a ble City Cou policies, such as the policies the Council opted co ncerr alcohol serving uses. A Minimum Lot Size: Width: ......................................... " ... ...............25 f. Depth:......... ............................... _ ....... . 110 f. Area: ... ............................... ' .... ........ ...2,750 sq. it ;fi. .... ........ B. Yard Dimension (minimum: Abutting Front Street ....................... !9F!:.N.. dff. .... ................................... 0* Abutting Side Street:.......... :� .......0* Abutting Rear Stre ..................`:" °: ...•..... ............................0'* Abutting Side _ ..........................4 ft. Abutting Re ey ........: ....� .................................... ; =A: ... ..........22 ft. Not Abuttir', Street or Alley onjS da . ............. - ....... .0* Not Abutting Street or Alley on R-W. , ` `} .10% lot width; Ad- -m ............ Ma 5'ft.min. /10 ft max* * Vtttiere a property has a front, si rest nl ally zoned properties, the from;;; side, or rear yards for the p dimensibk% s required in the res foregout`g' uses with loading zone r the mingWri dimensions required f such loa`diag:zo conflicts with sud rear yard on a block face with num dimensions for required f shall be the same minimum d zone. Notwithstanding the ments do not have to provide dential zone rear yards where num requirements. C. Lot Coverage' SR 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 Uniform Built City of Seal Beach 311 exceed 2 stories in height and Section 507 of the Code shall not be applied within this zoning designation. Accessory Building: ................................................. 15 ft. Article 12.5 —page 4 Municipal Code December 2004 F. Minimum Required Landscape: ............................................ 0% of the plus one tree for each 5 parking stalls distrit 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 a proval of the Director of Development Services. Such area shall include a minimum of one tree for each 34 of linear landscape area plus landscaping and/or wat - o height of 2.5 feet designed to screen the automobiifrvii . fhe3 sidewalk In no case shall the landscape area G. Lot Area Standards: ........................ bey JONI 6,000 sq. f% (Ord. No. 1406; Ord. No. 1446) A. All buildi 1. sidewalk level, building imum of 50% of all first fl( `sist of pedestrian entrai wing views into retail, o' di . wall subject to transp IN between 3 feet and 10 gXpided and lively f . . v. 2. Glass: a the design than one foot in width. er parcels shall not ment purposes into cceeds 6,000 sq. ft. going, development )arcels that exceed date of this Article. I be pft, -afily transparent. A icades with street frontage shall display windows or windows gallery or lobby space. The Y requirements shall include the above the sidewalk Blank walls as encouraged. All glass in windows and doorways shall be clear for maximizing visibility into stores. A minimal amount of neutral tinting of glass to achieve 11iome sun control is acceptable if the glass appears essentially transparent when viewed from the outside. Opaque and reflecting glass shall not be used. 3. WindgwSecurity Bars: City of Seal Beach i security bars shall only be allowed if installed on the of the window area. Article 12.5 — page 5 Municipal Code December 2004 A D 4. Facade Set =Back: Buildings shall be located on or within 4 feet of the street. - dpw � : perty line. Exceptions shall be: a) outdoor restaurant seating area • {off b) areas where abutting buildings are, as of the effective date ofthis Article, set back creating in effect continuous store frontages wi a wider sidewalk In the latter case, the abutting b ildings' set ba�lc shall be considered the equivalent of the prope •. ine. 5. Facade Continuity: Building street facades shall be continuous from of linewto a Parking or loading areas shall not abut Main Street or cea L Avenue frontages. 6. Facade Width: _ Facades of interconnecti buildin s shou d;:re in their individual identity. Buildings should. no -he remodele "d`ori painted to give the appearance of a single b {ding; Any stree ide building facade exceeding 50 feet in widfh„s albe se merited into individual designs not exceeding 50 feet�ie dth. spaces shall be arimimum of 9 feet by 20 feet. A Le width shall be provided as follows: 90 degree Rigfi8ft'le, P=&Wn ............................ .............................24 ft. 60 degree Angle One=�,tif. C .......................... .............................18 ft. 45 degree Angle One -Way Traffic .......................... .............................12 ft. 0 degree Parallel One -Way Traffic ......................... .............................12 ft. All parking areas shall be paved with portland cement concrete or asphaltic concrete. Parking requirements shall be satisfied in one or more of the following ways: ividing required off -street parking spaces on the property on the building is located. Article 12.5 — page 6 City of Seat Beach Municipal Code December 2004 A E. SE A. B. C. D. E. F. 2. By providing required off -street parking spaces within 300 such building: 3. Through participation in the City's in -lieu parking pr "ogi established in Section 28 -1257. No use shall be established unless there is full compliance with street parking requirements set forth herein or the in- ieu parking p set forth in Section 28 -1257. No on -site loading area is required. Beauty salon; Nail shop .................. Business Offices ....................... WAI� Coffee houses; Dessert I. Medical offices .......: -.� ...................... :;�W..::�r�.�.. .1 space for every 200 sq. ft. gross floor area. J. Movie TheaterOA ................................................. space for every 6 seats. K Offices Not Prov ding Customer Service on the remises ................ ............................... 1 space for every 4 employees or one space for every 500 sq. ft. gross floor area (whichever is greater). y {; EPfi Drug stores ..... ..............................1 space for each 1000 sq. ft. �:. Article 12.5 — page 7 Cry of Seal Beach Municipal Code December 2004 thereof. gross floor area or M. Restaurants ........................ ..............................1 space for every edd gross floor N. Retail stores ........................ ..............................1 space for each 500 thereof. gross fl 1e area or Section 28 -1256. In -Lieu Parking Program. ft. A Participation in Program Required: In the event a use cannot prov de fhe' off - street parking spaces required b Section-28-1255 and Section 28- P 9 P q Y .,:..�, ,.x 1256, such use shall not be establishes• �uttli+ss:ithere is full compliance t. with all the requirements of the M Seettnr L�euParking Program as established in this Section. All.., or part oN'i3'f `%. eet parking space requirements may be satisfied 44"imoiance wit1ftl il' ection. B. In -Lieu Parking Fee. The"�`�n=UN Parking Fee= and the formula for calculating said fee shall be establish '£by�Resolution of the City Council. C. Existing Uses - Parking Deficiencies: :Any use which pre - exists the effective date of this rdin ce and which ispe, ently operating under the authority of a drscretidnary d use enti a n&d and/or development agreement sh, i rl m irr�subjec .:.to the terms-'an conditions of said approval gVASPragreement. '� condition tothose ; . fitlements, the applicants agreed to participate OT program�es�ablished by the City Council. This Article corisiitutas the in-lik parking program referenced in the resolutions lose entitlements and in those certain deelopment agreements. ISO, D. Procesh -Lieu Parkina Program I-ications: Pam- 5,6ersons Pro/gramr businesses stab) she . ON herein to participate ubmit the Iwriiten 9 ti : p applicaitidh orpa ticipation to pe Director of Development Services on a forms r scribed b the Ci . 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 tin and gran ;permission to participate in the program, if the Director makes th e allowing findings: a. Participation in the In -Lieu Parking Program will not create any significant adverse traffic safety impacts, pedestrian- ehicle conflicts, or parking impacts. Participation in the In -Lieu Parking Program will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. My of Seal Beach Article 125 —page 8 Municipal Code December 2004 - E. F. G. V 2. The Director may deny the request to participate in the progranf 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 subsetiion 1. Y 4. The Directors decision shall be in writin an shall be sery upon the applicant by certified mail, retu i P ` uest ". Appeals: The decision of the Director may be appealed to the Plantain": Commission by any aggrieved person, in the time and manner provided n Article 29.4 of Chapter 28 of the Code. Payments and Deposits: 1. Payments of In -Lieu ParKing'Program Fees shall be made pursuant to the schedule adopied by _-Resolution of th ` City Council. In no event shall a certificate � �o' pt.occupancy be issued for any participating use in the Main Stree Specific Plan Zone prior to the receipt by the City of the first" installment or, if applicable, full payment of the l -Lieu Parking Fee:.: 2. Fund c -tie cted" from tEte In -Lieu Parking Program shall be deposited in a segreg�at City In -Lie P rakeVrogram fund. Suc fund shall be use exclusively for th p ose of promoting, managing, operating, increasing and maintain{ ng the availability of parking spaces in the immedIat "zicinity of Main Street. Transfdratiility: In -Lieu Parking space payments paid for pursuant to the provision §<of this ordinance shall be� credited only to the use for which participation was granted, and shall'' of be assigned or otherwise transfer tWfer bse on any other property. Expansion. Intensifcation or Chang in Use to a Use which Requires Additional Off ,-Stfdet Parkinca -SP; ces: Should the use of any property within the Main Str_13 fie 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 o, the property shall provide the required additional off - street parking, 41ther 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- lieuiparking program fees, as required by this Article. Acceptancei"oi/'Terms and Provisions: An applicant's participation in the programesii" 11 not become effective, and a certificate of occupancy shall e ssud, unless and until the participant first executes and submits for:recor ding on the title to the property a covenant accepting the terms of Article 12.5 - page 9 City of Seal Beach Municipal Code December 2004 the approval, in a form to be provided by the City Attorney. Said c shall be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder also be maintained in the office of the City Clerk J. Violators Punishable by Fine and Imprisonment. Any person, fir corporation violating any of the provisions of* this article is guilty misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a f not more than $500 or by imprisonment in the county/jail for a peri not more than 6 months, or both such fihe and imprisonment Roof - mounted mechanical equipment shall be architecturally scree satisfaction of the Director of Development Senric,,es. ,(Ord. No. 1406) Article 125— page 10 City of Sea! Beach Municipal Code December 2004 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPO PROVISION OF INFORMATION - ALCM IN -LIEU PARKING ISSUES, MAIN STREET' DATED DECEMBER '12, 2005 (W,-,! SELE CUP 0" 210 Main Street PC Staff Report is Z. Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09 -3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 GARDING L LICENSES AND WIC PLAN AREA, ATTACHMENTS) .r• 1 DATE: TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: .. FILE COPY' ..AGENDA REPORT December 12, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Council John B. Bahorsk4 City Manager Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development PROVISI ®N OF INF®RMA LICENSES • AND IN -LIEU PAl STREET SPECIFIC PLAN ARIE sin provide information to Commission during the its for new alcohol sales On November 9; 2665 the Planning Commission_MAidered two rely, sts for conditional use approvals oa '� ' . Street that both involy alcohol sat and in-lieu parking s, . requests. Those requests are �„n,n,ari7ed below an a "Draft Minute Excerpt" for each case isTrovided as Attachment 1 and 2 for the information of the City Council: �2(lril�lEand. is ` CirPP+ � ni:, :tinnai TTQ. po.....:+ /1G_11 AV ® Approvals of the folloy'ii requests wereze"hig dered by the Planning Commission: ❑ To add an outdoor d n a Wt%vfa Wkimately 145 square feet; ❑ upgrade the current alcohol sales licenser from beer and wine to a full alcohol license; ❑ change the approved ours 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 parking Spaces would be required. �"T3ie:lanning Commission determined to approve the outdoor dining area, denied the upgrade r or•the alcohol sales license, made no change in the operating hours the ity"A omey had det=ained that the Commission could not make any changes to the operating hours, as they are established in the Zoning Ordipance), and denied Agenda Item 7-1My Doc mmeuftV lA N3=S1AMcdhd1 Licenses & In-Lieu pa jemg sw.cc staff Raportdoo1LWUj.2I45 in . Prov& ionoflnformatibn —Alcohol Licemes and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Mast Sireet Spec f' a Plan Area City Cozmdl Staff 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 preparation of this Staff . ort on this application. ;: 302 Main Street — Conditional Use Permit 05-14: 1k Approvals df the following requests weie considered by the ❑ To establish a new restaurant with a full alcohol license; ❑ To establish operating hours of 10:30 AM to 11 1�t-4' and 10:30 AM to Midnight, on Friday and Saturday. ❑ 17 In -Lieu parking Spaces would be required. ® The Planning Commission determined to ap�v Me n request for a new alcohol sales.license, an . r fade; har (the City Attorney had determined that the Commission cni to the operating hours, as they e e.' fished in the° Commission will consider final adoption; o a Resolution a1 after the preparation of this Staff Report ozi,:this annlicatio r`' During the Plan applications the of land use enti• The answer is permtted by standards are m re: Commission public to of :ern was raised as to �vhy'th :nt requests; why couldn't C he Zoning Code sets forth meaning if all of the �e . � roj ect is approved -by C both of restaurant, denied the in the operating.hoins not mare any changes ling Ordinance:: The December 7 meeting, ject conditional use was eveff considering these type's ff justiay.no to the applications? :h zoning category' uses'tbat are :d development and operational ff and there is no public hearing The .second category -of. a of f & -are permitted are those that are permitted "by conditional use permit". _ = a�,conditional use permit process, as 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* hearing is then held by the Planning Commission to determinef the proposed use is consistent with the General plan and "as conditioned" would be compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding properties. This process allows thckManning Commission to review applications for a land use �eatitlement that requires a conditional use permit to obtain public input on the proposed use of 3n, then determine what conditions should be imposed on the proposed s to ensure its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; - if the Commission ermines 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 do ht -Lien Pmi6mg Status CC Staff Report 2 J Provision of a ..irmadon — Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Comcil Sta, jfReport December 12, 2005 • Why doesn't the Gbe prohibit such applications?, This -issue was raised-during the public review and adoption process of the'Mai S Specific Plari'ii-1t 6"1994-1996 time 'pe od. It was the final dPt **±,;*±ation of they Council to .not. impose "a li 3dt on the 'aumber of alcohol licenses that. wool permifted. witbin the Main Street Specific Plan area,: but to re the .conditional permit approval review process sb that an application . co considered oz individual'ana.dis mct potential impacts upon the comet inity E are some exempts from the Jan 1995 'Tac grown cerp nary kground Studies – Plan, City. of-Seal Beach" that-was prepared by Zucker Systems and Linsco a Greenspan. This background repoit was part of the ci - appIoved process iwdevelo the "Main Street Specific Plan" and the '%Wn,,5tr " ;pRific Plan Zone"_ that:wss adapted by the City Council in 1996. ` ° '; The provided excerpts discuss "Land Used -`3ssw establishments and "In -Lieu Parking"'Amrs N.V. public input process developed by Zucker System was sent opt to 1,200 propmty.owners; residents; and received a 42% response rate of return is a Lastly, a summary of land vse egulations from during the drafting 'of " - ='Stree S ech Attachment 3. r related panic larly to alcohol sales iew of th6d sues raised during -the cndiuding a &bey questionnaire that Ede usizrigs operators within the* area ►�provrcled as part of A:ttac_ hment 3. her • communities that was reviewed Plan, < x also provided :as part. of The issue of trying tb pre - determine au acceptal Ig.'1p_vel of a paiti�� M. -M business use is a local commercial�aiea is a difficult issue to and theuagertlon of governmental regulation into the ,free market determdngtions .o¢f {appropriate levels of competition go gen y try to avoid. The Main Street between buisinessesi :one Itiat local governments erall Specific Plan reg unions currently limit the type of oth "allowed by right" and "allowed r -- r by con�tional use = Y commercial and, praf�ssional uses along Main.---, Street. Eiarvever, City has determined • to` pia a nurmerical "cap " - as to ,.an -allowed number of any specifi tape_ usiness enter se within the community or within the Main Street Specific PI ation of the Main Street Specific Plan this issue was considered and y ejected. Provided as Attachment 4 is a minute excerpt from an August 9, 1995 joint City Coiuncil/Plaanirig Commi�'sion worksbo_p on the "Draft Main Street Spefic 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 Moth with and without accompanying alcohol sales within the `e3a& City' and' the Ma — Street -Specific Plan area to provide the City Council with an un erstanding regardlthe relative importance of restaurant uses within the Maui Street Alcohol Lieeases & in-Uc a Puns stms.cc staff Report 3 Provision oflrformadon— Alcohol Licenses and In Lieu ParkingIssues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Stafflteport December 42, 2005 Sales Tax Revenues: October — December -2004 Main Street Main Street as f� of Total All City of Seal Beach Accounts Specific Plan Area. qty All Businesses $866,667 (633) $77;117 (138) 8.9% -Restaurants — $62,008 (13) $22,613 (5) ," 6,5° ° Alcohol Ad" Restaurants — $43,420 (28) ' $7,370(13) 17A% Beer & Wine Fasf Food $42,790 (47): ` " $� ;40 &;�(22) 18.7% Sales Tax Revenues: July Y "- -n — September 200 Total All City of Seal Beau < ° treet Main Street as % of Accounts Spe " :ea City All-Businesses $787,030 (657) $74,35= o 9.4 /o Restaurants. — sy $6.8;280 $25,254 (•' 37.0% Alcohol a Restaurants — -Beer & Wine $55,140 29 ( ) $ 736 (13) �• ° I0.4 /o Fast Food $48,968 (59) $ 821 (22) 16.8% The Planning. Commission StsffR inc uded information regarding the number of current alcohol sales licenses within "Old Town", aad that information is provided below for the information of the City Council: Over Concentration of alcoholic -beverage licenses has bee n an -issue wthin the e Past, Part icularly in areas with high crime reporting districts. �Tlze 's Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, Regulation 61.3, says .ifan 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 Alcohol Licenses & >n- -Lie¢ Paddag Sm n CC Smff Report 4 ; J Provision ofl. ?nation — Alcohol Licenses and In-Lieu Parking Lmes, Mao: Street Specifrc Plms Area City Cosncil StaffReport 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 area 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 theimformation provided by ABC. Staff has discussed the information with�ABC and has determined that the calculation for a high crime reporting1d' 0 d aced on City information from 2001; apparently tfiis " ` mostrecerit information available to ABC. - ABC calculates the total number• of ABC li censes C divides the 'total County population by the nom " -. o determine 4L ratio of licenses per capita. ABC t Census population statistics for the Tract in wl be placed and compares it with tli of a number of 'If there are more licenses shag the RAN-Rill' t that census tract over concentrated. The current ratio i per 952 people in a census tract, and 1 off sole pi Alcoholic Beti process of this Census Tracts subject prop southerly dEE.] Tract 995.12: e Itz Pacific C&O )5.11 and Census T— is-located. Census Tract{ .tric Avenue; Fifth Stre`�e - onivasses "Old Torn°' indicates the' current th Census Tract Aim*, Inge County and kBC licenses -to k the latest US 4 " license: is to pple per license. ABC considers on-sale license 1,751 people. the review, 5.12, .the %iza�ct `- -hioh• the . .- 11 encompasses "Old Tows" C arina Drive, while Census qe'rly of that boundary up to 3C liceinsing -regulations and Census Populatioi - ®R -Sale ; "-`'Sale Have Off Sale Off Sale Tract 2000 Alio�w:�= 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) PendinR Total 6,182 7 25 plus 2 N/A (4) ending �fi -wool like to point out that merely being overconcentrated does not autQatically 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. Alcohol Ucroseg & In- Lieu Pad&g Stgw.ec SbffRvmt 5 Provision oflnformation— Alcohol Licemes and ht -Lien Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 applications. as they _ arise and make decisions based on the i 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. This application is the second request for a new ABC lieense since the adoption of the Maio Street Specific�P:Ian. The first approved location after adoption of the Main Street Specif 0-. I for "Old Town Cafe" at 137 Main Street, which was ap , .4Yed on Septembe1a 20, 2000. '=The Main Street Specific Plan 'sets fo g -• '" rtbs a eneral; on; the district, saying: "The vision for Main Street' small fowri 2m, erica Important features include a family town with 'endl eople who care for each other." The specific plan goes on•ton.:say"Part of Seal Beach's old town charm is *the close proXimity of it «resi eritaldey`eloprnent. to the commercial establishments. This arrangement is. higlzlydesr"rable." . Staff believes that this request �. "'tom the scope an on as detailed within the Main Street Specific,PJ— • • order to be a t 4 ' ' tle restaurant in today's market, staff acknowledges tha . e of alcoholic beverages is a near necessity. The issue of dveicOnc ' . , ;a �tzon come up ra regards to this*ippHcation and whether of not adverse effects wi]I arise as a result of the new license.. In terms of verconcentratione staff s_ ees cones., ` '� . °3� • - nf. alcohol licenses, ge nerally, as a good thingt%fpro W. conditi net and managed. .Having al�hol `licenses .located witbsa� c1o'se proximity ; of :each :other creates a �e of "place" which, has bell tts in grid of itself_ for ,both residents anc7 .,visitors of the City. This'sense oaf place is -what is described within the a Street Specific Plan. In co if the alcohol licenses w9kft •thiri thrs cW_ �t were more spread out throughout the, entire . old town - area,10e ms of the Main ` Str .area would be. dramatically drffereut. N"%-- s obviously a baia4a Between the existence of restaurants and otli,. Ms'tor and locals; serving businesses - within the Main Street S ecia ' , `` w P �e uipose of consideration of alcohol ` requests through the Con 'ttonaI se Permit process is the mechanism City has chosen to gZaluate.this type of land use re(luest,, As part of Planning Commission Staff Report regarding .Conditional Use Permit 05 -14, staff provided information regarding alcohol- and drug - related incident and arrest Sinformation ("AOD ". incident and arrest) on a City -wide basis and also within the Main treet Specific Plan arc O That information is provided as Attachment 5. for the iFifon q#pn of the City C imciL: = Alcohol rl«ns= & TZL Licu Pmidng S=M.CC sffiff Report 6 �• r Pravisionoft, nnadon— Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council StaffReport December 12, 2005 Current In -Lieu parking Provisions —Main Street Specs, fic bl&n ,, The.issue of the use of the Zoning Code authorized in -lieu parking prograa raised during the public comments on both conditional use permit applications. as Attachment 6 is the cuire& language of Section 28 -1256 of the Zoning Cody 28 -1250 through 28 -1257 is the Main Street Specific Plan Zone steads ds). Aiter City Council discussion, provide onal direction to staff determined appropriate. Receive and File Staff Repo Attach went 1: - Draft Planning Coir€mission Minute Excerpt, Conditional s Use it 05- ` ovember 9, 2005 Attachment 2: Draft inning Commission Minute Excerpt, Conditional Use Permit 05 -14, November 9, 2005 a . Attachment 3: Excerpts of Background Studies, Main Street Specjic Plan, City of Seal Beach`; prepared by Zucker Systems with Linscott, law & Greenspan, Engineers, dated January 1995 Minute Excerpt re Joint Workshop — Draft Main Street Specific Plan, August 9, 1995 . Alcohol Licenses & lu- -Lieu Fmtiug Sulu- CC Sh ff Report 7 Provision ofb¢ormation — Alcohol Licemes and In -Lieu pw k[ng Lwues, ]dam Street Sbecg6c Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 Attachment 5: Alcohol- And- Drug - Relate, �ident and L` Information, 2004 and First Quaifer 2005 Attachment 6: Seal Beach Zonin g Ordinance, Main Street Spe� cific Flan Zone, Secti on 28 -1256. In -Lieu Parkin Pro am Aif J AlcoW Lieeases & ru -Lieu pafldng Status.CC Staff Report 8 ' 1 J .J r Provision ofl,., _rmathin — Alcohol Licenses and In -Lien Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Co:aicil SYa„t fReport December 12,1005 ATTACEaVMNT 1 r DRAn PLANNING C®NaUSSI ®IV + ' � rte:! EXCERPT, CONDITIONAL USE PER1YdI'I` 05-11, NOVEMBER 9, 2005 Alwbd Liam & In-lieu Piattagg S=mCC st& xcp= 9 r' I J Provision of - , ormadon — Alcohol Licenses and In -Lien Parking Issues, Main Street Specfgc Plan Area City Council staffRoort December 12, 2005 5. Conditional Use Permit 05-11 320 Main Street Applicant/Owner.. C. Mingura A.P, Marshall / Fred & Janet Request: To add a 145: square foot outdoor dining area; upgrade the cL alcohol sales license from beer and wine,to a full alcohdMicense (Type change the approved hours of operation frdm 10:30 a:m. td Vl :00 P.M. on F: and Saturday to 10:30'a M_ fo midnight; and to allow 1L, e ente = an,. r Saturday, and Sunday. s Recommendation: Approval and adoption of Resolution 05 -53, subject conditions, and as may be further revised b. the -Commission after considering public testimony. �r g Staff Report i 4, ulz Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff!R ort is onxe for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some bac - �o � d information on this item and noted that this is an existing restaurant that was appiav ct number of years -ago and was occupied for many years by BayouZ John. He said that approximately 2 years ago the name of the restaurant ed "Caroline's" ,p�rA�*+�rt €ti. H.� .indicated that the currently measure 1,95x5, square a feet, w , . 87z�_- oars feet used, "',seating for a total of 64 seats. He stated the applicant propose" to add 14 seats m a ne ar area and 720 square feet are curreently used for the kitchen, and=service areas, 'ih the remaining 365 ware feet utilized10 ` `s° ' square r restrooms, hallways, and�o#her storage ar � "� . He reported that the original constructio 0 of the multi- tenant building -" "approve under a Variance (VAR) 84 -11 in 1984 anZ Rurrently there are foul businesses in this two -story structure.. He explained that C NOTIO-19 al Use Permit (CUP) 85 29 'was approved by the Planning Commission (PC) ember 1 985 for the initiak,- approval for the on -sale of beer and . ewe:.- i.Eiw�'e;�ani3� - e,�premises�ha "s Been operating under thss license for 20 years. He state&that >as part of the approval of�> 84 -11 the prop=erty was required to participate in the City's in lieu paring progr�tlsat in�pl ce at that point for the 26 spaces granted with the VAR He noted that there are�nlq 5 paridng spaces provided at the rear of the property for the 4- tenant uses on the property. Mr. %iitenberg then indicated that the Seal Beach Police Department (SBPI?) has reviewed the application grid has no concerns. With regard to the outdoor King area proposed for the front of the restaurant, Staff has no concerns with permitting, this, as * there -ge several establishments along Main Street r that either have butdoor or semi - enclosed dining- areas. He stated that the proposed Fdoor dining area would not have a solid rooiy but a trellis structure for shade. would be Abrtzcted and planteff*e proposed to separate the patio are from the public right -of- y . The�:Director of Development Services explained that one of the proposed + = Prof cond�iions:1of ,aggro al is the requirement of a m;n;m� 42 -� high wall of a decorative —tea; nature to be approved by the Planning Department, incompliance with the general standards as approved by the PC for other outdoor dining areas where alcohol is to be acohd Ucema & Th-Lim Paddng statz.CC staff Reprrttt 10 r Provision oflnformation — Alcohol Licenses and In Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Sp ec f• rc Plan Area City Council Staff l*ort December 12, 2005 served. With regard to the change to a general liquor license, under Alcohol & Beverage Control (ABC) criteria since the establishment is already licensed for alcohol. • es on premises, it has no affect on the issue of over - concentration of alcohol lips= h1r. Whittenberg noted that Staff has provided incident reports from SBPD in the Sta$ 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 regard to thAhange in the hns,tc of operation, Mr: Whittenberg reported that -after reviewing thrTity Ordinances discussion with the City Attorney's office, Staff found that the P� rear o autho r' to grant a change in the hours over what is stipulated in #a, z w,-. rdlnan�ce s time. Currently for all restaurants on Main Street City Code has establi ed`th ho operation as up to 10:00 pm Sunday through Thursday, and.11:00 p.m. on Friday Saturday. He then addressed the issue of live entertai-b=—enTand noted that he has worked for the City f Seal Beach since 1989 and in regarding live tY 4991' nsajor._ issue arose re entertainment at Papillipn e, *ic ,was located at what is now. the Hennessey's location. He. stated that after a rmlieQf�z glover av a period of a • gimately one year, the matter was ultimately approved, �eh opening the busin ss the owner had live entertalnment for approximately 9 mon r "d then decideV6 discontinue it He commented that this is the second application that hehhas see& for entertainment on Main Street, and the first one to come in since the ''S., 48$ Specific Plan (MSSP) was adopted in 1996. He noted that the MSSP does not pm 'btt live entertairm�,t, but does require that it be approved u 1"U"Mi Conditional Use Perna .CUP). He stated that the application in this case2Eto provi a c:a it Friday and Safi nigh t y a jazz quartet with the music to ped through the ex stiag�restauraat sownc( • S em with which the proprietor can condo the volume. The quart would be locate within the enclosed portion of the restaurant and would not occur the outdoorppatio. He noted that a specific area fortlie live quartet has not beeneermiaed, and some tables would probably have to.• be removed to accommodate :this. He said Staff has made a recommendation ai.1 ovation for the musicians, h1r< a PC could specify an area for this use.H then iridicafi� that Staff has also inc lu ed conditions requiring that noise use._,,, e_ • 're within the first 6 months of operation to verify that noise are in= om Hance with the CirsNoise Ordinance and a condition for a s". Tt v .6 -month review is also inolude a lai e d that with regard to the live music Staff considered that the restauann 10194 .L' Wd -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 appr-bval, subject to conditions. Commissioner Questions I- issioner Ladner asked if there would be any outdoor speakers. Mr. Whittenberg that there are speakers on the outside of- the building. Commissioner Ladner if�there ar. p to add speakers. Mr. Whittenberg stated that they are not shown - Commissioner Roberts asked if the back. doors are to remain open during business hours. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the doors are required to remain unlocked, but the only Alcohol Licenses & In -Lieu P ems S=u= Sta$Rgort 11 J Provision of _ , ormation — Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plmt Area City Council StaffRepon December I2, 2005 business that he knows of that is required to keep the back doors closed is Taco Su side. Chairperson Shanks asked other than Walt's Wharf, which other restauran along the 200 and 300 block of Main Street have general liquor licenses. Mr. Whittenberg slated that there were no others that lie could think of A member of the public interj ee that The Abbey on the 300 block does serve hard liquor. Public Hearing :# :. Chairperson Shanks opened the public'kearing. s�, = t•. Rob Marshall, one of the applicants, stated thit he ae •. _ .fii�ingura look forward to the ��%aeAFr opportunity to serve everyone in Seal Beach. Hem;, d heyi ci:stand the concerns over the service of hard liqubrkhut they would firing a new�resfazaant to Seal Beach that provides American cuisine with •a California flair and wouldl&e1to accommodate their patrons with distilled spirits. Hd AiW would place an �mphasis on California wines. He noted that currently there is one outside ' eaker, ag(V he plan is to eventually have 'a 5atarday/Sunday brunch with music proYide inside the restaurant by a jazz quartet Commissioner Ladner asked if any addional- eskers `are to be added. Mr. Marshall stated that there are no plans for this; and if a speaker is a concern, it can be removed. - Commissioned "et• =asked. band wo rev ' be playing - music. Mr. Marshall stated that a 4 piece ensernb a ;would be tlie' maY;T„u� for musicians, Commissioner Roberts asked if the bars eagis. to�be new. l�ir'M shall described the :aw proposed bar are Commissioner Roberts expressed his concerns ver converting more than 20 percent o` ; = e existing seating area fi oW t down bar sad the potential for this restaurant becoaiigx a "local watering hole." -4 - Marshall Zed that in• re- evaluating r °•� the bar area, it ve 12 seats instead of 14 add 't all of this seating will be for the bar, as+part of this ould be for a service area for e- latchen and to accommodate single patrons He not the emphasis would tie as a restaurant and not a "bar." Comitiiissioaer Dea oa aslce for clarification on�the center area of the- restaurant. Mr. arshall stated that 3 =nzch metal columns t}�a#: through the restaurant support the structure, and one of these''tQbe:used�for`a °partition with plants to separate the dining room. and booths are to be placed _ either~`szde of this partition. Geri West, 1301 -B Electric Avenue, spoke in opposition to this application and noted that it would be difficult to s 60 people within an 870 square foot area. She expressed her concern about parking foz'*e patrons and employees of this new establishment, noting that under VAR 84-11 parldng for this property was to have been provided by St. Anne's 0-hurch, however, neithef le church diocese nor the City had been provided with a copy tea% ;agreement She ed that there are already 7 full bars within the 3 blocks along Maui-•Street,;an&1 beer and wine bars, and noted that'her hometown_ of New Orleans has less =tantliis:iiblocks along Bourbon Street Alcohol Lico= & ia Lieu Pig st mcc sta$Rcp= 12 r' Provision of Information — ,alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council St&ffRepon December I2, 2005 Roger West stated that this is not a restaurant but a "nightclub" with no parkin and meets none of the City requirements. He cautioned that if this were approve ffi� ��d set a precedent for the all the other existing restaurants serving' alcohol end 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 indicate t the in -lieu parking as noted in the Staff Report is inadequate as't" n�o- existent, the Staff Report errondous. He shared that regarding the�ppioyaF�.far eater=tat�nmen#' fOr Papillion's, two of the it i seated'council members later stated to him the biggest mistake of their council careers, as it giuckly progressed from a restauran o just a bar. He cautioned that many residents through'o ' the city would be displease should this receive approval. He 'recomm6 tided od"N the general liquor license, removal of the outdoor speaker, require prav` on. of parking, and correctly calculate of in -lieu fees. Mitzi Morton stated that the restaurant propdses t Ommodkfe' 104 people in a 4- tenant building that provides 5 parking spaces for tenan only. She-noted that the money from in-lieu pazldng fees was expected to be utilize to , ``h se panting spaces for Main Street, and now all of this money has disappeared, and < e - City is charging $3,500 for an in -lieu parking space that �" d'cot tiieCity $10;000 tcf p in place. She indicated that many establishments Wirth in- eu Is, = .,eements az " ears with the fees. 'She also spoke in o ositioa to a val -'' P PP PPm ent and the;' exv�ce of hard liquor; stating that this wo d be asking for more pro,y emus like those reported on the 100 block. Joyce Parque staff that this location was pree be allowed to have restaurant, and if they protre. the PC to request approval for the liquor servic extended proble a perienced with a spaghetti building thatYhadlive entertainment, and A xperience this sameX sii ation oula they allow i `tSY4?ts,rrev a restaurant so the applicant should 6e good neighbors they can return to nd entertainment She recalled the 'use formerly located in the Walt's tioned that the City did not want to entertainment. Chi Kredell spoke is oppotg tli same problem location at the Walt's Wharf building and slated 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 hard liquor and live entertainment - Nancy Kredell stated that she had served on the Main Street Revitalization Committee :approximately ' 12 years ago and they had enco ed the outdoor g dining. She noted that t7ie Fo nders Da committee recently conducted its meetings at Caroline's every Monday a y ' y ere. were very few patrons in the restaurant, and there was still no p varl a near 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 Algol iii & Tn Ucu g SW=CC staffRepw . 13 Provision o? . ,brmation — Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speofic Plan Area City C6uncil Staff Report December 1Z 2005 Mario Voce spoke regarding intensification of land use, stating that he recalls the attle 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 empathiz "with the residents surrounding Main Street and the decisions made by the PC can have j14 ramifications. Mr. Whittenberg noted for the record that Attachment 6 of the N.'kR eport is a opposition to CUP 05 -11 from Ann Cook at 339 Tenth Street . _V _ Commissioner Roberts asked about the currentfnur er o. `'seats in the restaurant, the arrangement, was this adjusted when the restauraau was purchased? 111r. Marshall reported that currently there &L-60- eat§ allowed, and' a nazis for the new layout show 8 -..�. seats at the bar with less than f0.53d r >ndoor seats, and wh combined with the outdoor dining area, there will b =pproximatel_ r :75= 80;seats altogether . Commissioner Denton inquired about how ' 1�``'` 'fees are calcfri � Mr. Whittenberg responded that in =�heu fees are based upon square footage, wim the requirement of 1 parking space foSea ch 100 square feet of new restaurant area, including kitchens, 5 restrooms, and a Qor dining areas) for none =tie fee of $3,500 per space. lie explained that 32f; 1VEain Street would require 2 aces for the 145 square feet of Prot) oor ar. as the property on which th`e existing restaurant is located already arCici afi ' >In a muc : olderin lieu arkin ` P P �. P g P�gr? t was in place in 1984, and pays a fee of $2,600 'er ye for the ciurent building. He noted.that the addition of the patio area is subject to the new fee of 350�p"-, e. Commission er Deaton stated that she is confused because when discos hey 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 square feet with less than 10 seats would be classified as a regular retail store and not as a restaurant and would require I parking 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 dinng•areas. Commissioner Denton then stated that she would rgle able to approve a bar in the restaurant, as the PC is looking �En other fine dining restaurant and' not another bar. She said that if Mr. Marshall g �temovihe�barathe live music, she would not have a problem in voting to approve. Q •Imbd that he understands not granting the liquor license, but he would prefer to the bar for the benefit of their single patrons. Commissioner Deaton asked Alcohol Licenses ¢t In -Lien Paidng St =.CC Stiff Report 14 Provision Oflaformation — Alcohol Licenses and fn -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council StgffReport December 12,1005 if Mr. Marshall would prefer to have the bar with only beer and wine, or no bar an the general liquor license? Mr. Marshall stated that he would prefer to have the bar,_ ` Mr. Whittenberg called for a 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 a f: ti ieptthlicspoke . the Commissioners and he request ed that if 'any conversatroawas ,conductere"gardng the item on the agenda that the Commissioners briefly d9c -lose that ' ormation at tliis� time. He cifed the applicant's due process right to rebut anything that was said.: Commissioner Deaton stated that her'discussian=` the public was regarding ark and finding parking spaces. P g Chairperson Shanks stated that he •is - osed to the bar, th hard liquor, and live entertainment, noting that if live m: s apprgv: the PC woidhe glutted with requests for approval of live music at the other restaurants o _ Maiie Street. He emphasized that this issue has been discussed time and again wi tle:isam determination that it is not wanted in Seal Beach. He said he had no problem wit - tdoor patio or the continued service of beer and wine. Yl • P }} S F + Commissioner Rob stated that he could. accept Mr. Marsliall ,co promise to seek approval for the bazand to continue serve �d wine only. Felsaid that he is riot as Opposed to the event as the otliei- Co sioners, but h 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 ABA for the outdoor speala,N,he does�aot�. elieve that it would QUA problem with the - entertainment, partiarTy�with they c.and otrtdoor noises al g Main Street.- He indicated that the onse level's -could be onitored for 6 months o determine if they are exceeding the minimum allowed. He stated t?hewnuld approve all of the requested items except the x �`r service of hard liquor, and heagieed tFi, ` , Marshall's proposal to only serve the beer and wine and after 6 months reapply for approval to serve hard liquor. Commissioner Denton 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 x •through the approval of a Special Event Permit, and to limit bar seating to 8 bar seats. She stated that she is still concemed about parking, but because ffis,.is an existing restaurant there is nothing the PC can *do about this. She said she wi _h'% go on recoiff that the City miust figure out a way to create more parking spaces. : -ter° � �- Mr. wli&nber'�int ected that Staff would prepare a resolution to reflect the PC motion g � �J as indicated above and return with " this resolution for' adoption at a later date. Alcohol licenses & !a -Lieu Fmioag S==.CC SUff Report 15 f H 1� I Provision of - !fbrmation— Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Spechc 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. AN MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Roberts to direct Staff to prepare. a R � n for Conditional Use Permit 05 -11 to approve a restaurant with the existing beer and wine MenM, e, to allow the outdoor dining patio with a 42 -inch wall as recommended -by St� to deny live music except through the approval of a Special Even6crmit, to limit''Bar seating to 8 bar seats, and that CUP 05 -11 be subject to a 6- m0 nth�r. 'ew. MOTION CARRIED: 3 —1 -1 ' AYES: Shanks, Deaton, and Roberts .: NOES: Ladner ABSENT: O'Malley , � { 6 Mr. Whittenberg stated that there is no final dpi resolution for presentation at the Decembex '?� reflects the intent for final PC review. a note resolution then the 10-day appeal period will�lieg Mr. Abbe clarified that this resolution would not pion at this N ' 005 Planning lthat once the alabol Licenses & la -Lieu Pa icng stqtn.cc staffxgc 16 Staff will prepare a ission meeting that % action to adopt a hearing item, so.there would Provision of." -ormation —Alcohol Licenses and 1n--Lieu Parking Lwues. Main Street Spgc#7c Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT PLANNING COMMSSI N EXCERPT, CONDMONAL TJSE PE 0-149 NOVEMBER 99 2005 Alcohol Lic=cs & k-Lieu Parkiag Stow CC SwffRepmt 17 J 1 Provision of - , irmadon — Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu PawingLaues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 6. Conditional Use Permit 05 -14 302 Main Street ApplicanV0wif W-*`- Iichael'Rosetti'/ Henry K. Warno Request: To establish a new restaurant with a Type 47cohol license service) with operating hours of 10:30 am` to 11:00 p•.m. unday to Thur. and 10:30 am. to midnight on Friday and Saturday. = -S�j 4 Recommendation: Approval and adbption of Resolution 05 -62 conditions, and as may be further revised by the Commission after public testimony. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report: (S•taff R Planning Departrnent.) He providedome back0 explained that the application is to convert a' pport building into a new restaurant with a full liquorI spirits. He again noted that the PG ggFs�not have the PC would be considmingfthe .stablislgm , of the re He reviewed the parking standards as 1 asking, spec *Imp which would create therequirement of 19�paz3a"n`g`. under the rovisions of the Main Street S T-1- p �, pe:cifie alt been given a credit for two parking spaces for ME ` remaining requir Ez- Ent of 17 spaces at the $3,500 pE the on Page 6 of ttie Staff Report provides current = port is o file for inspection in the and information on this. item and :a • of the old Corner Drug Store ens allowing the sale of distilled arith`i>nty to change the hours so the staurantand the service of alcohol. e per 100:. sgvare feet of floor area, - -V ces for tliis.locahon. He stated that a SSP (M ) standards it has Mous use as a drugstore, leaving a space ee. He then indicated that onnation on the number of licensp-c aBL; cntena xo �over.concentration broken down by census tracts with Tract 99- 51I ebmprising 01A Town from Pacific Coa Highway (PCH) to the Electric A'venue114iIaruza Drive - area.; Tract 99 -512 enc assing the remainder the coastal Old Town area down to the Pacifi' Ocean. He exglaraed that ABC criteria is based upon average pppulation througho, Qzan Coand allows one on-premise license.per 952 residents, which would translate; intoaa over concentration if there are more than 7 on- premise licenses within the Old Town area, and currently there are 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 'IF, c•.onditioned so that it is f of detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. He then :reviewed the bverview of statistics from SBPD regarding reported incidents for 2004 as alrsted on P .ges -8-0&9 of the Staff Report The Director of Development Services then Mk cared, 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 parking provided. Alcohol Licenses & in -Lieu Par]etog stet n= StffRep= 18 Provision oflnformadon— Alcohol Licenses and lh -Lien Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council StaffReport December 12, 2005 _ ,rQ Commissioner Ouestions Commissioner Denton asked for an explanation of how these larger buildings can be subdivided without having to come before the Planning Commission, (pqj. -. w Whittenberg stated that there is no City Ordinance that requires thank subdivision oR ore space to come before the PC. He indicated that this is only required when a used is proposed for an area within a commercial building that requires appavaheta Conditional .�.. =:;� � rte-. Permit (CUP). Commissioner Deaton expressed her concernw�tlt'the subdivlsi a of Use Pe a building and creating more businesses and more parking shortages. . �Vh�ttentierg, noted that in order to address this concern it would require an amendment to the MSS and to the Main Street Zoning Standards. - -,g. y ooC Chairperson Shanks opened the public Michael Rosetti stated that he grew up it tins �' v ° ` �am-ea and now he� ?wants to add to the city by •sue =:"C �'"� providing a Hawaiian theme restaurant. He " _ sated that the: estaurarit designer, Davis Crimmins, has also lived in Seal Beach and isrvery iamiliar'��th it Mr: Rosetti stated that he has worked in and knows the re ery well and he believes this small restaurant will be a good fit for Seal Beach. ithregard to parking, he stated that they are willing to help the�° , situation and a theme : parking _ ` `r u p y %n�lieu fees. Commissioner Roberts noted that the b area app to �b ery large relafive t0 the o erall floor area, which will be a problem. Mr. Rosetti statec`_that there ar 8:s -at the bar, with 2 additional seats ff, andicapped use. Commissmo Roberts askedif the plan includes a full bar or just tr l.cal drinks. Mr. Rosetti staUS, they wool < feature tropical. drinks, but would have mull bar..•x Joyce Parque •spoke�Iin opposition and question show this application could have been accept,., when therein no parldrig available. She stated that all of the restaurants in town. h AS �_ • _grandfath` k.,and the only way Yo start. a new restaurant would be to Chairperson Shanks asked fo a gu ck I ation of the amount Mr. Rosetd would have to pay for additional parking. 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 ggiffee houses, dessert shops, etc., with seating for more than 10 customers and when the gross square footage exceeds 1,000 feet; also, automatic ice vending and coin- operafed amusement machines; commercial activities operating between the hours of 2:00A and 6:00 a.m., entertainment cafes, gas stations located on ;a major arterial, liquor establishments as part of a grocery store, movie theaters, parking garagges p shop • ovate pazldng lots,. professional offices facing Main Street or Ocean AYenue rtrecy ' Iiicilities, and restaurants with or without alcohol sales. The City will not p�"ro'h�i`brt' 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-I:= Parking Swm.CC strff Report 19 -Provision of . . ormation — Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Mail Street Specrftc Plan Area City Council Stg$Report December 12, 2003 appropriate. The Director of Development Services indicated that Staff is required' by law to accept an application that meets all of the standards of state law and City requirements. He emphasized that no one can be denied. application fora when the .Zoning laws allow this. With regard to this application, Mr. Whittenberg reported;O -W it would require 17 in -lieu parking spaces for a one -time fee of $3,500 per space fora: tal fee of $59,500. Mario Voce stated that the reason for the low incident rate fore,�300 block of Street as reported by SBPD is due to the lack of bars along ibis blockIie�indicate as the number of bars is increased there would be more incident o I ;k m �� David Rosenman stated that even with the smaller bar he is still troubled by this proposaol He questioned the success of another restaurant;1ia This. .area and noted that many restaurants make up for the lack of dining sales tliiratigliathe sale of hard liquor. He agreed with Commissioner Deaton's su - s gge�shon that the • ,rise of City Council be sought to. seek a solution to the parking pr6blem. He said that thi's looks like a bar and Seal Beach doesn't need another bar. �,; �, _ ® i �,® Mitzi Morton 'spoke in opposition and asked for " c Jr� the restaurant would be. Commissioner Roberts re portE approximately 24. Mr. Whttenberg.,added that the into by the OCFA. Ms. Morton �qui ec ti ab parking Whittenberg stated tfift for the 1,8.55 square foc require 19 parking maces, with a credit' of'Z pa grandfathered in with the former drugstore use, spaces. Ms. • Morton explained that with all of`the.� parking, patrons 0" parking on Eighth and Tenth'' to find a parking space whoa they wish to shop on, Roge r"West spokeNin°sopposition and noted that ai "'_ �` oble sa p�hs a parking agree ' gam' �� �.� lchur' h and restaurant:` He stated that th; restaurant" area a 6 -what the total seating for the seating is appears to be sating would be determined �pposed restaurant Mr. IP%Onew'restaiirant would for the par �lij,th tEd king ray -equzrement of 17 parking semis on Main Street with no is and City residents are not able Street. h`urch behind this property also has a. F could be worked out between the: just a "saloon under the guise of a 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 years and enjoys eating at Walt's Wharf, but he does peel 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 het and his brother have worked in many restaurants and have ;lie ned�that good food and good service are a priority, with drinks being secondary. wishing to speak, Chairperson Shanks closed the public hearing. Alcohol Licenses & k -Lieu Pang Sbft CC staff Repast 20 Provision 0000rmation — Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Sweet Spec9Tc Plan Area City Council Staff Rgort 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 appro ' e of alcohol service for this restaurant Commissioner Deacon stated that the City still needs to resolve: parlan issue, as '$60,000 is a lot of money, and this still does not provid r1one csr::rShe.said she would vote to deny based upon parking and the nest for req quor serv:se:• Mr Whittenberg clarified that the PC can deny CUP 05 -14 as presented, or it can approve tbe; restaurant without the sale of alcohol. He stated tbateifItfie `restaurant is approved without •: . alcohol, the Zoning Ordinance automatic allyows o,�i`;t�lie'';utilization of the in -lieu pan g program to meet the parking standard, "and would "We the authority to say no to .the iii-lieu parking, as this is left to the. discretion of the Director of Development Services, but an appeal to the PC can be cience a The Dire, or of makes a decision, aril this would requite a public he w\ o ui 'only happ//ea_ if the PC were to approve the restaurant and deny the alcohol service: Commissioner Denton asked on what grounds the PC could dew the restaurant. Mr. Ttttenberg explained that the PC could deny based upon incompatibility—of the resta urant wr h' "he;a' ei?hhnrhnnd Chairperson Shanks stated that t' Gonamissioner Deatoa "is `ferriagrto is whether the a �' '� proposed used does °t conflict with theMSSP oal to establish ands =atntain a balanced mix • of uses that serve the needs of otfi- °.local and non�Iocai populations. Mr. i Xt.:. K P P Whittenberg added that this would be one of irre:� areas of findings that Staff could look at, and there is a sIT ecified set of findings for CUPs in the MSSP; and if the PC feels the =rj restaurant use doesJiot comply with_ those findings, then Staff could return to the PC with a fines resolution ; incorporates these findings: Chairperson Shanks stated that from an aesthetic poin� the wall along the old railroad { ; t-o - .a ._ N � ngh -of -way is a solid wall, and if this were_ : to beta nice restaurant, windows could be�Taced here instead to provide a more etic IooTtowaazdsY the`: eenbelt. Chairperson Shanks also noted that in the past the AMW PC has approved restaurants withal of s�erv% e, and if the food service doesn't go well, then alcohol seems to becomesmoamportaat and restaurants being promoting "happy hours" and alcohol sales increase. He then requested a motion. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Roberts to direct Sta to prepare a Resolution for Conditional Use Permit OS 14 to approve a restaurant and deny the sale of alcohol. CARRIED:141 7.0-1 'Shanks, Deaton, Ladner, and Roberts None O'Malley Mr. Whittenberg stated that there is no final decision at this point and Staff will prepare a resolution for presentation at the December 7, 2005 Planning Commission meeting that Alcohol Licemes & 7a -14eu Pazbag stato.cC srr$xepmt 21 yam) I I J Provision ofl.yormation— Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12,200S Alcohol Iloco m & In-Um Pmidng Stw m.CC Staff Report 22 I Provision ofbgarmation—Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 ATTACEOMNT 3 alcohol L;=c= & 1n Lieu Paddng Stet n= staff Report 23 I January, 1995 Zucker Systems Law and Greenspan I J J Main met Specific PJ2n Zucker Sy.ste?= - - IV. V. VL GENERAL PLAN AND 01EMMANCES 1. General Plan..._.. .........____._....__.:_._..... 2. Specific Plan_ .......... ...__.__........._...._,_._,._� 3. Zoning Code _ ................. ..._...........___... ;....._... 4. Other Ordinances..... ..... ...................._....._..., I� ................................. .................:............. 1. Overview ........................ .......__ ... .................. 2 M Str t ' 1� Mko ---------- _31 31 { cs M ainee ..._....._.._.....__......... ........... : - K a ............._.............. 43 3. Adjoining Residential Neighborhood........... -$ :: .......... .._.............. 46 4. Food and Beverage Esta lishments� 5: Lssues.._.._....._._....._ . .............._....._.._...._.. =. =£ °t' ......... 49 PA UaNG AND'' _ .... .................... ... 53 1. Introduction ... ...... ..__......:_.....''Jpy� -� _ 53 ..... .......:........ . .........::... 2. Descrigion of the Study Area..... ........ _...._ .............. 53 S. Cinvlatioii Overview ......................... ...........:.... ............................... 54 NUs ..Parin ---- „ntory ...................... ...................... ............................... . 54 5. Residential - ----- r•�nit pram.. . 60 - ..x,..y. ...._...._._.._....... .... . .........._ 6. Merchants' Parktn Pro - g' gr. aat .................................... .............................61 7. Parking In -Lieu Program ..............:.......................... ..................._........... 61 8. Parking Demand Analysis .... .......... ........_.................. .............................. 64 9. • Parking Oppor=tunities ..._ .. .... .. ...... .... ........ ..... ..... .. .......... .......... .... 69 0. Theore ., Parking Demand ..... __ ............... ....... _.._.................... liSiimmary of Par ]nng Findings gs ................ ............... .............................74 12. Parking Alternatives ._ ... _ ........... __.__ ......... _ ......... __ ....... _ ... ............. _... 76 Mlumet Specific Plan Zucker Systems _Y I , VIL _ MA+ , DESIGN.. rw«. ww_« w«« w .w....ww«wr«•.• «..w....4r.--.478 L Storefrmt Windows. .................. »_......... «. 2. Building Set - Backs.ww« ww•_ ...• ««w..•_..• ....... ...... ..ww.._ «w...ww «r...••- 8 3. Facade Continuity ._ r... rww_ r. ww« w... «N.........ww...•..••...irr w_.•._ww. »w 6. 4. Screening of Parking . .__....w «..w_. .... .. w:...• .=f� �: 5. Street Trees ._..w..........rr. «.. s 6. Design Theme « ._.....r:........w.. »... . ..........w »._ �.__... �,.. 92 7. Bull ding ......... ........ ........................ 93 8. Trademark Buildings .. w-w----)e4... «. «... ........ 95 9. Building Height: .. � • ..« .................... ...._..w........w .wr..w. ._.wr...ww.......r........._.r 95 10. Utility Pdes......... ..... .."-, a ....... r _.. . .... �.•y »...» «...w.•. ... ..• ..r « k«. ..•• ....... . 98 11. Nesracks ..rf ......zfta6 .... 99 12. Benches. .._.. ......__ ........... r...... Y�..... « ................99 13. Bicycleflicilities ..._....r.w....... « ».. 14. Ifai,gl ................................... . w_....._. ......_....._r....._..w..r...99 5" Paving Sur ce.S............................. _... . .................. ............................100 r7A 6.- Rear Alley...... _ « .. »...w... ..... _ ... .. ........ w ...........................100 B i 1600 ................... _ w... r.. r_........».: ..:_..... ...... _.w......ww.w... .._ ------- _r_--- 102 ' Main Street fic Flan = I Zucker Systems = A. MAW STREET SPECIFIC PLAN B. C -1 ZONING REGULATIONS C. VTMOWS / TRANSPARENCY 'D. SURVEY OF COMMUNITIES E. PARKING UTILIZATION TABLES F. OPINION SURVEY AND SUMMAI G. STREET LEVEL 1994 LAND USE III -1 NUMBER V -1 SPECIAL a VI -1 EXIST IIY VI -2 - PARKIN( ITT OF r �vxvEY-ARES SES B--BACK FxACE............17 ND USE ............... . =ce:. _ 42 =�; •- ............. .............. TRAFFIC CONTROLS .:......................_.. ........._..- .:..............55 KESTRICTIONS ........ ..:...:...... 57 'VI -4 FIRE STATION; . VI -5 .y Ag TR VII-2 FACADE CO . 41 -3 STREET TREES RESPONSES y z ;. Y� F+ r �vxvEY-ARES SES B--BACK FxACE............17 ND USE ............... . =ce:. _ 42 =�; •- ............. .............. TRAFFIC CONTROLS .:......................_.. ........._..- .:..............55 KESTRICTIONS ........ ..:...:...... 57 'VI -4 FIRE STATION; . VI -5 10TH STREET & VII-1 URBAN DESIG VII-2 FACADE CO . 41 -3 STREET TREES • ._i...-••• • .. ......... _._•- -p ..71 :.� .._ .............. ..................... ............................... CENT? A T , LOT ... .. .... ...._........ ........... _ . .... .. ...... ............. 72 Main Suet Specie Plan Zucker Systems 1 i c y: H LIST OF TABLES I -1 Summary of Opinions Concerning Main• Street.___ ._.._.A.. ........ .:.......:::. 3 III -1 Survey Respondents ............................................................ ............................... :.16 III -2 Number of Responses to Survey by Street ................... s.............._..._ 18 II1-3 Image of the Area Res onses . ......_ _. _ ...19 III-4 What Survey Respondents Like Most About the Main 5` . Area..::.19 III -5 What Survey Respondents Like Least Aboutthe Main St. Area. 20 III -6 Respondents' Feelings About Whether ThereShould Be AM " More Of, Kept the Same, or Les 0, Selected Businesses ..................21 III -7 Percent of Business - Local vs ouYM' s: ......... .......................... 22 Street Respondents' O inions.Re.. . III-8 Main S p p gard3ng Cre Creation of A Business Improvement District for 11�tain Street ..... .. ... .. ......... _...... L3 III -9 Improvements Deliked for R1, Street........... ...,. �:.. ..... ......... 25 4 • III -IQ Who Should Be Responsible for_rziding Man�'StFeet Amenities ? .... ......... ........_...................... _....................... :............................26 III-11 Does the III -12 IThere Is Street Area Have A IWnRing Problem ? ................... 27 :king Problem But Seal�Beach Is A Beach Town earn to Live With It . ... ... ..__ ................. .. .... .. ........... _... 27 -13 Do You Favor the Use <:of Parkinlp Meters on Main St. ? .................28 ,r- w �s III -14 Solutions to Parldng Problems ...................................... ............................... 28 VVE-16 I -15 Do You Favor the In -Lieu Fee Parking Program? ..........................29 1) Who Should FtkndjParking Improvements? ........... .............................29 Main Street Specific Plan Zucker Systems t V -1 Land Use.._ w...._..._....._.._....._...:._..... __.....__....._..�...__........ V -2 Establishments Serving Alcohol..... VI -1 Eighth and Tenth Street Beach Lot Parking Fees VI -2 In -Lieu and Parking Mitigation :Program Partid VI -3 Parking Lease In Old Town...._....._....,......_,,, ,; VI -4 Existing Funds for Parking Improvement ............... VI-5 Bonding Ability from In -Lieu Program, 45 ..... 6.62 ........ ............................... Lft VI -6 Saturday Nan -Peak Season Parking OccupyncpAnalysis .......:..,.,65 VI -7 Saturday Peak Season Par g a.ccupancy A.ziW is ......._ ............... 67 :� . VI-8 Parking Inventory Summary ............:........:..........,:....... ..........:.................... 73 L Zucker Systems J I I I i i i L INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 In our proposal to prepare this Specific Plan, we suggested the opinions: J V Cimreat Ind Use lid Seal Beach downtown currently has a unique mix of residential serving commercial (both retail- and service), uisitor servg commercial, public and semi public usesparks and open -sp ca e and residential. This mix presents one of the` best , "simall town] mixes we ve seen anywhere in the State. 2�his t. Pe`�of mix can •bey very fragile. The Specific Plan study needs to- documen MINE look at the trend of the mix`" predict the trend, and help the City; determine the appropriate mix. Both the. commercial area and residential areas need to maintain i g•teir�-1gia�bitity_ V Deggn h Seal Beach. downtown u' • °enty has a ,delightful mix of architecture • appropriate for "small tow, atmosphere. The • views and trees tend to pull it al °Together, The last thing we _ believe the City needs is the unifying, "cutesy" design concepts contained in manyt dour`nt`own designgudelines. �e see the design guide s focus ng on a few key variables that • can reinforce the current feel of downtown an !s it for the futur t . '4 V Parldn59i There m ycv;elt be an ouerall shorts of parking. However, an even mar gser�ous issue appears tobe parking management and - distribution -V parking spaces. Parts of downtown have excess caps ;ty, of er.` parts have gna equate capacity. The City ✓ currently has a num�'er. of actions ndeiway to address this issue. The Specific Pla reeds too Took 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 inconsiderable science - involved in parking studies there is also a large component of human interaction. We won't :. really know how.people mill respond to parking time limits or fees until they are put in place. These variables can be adjusted to r'= achieve desiredIresults. Main Stet Specific Plan I Zucker Systems I� V AIleys Most of the alleys do not lend themselves to dual store front entrance schemes or public Farhing`sehemes -used in may � communities. This is due to the small size of parking ar as, loading needs, and concerns for how these areas relat o' the abutting residential uses. We see the need to do some detailed alley planning as part of the Specific Plan. t` 3 V Change Dynamics The City should think of downtown as a dynaffic or- .- ganzsrn; Specific Plan will help establish the vision d sets- me`asuralle }: goals and parameters. It. will also show how these shouldbe:.. ,A monitored and used over time. Fo�r ! example, land use issues L" . include vacancies, sales tax, nuie"ance�-complaints changing ..„ -. � products and markets and beack usage. Pacrk-ng issues include price, length of stay, and over alclemand. VIA ' ,. After completing our detailed, research, we believe our initial impressions continue to be sound. Ho eve believe there is little planning that needs to be done in the alleys. ' There is considerabEr ageeinent :o opinion amongst the people we interviewed, the op on curve and i person observati�ons. I Most. importantly, there- appears to be a � ��eement on the °vision for Main Street -as follows: %.zi: i MW VISION How ;c 1 Th Main area 'is particularlyirnportant because it is the hea=t' nd soulY -of -Seal Beach. The vision for Main Street is small town America: Important features include a family town with =` friendly people ``who °care:forea other. A edestrian oriented area 01 _ p- where people walk and feel safe on the street at night. An area with both architectaral- and economic diversity with a mix of business, housing types and Institutions. ^'the key question is howl to-retain this vision for Seal Beach. Town after ,!_A , across the country has learned the high price of prosperity. What M ®mince delightfu `small towns* and' main streets have become just another <fioutigge'heaven. Seal Beach will change. The question is what direcionwtl.: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 l J Wain Street Specific Plan 2 Zucker Systems .J architecture; liquor licenses, and ;parking cad be heavily controlled or impacted. There are many complex inter - related issues to be considered for Street. Opinions on these were gleaned from our interviews, the survey and our own experiences. To assist readers with the review of f ' extensive background report, we've summarized much of this material "m, Table I -1. As can be seen there is considerable agreement on many of the- ft issues. Yes : Yes Yes Maybe LTAN Main bibmet Specific Plan 3 Zucker Systems TOPIC INTERVIEW OPR1qjON CONSULTANT'S OPE41ONS SURV FINDINGS Who Pays? Main St. arid .City should share. Ma�be -Maybe Yes Create a Business Improvement District. Maybe Maybe- Based on the work completed .-to-date, alternatives for the C* include the foll6wg Land Use 1. A uniffe4.?tpp;rQach to co. h o 41s with music s� ould be developed. 2. The number of erftaJ jy.,,,.es, of %r A _p regUlated. An gh, ..prok types of busmesses and d is&quxaf!g&ig2\ regulations or exariaple, parking;; certain typesof uses like retail I 4, Parking co-be required for -rest certain size;,'. 3 tores e� �geeffi Ing a certain size WIN, dlh I '.n cc -join an the'R-df6'-bf_ Main Street key • choices or and businesses lt�s' Wks could be dire'.ct'ly ould4N"t'��-'ei�t--6"-'%ent-ourage certain ther. typ-e�sjbgaugh parking I ff ly- for Auld -be WNWV-fvx',e -entire stores, grocery stores,. etc. ants or 2reS exceeding "a 1 116 be prohibited -in* order to Design 1. Design controls could be adopted requhring design review for I remodels and new buildings. As an alternative, design criteria could Y4 be written to be diplied 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 deli gMtheme. Main Street Specific Plan 5 ... Zucker' Systems 7 1 IN Friendliness; very friendly people'° Archite"I , diversity A; amity towrifamily oriented Interplay of -r- a -'ents Physically is lQedY f, Large sense of commiruity Feel safe Walking the streets at night, low crime rate People care for each other People value reducation 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 C -- Tnents: Our impression to date can be characterize vision: The Main Street area is partici hears and soul of Seal $each. xTb town America. Importa3aAM y friendly people who care for =eac area where people walk and fee area With both architectural and business, h" iustit 3. WHAT PEO w« Some of those interviewed could the least i.e., "it's great as it is. "( t because it is the �r -Main Street is small e;a family town with ,Pedestrian oriented He street at night. An diversity with a mix of ing they liked Traffic in residential area ✓ I;ackL,of parking ✓Anti -bu ess attitudes = ✓ Specal,events help food; Iaces but not services and retail ✓ Attitude o rs of Darkness on 1NIan treet ✓ Trees breaking up sidewalk ✓ Stores close too early of Too many beauty shops - no retail • Economically the pits • Rents�are too high ✓Res fictive climate for business ✓ , oo many alcohol serving businesses Can't buy anything here, i.e., suits, refrigerators, cars Main Street Specific Plan 8 Zucker Systems ,s i s i 0 s 1 1 Crowds in summertime 1 Business community isn't in sync with the rest of the town 4. LAND USE ISSUES z. People like the current mix of uses on Main Street. However, = some feel it would be desirable to: v/ Have more retail, things people' can buy of Have less beauty parlors ,s = V No more alcohol serving businesses `' ``�' ° £; ,. 5 6fHave. more unique businesses Businesses that would bring in othernew businesses of Resident entertainment - no amipllfied music J Have 20 -25% more high en ine'ss. :` = However, there appears to be considerable reluctance to try to . ��- regulate the miz with the excepfio�n of alcohol se g businesses. Issties include: This ch town, some of the gh turnover of busin 't compete on i surrounding , can't go with the territory. Like to grow dollar wise ' but not at the expense of the ambiance. who want to come here are tourist oriented. problem. J Main Street Specific Plan 9 Zucker Systems . Restaurants, bars and liquor .licenses were. subject to much discussion. Many people feel the area already has 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 ARM " 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 cancers '� = elation to liquor licenses is the. potential :for increased noise.' crime and ° =" diminishing of the family atmosphere. Some consider a cauple Hof W locations as the only real problems. Consultant's Comm euis. - It appears that the plan< Should include a clear policy in relation to liquor licenses and terms of.o;Eeration: " It may or map not be appropriate tocIuri%io,hetype of uses, however; incentives might-be created T encourage ceAain uses and discourage others. Y 5. DESIGN ISSUES The existinug diverse, eclectic arch ecture is aft - gly supported. No one wants a uniform design scheme or the • e -a "cookie cutter town ". B•uildings that were cri • ciz.ed generally consisted of i contemporary glass, metal, or hard surfaces. A number of new remodelsar ealiked including B.J.s, and the Christian Book Store. Although some favor creating a ''esign review process, others M rm strongly feel tlus_is unnecessar,•." Specific design suggestions included: J Year -round lights in the trees OfMore benches (same said there are already too many) �. JWindow1�§ozes, barrels with flowers arKeep height limit low j '✓ Bette lighting r- r-Repa sidewalks Y r.. ✓ - eplace existing trees J Bury power lines J Matn Street Specific Plan 10 Zucker Systems a 2 ConsultanVs ffie13 : & SIGHTS The eclectic architecture is totally appropriate .for the spa town theme. Although in theory design review can .11, =1l`'1 keep this theme, in practice, design review can be dA cult administer and often leads to unintentional results. A mot appropriate approach for Seal Beach could be o set certai additional requirements in the Specific Plau without addin a formal design review process. Criteria co ; > o b suggested for those uses requiring a use perm 7. P We aff that an arch or Street' would appear to be. c town u iLe. Generally peopleR Differences arise a you could level ev Some feel the prol suggested that in a was also strong management of ej spaces. Some fe' sign advertising Main iaracter With the small «;Ln ,,ere is a P-g king problem in downtown. ow ;o -about it. One person suggested ytfl and there would still be a.problem. m has been magnified -more than it is. It is aach town you need to learn to live with it. It suggested that the problem may be ting spaces rather than the need for new the problem is beach users rather than Df am barest bpe=c Plan 11 Zucker Systems Problems are suggested as: During the summer Fridays and Saturdays Mealtimes, particularly noon Short term in and out parking t The two -hour limits are not well enforced People who work in businesses leave cars • n the street People with lot stickers still park on the ,street - City employees park on 8th Street instead210, the c lot Competition at 5:00 p.m. between residents and res aurant workers .Residential garages are /use:d; ::fors; storage or illegally converted to apartment,, The overriding concern far g par kizgiPauld be - who pays, and how to fund any4improvein3ents? Specific issues were discussed as follows:, a. Decking the 0 d and not block'U' e" enthusiastic due fly: ;ement and crime iss gists, negative impac E wnnld he ugly ". )fDeA&Lot of tbea lo-Off it could be Vs. Mos lio ever were less kern of -eve blockage, law furtherftipping the balance the character of the beach, could be better utilized. Ideas tight fee schedule for short -term parking is validation program people that they cari use stickers on this lot estaurant valet parking ,us during peak restaurant hours Main Street Specific Plan 12 Zucker Systems r 5 0 �a s . People were split down the middle on the issue of decki the 8th Street lot. Some felt that this would be a go solution if not too costly or ugly. Others felt this introduce additional traffic into a residential area, adi destroy the village small town atmosphere and would ugly. A# It was suggested that this lot is .already used: • - .•r -5:00 p.m. by the public when. the parking controrf," ' ij and that the lot should be signed to allow that t�yr`t" pub use. d. Parlemg Meters There were mixed view CWN Some felt they worrk� ll communities. .-They raise re- time limits since today people The cost/revenue of - parking i If used they shou"d b°e more ac prior meters. =� :re strongly that they do are .. e. Tn- 1U&1)ees There is co parking pri enforced. h clear progre uses vs. exi owners no . N. customers. It pay the equi a was to allow the topic of parking meters. as demonstrated in other Wr�-!.t.Wtila-xchalk d help to manage the all the time. neters" is*not well understood. :stheticall'y�attractive than the dNto parkin ters. It is Rsmall tow atmosphere, d create'a subtle negative s suggested instead that the :n9of the meter revenue. idents to park at the meters isiderable confusion surrounding the in -lieu gram. Some consider it illegal and unfairly some cases it's viewed as punitive. There is no n for spending the dollars. It is negative to new ting ones. However, merchants and property her parts of town must pay for parking so why Street? Zucker Systems = _ ,Gi.a Better utilization of 1st Street lot Decking City lot in the 100 block of Main Street Diagonal parking on Electric Consultant's Comments: A q!a6j;Gr issue appears to be the lack of good working relatio- etween owners businesses and residents. Some see the,yBusnes_Association as being negative -on most issues. OtherIfs-,14 e 06 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 Main Street ar -eaods a net financial deficit to the city so merchants and lWoWni'ers should pay for all improvements. Others feel Main treet is important to the entire community and should be supported on a broader basis. Main Street Specific Plan 14 Zucker Systems 1 1 1 IIIL OPINION SURVEY Some caution is in order for readers of the survey response survey can be helpful shaping the Main Street program, but is one of a variety of factors to be considered. Furthermore, opinions to have a short shelf life and can change based on new information. ply-1111 ZA*A!Db*d ;A of.7i An opinion survey, as shown in Appendix F, was mailed to 1200 property owners, residents and businesses in ,he.�Main Street area at the end of September and.into October. 502 surveys were returned for a than normal response rate for this Survey respondents are shown in Table owners and renters, both for businesses Ei TYPE NUS3 Owner of Owner of au . � the re`s de in the1 r - ---- . I reside in the N own my d *Note: Sonde responses by h responses were .m the area. property in area as of ev. 80 65 207 552` is a better a good mix of respondents. 14 12 38 100 fit more than one of the categories. Shown in Figure III -1 and listed in Table III - ly evenly spread throughout the Main Street Main Street Specific Plan 16 Zucker Systems _3 �. 5 TA131Y, M-3 Imp oftheArea Res ns� RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE Statement represents your image. 418 91% Statement does not represent your image. 39 8% No Opinion 462 100 4. WHAT PEOPLE I rME MOST Respondents were asked to list what�they liked the most about the Main Street area as summarized in As shown"-�;i m- the Table, the V . '.. 3. - friendly, safe respondents mostly value the small to t "S home. It is also noteworthy Be the large number of and close to respondents that value the restaurants. A400_ : P , rv."� ask, Intimate small tOY Diver" Friendly pe Safe, friendly Close to home RestauranA Nice place W walk Unique/Quaint Close to b&h I --- I 4NUNJBER OF RFAVORABLE RESPONSES 180 100 72 70 64 41' 31 27 16 Main Street Specific Plan 19 Zucker Systems s TOPIC Privately awned and interesting shops Trees Post Office _ Unpretentious Shops and services Grocery store B ofA 5. SAT PEOPLE ME TBC1E YEAST[' Respondents were asked to list what e� Street area as summarized inTe and liquor licenses was mentioned t parking problems. Problems with drvn was also prominent in the responses. Tlie Esta MM ,•gents -with liquor _. lice` ��..: -�:; f • . _ 3 ar cularly bars Drunks, ho" a% less,; alad, panhandlers -Traffic Tourist sho & and art galleries Beauty shops Lack of dive sity Skateboarders liked the .east about the Main The ove a dance of bars lstoften .;,c osely followed by s, 16mele s and panhandlers ! 97 • 82 53 31 23 20 18 14 13 13 OF Main Street Specific flan 20 Zucker Systems .11 ' 33 spy 2 I J TOPIC NUMBER OF RESPONSES Property maintenance 12 Trash overflowing 9 Lack of entertainment 8 Lack of restrooms and restroom maintenance 7 11 '.���.`14`�'�f.`1 TABLE ffi-6 Respondents' Y : "Methe r „: More C&, the Sine, f SQ1e�ted < _ TYPE OF B. INESS MORE ® I'P'r'I'1^� LESS OF Grocery stares 263 288 10 Book stores 233” 172 6 Retail shops _ 229: 185 10 Rests .ants' b; 187 182-. 30 Enterta nment esabL 139 168 ..107 Clothing stares`; 12 235 24 E Appliance stores 76 234. 76 Furniture stores 73 206 18 Services (office, financial) 69 250. 72 Medical care 63 227 50 Fast food restaurants 43 182 171 Hardware stores 39 365 3 - tears 22 218 191 Servxcesw(beau;snails, etc:) 20 182 184 r�uirv�es 17 234 154 AUdn Street Specific Plan 21 Zucker Systems Respondents were asked about a number of business related issues answered as follows: V 32% approve of amplified -music V 86% approve of non - amplified music 48% would like retail businesses to stay open later at night V 26% would not like them staying "open V 26 % had no opinion V 79% feel the.current - mix of resident -se ;n. serving uses is about right, but V 41% Would favor limiting the number of visitor -sere businesses. Businesses were asked to indicate the local vs. tourist and visitors ais shown:i Percent Of Vmi for =d l ocW Insurance Pets Medical Advertising Ha -dware RIT., . Travel Agency Clothing Liquor Store Boutique Music Jewelry Nails k- ursery 95 95 85 85 80 80 75 70 70 65 63 60 r0 0 3 '5 5 10 10 12 15 15 20 20 25 30 30 35 37 40 Main Street Plan Zucker Systems 3 } r TYPE OF BUSINES Gift Shop Psychotherapist Dental Bicycle Bakery Rubber Stamps Frame & Gallery Retail Legal Sporting Goods T- Shirts Drugs Real Estate Antiques Art Store Tax/Bookkeeping Video Rental Businesses and bu favor creation of a This question was people responded. business, we separa III -8. Although ma district the high n issues may. not be w % LOCAL 60 60 60 60 50 50 45 43 40 40 30 25 M AI v 'dently misuiider nce a district wowl d respondents from : respondents. favor nber of no opinion Main Street ABusiness CATEGORY Yes No No opinion INo answer 114,111-ORDW NUMBER 16 12 18 7 53 % TOURISTS & VISITORS 40 40 40 40 50 50 d if they would o.r Main Street. nally oily hfunded by Street as shown in Table oppose warn improvement io answer indicates the P Re; Creation of for Main Street PERCENT 30% 22% 34% 13% Main Street Specific Plan 23 Zucker Systems l � J Frequently, the biggest conflict between a commercial center adjoining residential neighborhood is between the residents g nearby eating and drinking establishments. Restaurant444-n related activities, i.e. liquor sales and entertainment, serve b community and visitors. They also may cause some or all following problems: Ae an the the Noise Impacts s; Food Odors" P P. unruly Cliental Parking. Congestion Some establishments have none of the R ov p oblems, while other may ram at times have all of them. How these problems re ,;addressed make for a successful or poor business/re5ifienfial relationsfii In the old town of Seal Beach" there are 23`restaurants of which 14 serve liquor, see Table V -2. Also there are twobars w `ch serve no food and three other businesses licensed to '-s', 1`. I'quor for off - premise consumption -Seal .t each `M R, Nip `n Stuff and Johns Food Sing. Seal Beach requires all bu'mess.-establishmentswhich serve or sell alcoholic beverages to have a conditional use per. r initutegardless of how long they hav & een established. In. -T,9 8- 5 only twe ve. restaurants served alcohol. " �In aen year period three addi=onal licenses have been issued and one has been forfeited. �`' Table V -2 also�indicates which eatin establishments serve alcoholic beges andtheiiSR losing hours. A majority of the. establishments are Yi Ticenseda sell o y <beer and wine, andgenerally close between ten and - eleven o'clock in the�eening. Thew bars. and four restaurants with general liquor licenses- (�persnitted 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 A Table Beer / General Entertain- Closing hours Y` one S„_Th Ma 5. What, m' `_ e a co = • - unity special is often��he very same. factor that cau es�s pressure for chan The more. dl�ing a town appears, the g=reater the demand upan a commU-nitOom the outside. ' The need to serve the visitor brings with -it ie''usinesses that can change the character of the town. Main streets like Seal Beach's have disappeared all over the country. Typ*cal issues include: If they become very, tourist popular, tourist uses and chain stores out bid local uses " up the rents and driving out local uses. itional smaIl one -of -a -kind stores have trouble competing b boz retailers and chain stores. Main Street Specific Plan 49 / Zucker Systems r > _J It is normal to want to protect the' special character of the community. j 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 -s .ec character (Appendix D). When examin;ng these community .s and what they have done to - retain the essence of their original commerc' center, it must be noted that frequently. no action or limited action h' been as' successful as a full program of regulations anci' constraints.= Techniques used include: ® Limiting building square footage whfie pro retailers., J J • Letting the market dictate uses. o Setting quotas for certain Balboa Island h � = special zoning or res' ctions. They rely on the market to control_; commercial uses. 1.a Yuia3e'ach, on t e other hand, has aopted a specific plan for its c mercial areas. •� eir Plan contains 'even subareas (3 or 4 blocks ;each) .which idenes i ses 'ght.' All other uses may be permitted within any sub Z, 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 wifh air conditioning and fixed glass. The hours of li operation are mited by the permit. Smell control is frequently a edition of any restaurant approval. The City also depends on the djoining residential nei a ghborhood's monitoring. If there are any public comrglaints regardg;; use, the Planning Commission rehears the g�:. Main Street Specific Plan 50 Zucker. systems. .,,._ �k r s Theprobl em; anhandlers needs to be;tesolved. r :�v�as-�ao consens , ' ongst the businessmen regarding What the rral-district neede: However; they allto some degree felt that City 4 needed to be more positixe e bnsiness, and that perhaps, there re too many restrictions. addition to the businessmensI recommendations and the planning )roaches utilized by other small communities, Seal Beach might also ;cider: ucing the parking requirements for desired ® Increasing the parking requirements for less desirable uses. J maan b-breet gamic Plan 51 Zucker Systems I 1 All of the above should be evaluated for Seal Beach. The key for Seal i Beach is to design a program that fits Seal Beach's unique community 9.u4ity- Mkin Steet Specific Plan 52 Zucker Systems J J Survey - ®f Communities J RESEARCH FOR SEAL BEACH Ashland, OR —(502) 488 -5305 . They have a mixed use zone requiring commercial on the groan I RE residential above. Strong design and sign controls guide the appearance development. They limit square footage of any building, thus pros Walmarts etc. Parking must be in the back br side, and the number of allowed cannot exceed the city's standard by more than 1090. a City is in their objectives by a strong State law that prohibits urbants a market control the mix of commercial. Without e- ; : ai the -citizen's commercial needs are met within the community. and the Avalon, Catalina, CA— (310) 510 -0220 They depend on tourism for survival. Therefore a do not limit the mix of commercial uses. They relay on the arket to decide, what is. commercially viable. They have both a commercial :zone and a commercial /residential zone. They utilize the entertainment pernu't aYmethod to regte sound impacts\. Balboa Island, CA— (714) 644 -3215 The City has no special zoning br restrictions. uses. Berkeley, CA —(510) They have a comp different commerc AN permitted comaLei discretionary pe.ri permit. (I sent four B system of con! overlays areas. use. For bus t is necessary. Restaurl 6Copy of their ordinance.) commercial use pern special permits. All i community which it near residential deve nights and up to 1:00 A) 436 -5271 Lot addresses then umber of any particular types of They rely on. eir policy positions foi approval of I ffirib ars a require a CUP. They have a very vocal ice plication receives approval. If a use is Lent, the use may stay open until 11:00 p.m. on week on weekends. Laguna Beach, CA— (714)644 -3215 The City has adopted , specific plan for commercial areas. It contains seven subareas of 3 or 4 blocks each. Each subareas calls out permit uses allowed by gh Other uses aiay be allowed with a conditional use permit. It depends on tie n'eiborh If there are any public complaints regarding a use, the Plan UNIg Commission rehears the item. Bars and restaurants are open until 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 J Provision of l.yormation —Alcohol Licenses and fn -Lieu Parkinglssues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Sta .Report December 12, 2005 ATTACHMENT NT 4 NIIlViJTE EXCERPT RE J® - O�RKSH. - DRAFT A AIN STREET SPECMC PLAN, AUGUST 9,'1995 ntwond Li== & in -Liao Padmg stwuLcc suffxPt 24 ; Page Seven - City Council Hinutes - August 9, 1995 y 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 teased a "_'�' '` g expressed appreciation to the Council, commisilbon, and public for their comments, the Director of Developman' Services explained that the main import of the Draft specific Plan is to try to establish what the long -term goals ar• for Main Street and how land uses in the future will be determined on that Street. To a suggestion from the "ublic to place a eap•on the amount of r th :restaurant space awould be all owed, the number of liquor licenses, and a determination of a standard for hours of operation, particu arly- restaurant usage, he noted- that the Council •and CcrmmissS'pii ,a`v •dealt with those issues for. a number oftyeare and S lock• ••'q at the processes that other cities go.through it was n felt to° an appropriate choice for this City, explaining that some cities have put a per square foot eap'en restaurant uses, limited the number of establishments etc., and to his knowledge of where that has�Deen dare t has been a fairly involved process and in ' oma casesVsu`bstar}tial court expenses have been realized ar sult o thasedecisions, as well as extensive bsekgroun arketing •sudies that are necessary far acity to provid nextis for 3acing a cap on certain use in an.atea,*Etherefare it was felt , at the City did not have'the economy ca 'i].�i�ties to do pab y of those difficult studies. Also rthe 0M es that the City currently uses gives the option to may eit: yes or no,a3lows for, the review of a new establishment on NdUe. � an a determination if that use is compatible with thesz'ea,• van though that sometimes becomes a contentious process,- is uncertain if that problem can be esayli►I given the interface of residential uses, a foatyalyf, aid comnsercf uses and .even if there is a caB.on the nuber a certain kin uses or if specific. x. . -z ours' arm establ =fished,.• those issues- 6tia1�1 etdY need to be addressed 'at some nt in the gutur .as'someone will contend that someone else w i meowed a use by nigh «t, the person had no knowledge of it or•�did-Set like it, thua can not like the process, therefore aga3W At_ 'was felt that the public hearing process gives the business people andltha surrounding residents the best option-::to fully explore a proposed use and sake a'datermination as to whether or not it is appropriate. is stated the attempt was Establish a•strong definition of coffee shops, no more than Uielva seats and no more than one thousand two hundred'feet o total building area, anything cee�ding that is not a ffee shop and would fall under di&Qant ;aquiremeizts, ftfi s use primarily attracts people sisady'.:; Main Street o= some other purpose or an establishm�t mayattract a clientele prior to their embarking on thiibpsinessdy, etc., the coffee shops thought to be a more padestiiaiiroriented use than•a restaurant. The intent was to limit the scala 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 enfoAament is something that will continually need to be dealt1 with. To the question as to who pays the parking fee, tha pXoperty owner or business owner, the Director noted that the•c`3ty 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 ant*' ntered into with either Mi'property owner or the lessee with consent of the property Marto 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 5100 versus $3600 per space par year, the Director explained that ] 1 1 Provision of Ipy armation — Alcohol Licenses andln -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speci#1c Plan Area City Council StaffPaport December 12, 2005 ATTACB3ffiNT 5 ALCOHOL- AND DRUGZR-Bff-AT_7EQD INCIODEI\ S AND ARREST INFORMATION, Alcohol Lacmm & In- U= Parking Sys CC staff Report 25 ; _J J Provision ofl..' oration — Alcohol Licenses and In - -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2004 CALENDAR YEAR INCIDENTS AND. ARRESTS — CITYWIDE Total Incidents AOD Incidents Total Arrests Total AOD Arr-e`sts AOD I •AOD ZIQ . and % of Toia1 AOD and % of Total g "Residence 3,4143 58 34 11,493 (100.000A) 1,374 (11.96 %) .452 (100.00 %) - 7 303 (67.040 '' 14.3 153 128 83:7 Open Space CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2004 CALENDAR YEAR ON -SALE ALCOHOL SALES NCID1514 - CITYV!lIDE`?� kR Incidents Arrests Seifi . - Up otal. AOD I •AOD ZIQ . -Total AOD AOD % g "Residence 3,4143 58 34 58.6 Vehicle 1,63` 34 tea- '' 14.3 153 128 83:7 Open Space 4,191 398 9.5 121 91. 75.2 Alcohol Outlet 394 205 52.0 20 .19 95.0 Other. Location 2,166 123 5.7 100 31 31.0 TOTAL 11493 1 1,374 12.0 452 303 67.0 Aim Uccam & In M= paaemg S= CC sm$Repmt 26 J , , Provision of Information - Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council StaffRepart December 12, 2005 , CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2004 CALENDAR YEAR ON -SALE ALCOHOL SALES INCIDENT REPORTS - NWN STREET AlcaW Lixam & BL-U= Pa icng sta Lcc staffReport 27 y._ Total Events Tot al�AOD. Total A`: ests Business Name Address and % of Total ve i of=ota�t and % of otaI The Grill 101 Main 2(l.19%) 1 (1.12 5 (35.7�1�% C(ancy's Saloon 111 Main 53.(31.55 %) 37 (41.57 %) Taco Surf 115 Main 7 4 17% (; , - ) i ° 1.12 /o) o 0 (0.00 !0) Pasta Grotto 117 Main •Q(0 00 ° /p) 0 {0,00 %) 00.00%) The Irisher ' 121 Main 28 16.67 %) 2' (2.47 %) 2(14.29%)q Hector's Taco 131 Mai {Q: %) 0 (0.00 %) 0 (0.00 °1 °) House _ Old Town Cafe 137 Main 1 (0.9 %• 0(0.00%) 0(0.00%) O'Malleys on Main 143 Main 23 (13.69 t , 13.48% ) 2(14.29%) Hennessey 's Tavern. 7.14 %) 5 5';6 %} 1(7.14 %) Walt's Wharf , °` 201 Main (5 36 %) 4,("K 9 %) 1(7.14 %) BJ's Chicago 209 Main : .. , 9 (fi %) .2(2.25%) (2.25%) 0 (0.00 %) Pizza MaininStreet CAW-, S. 303 Main 0 (0.(0 %) 0(o.00%) 0 (0,00 %) The Abbe K .306 Main 8 (4 76 %) 4 {4:49 °�) 1 (7.14 %) is Bayou St. J6hns1}320llai :.,.� . _.r (0.00 %) .0(0.0.0%) 0(o.00%) Cafe Lafayette - 33F'Mai 1(0.59%) 0 (0.00 %) 0(o.60%) Kinda Lahina 901 Ocean'- 9 (5:36 %) 2 (2:25 %) 1(7.14%) El Burrito Jr. 2 1909 Ocean 6 (3.57 %) 1 (1.12%) 0.-(0.00%) TOTAL 168(100%) 1 89(100%) 14.(100 %) AlcaW Lixam & BL-U= Pa icng sta Lcc staffReport 27 y._ I . Provision 0A , armation— Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Staff Report December 12, 2005 . Alcohol Licenses & hi -Lieu Parkmg Sus.CC Staff Report 28 W. Total Events Total AOD Total crests Intersection Location and % of Events and 4a�nd• °of 1 Total % of Total Tota Main and Ocean (Includes Pier, 777 115 6 (10d.600. %) Beach, and Beach Parking Lots) (93:39 %) (93.500 V Main and PCH 55(6.61%) 8 5`OD/o. 0. (0.00 /off 15 'A Ind Tf3T TOTAL 832 1:23 UO OQ to (100.0 %) (100.00 / s CITY OF SEAB�AE 2004 CALEIM!• ©AR YEAR Y� ON -SALE ALCOHOL SALE`S INCIDENT REPORTS — MAIN STREET AND ACE14hi AVENUE B BLOCK . Alcohol Licenses & hi -Lieu Parkmg Sus.CC Staff Report 28 W. Block Location Total Arrests and % of Total and °o e 1 (7.2% Total 1 Main Street -100 B oc :s2 • (75.0 %) 89 (100.00°x°) Main Street - 20ABlock e > 10:7 %) Main Street - 300 Block Ocean Avenue = Pravisien oft. nation— Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council StaffReport December 12, 2005 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2005 CALENDAR YEAR — F FIRST QUARTER INCIDENTS AND ARRESTS — CITYWIDE CITY OF SEAL E 2005 CALENDAR FIRS' QUAR ON-SALE ALCOHOL SALES IF Aiwncg Ucmm & In-Lin pwmg suw cc smffRcp= 29 IVOLVEMENT: -- CITYWIDE Total Incidents AOD Incidents Total Arrests Total AOD Arr�e`�sts and % of Total and % of Total 2,352 100.00% 239 10.16% 86 100.00%`•:: CITY OF SEAL E 2005 CALENDAR FIRS' QUAR ON-SALE ALCOHOL SALES IF Aiwncg Ucmm & In-Lin pwmg suw cc smffRcp= 29 IVOLVEMENT: -- CITYWIDE 1. % 1 *1 Provision of-formation-Alcohol Licenses andln-LieuParkznglj=W, Main Street Specz Specific ea .fi 04Y Cmmdl Staff Report December 12,2005 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2005 CALENDAR YEAR (FIRST QUARTER) MAIN STREET INCIDENT REPORTS Tptal Tota OD Total Arrwel-tis rtl," Business Name Address Events E, n and % bf '/a of Total a I R-P Total The Grill 101 Main. 2(4.76%) 0 0.00%y- Clancys Saloon 111 Main 8 (19.95 °o) 2(8.00%) 0 (O.nn h Taco Surf 115 Main 2 476 -6 V ,_ ` °(8.00 %) 0(0.60%) Pasta Grotto 117 Main 0.00%) 0(0.00%) The Irisher '121 Main Aas 13 N2 - - 0(0.00%) 1" 5%) 00%) k6ctor's Taco 131 Main 0 (Q! 0 00,(0.00 %) 00.00%) House- - W,0 Old Town Cafe 0(0.0 0(0. -ai 00%) O'Malleys on Mai i 140 Mai .5 (11.96%) 0(0.06%) Tavern 0%) 4Tt 1%) 0(0.00%) Hennesse)(s 143 M A MR i 9 11 -11-1 Waits Wharf . 201 Main 1(2 1(4-00%) 0(o.00%) BJ's Chicago Pita 209 Main 3 (7V1.% ) 0(0.00 %) 0(0.00%) Main treat Ca 303 Maifi* 1 RIP %) '0 (o.om 0 (0.00%) fie Ab`%e 06 Main 0_A0e00%) 0(0.00%) 0(0-00%) Bayou St. John Rai (2.38%) 0( 0-00%) 0(0.00%) Caf6 Lafayette 330 IVICAU I Kinda Lahina 1(2.38%) 1 - (4.60 %) 1000.00%) A901 Ocean 1(2.38%) 0-(0-00%) 0(0-.00%) El Burrito Jr. 2 •909 Ocean 1 (2.38%) 0(0.00%) 0(0 Z__ .00%) TOTAL • 42(100%) 25 (100%) 1 (1 DO%) alcohol Uc=cs & Tn-Li= parldag StjhM.CC Stxff Repmt 30 Provision oflry _ rneation—Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council StafReport December 12, 2005 Ala&d Licm= & Ia-Lj= Parking staba.ec st&Repmt 31 Total Events Total AOD TotalfAi b'sts Intersection Location and % of Events and and °o of Total % of Total Tota Main and Ocean (includes Pier, 39(100.0%) 0(0.00%) 1 (100.0,1 1) Beach, and Beach Parking Lots) Main and PCH 0(0.00 . %) 0 (0• F 0} _ 0. (0.00°/0) TOTAL 39(100.0%) 0 0.0 Ala&d Licm= & Ia-Lj= Parking staba.ec st&Repmt 31 I , • ., Provision of l?5, L oration — Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parldnglssues, Main Street Spec& Plan Area City Council Sta fReport December 12, 2005 ATTACffiVIENT 6 SEAL ]BEACH ZONING ®RDINAI� ; a a ;_ STREET SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE.- SECTION Aieobol L9cm= & In -Lieu Pazidng Stams.CC Staff Report 32 I I . I Provision oft, ✓rmation—Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parkinglssues, Main Street Specific Plan Area City Council Stag Report December 12, 2005 SEAL BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE, MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE, SECTION 28 -1256. 1N -LIEU PARKING PROGRAM "Section 28 -1256. In -Lieu Parking Program. r A. Participation in Program Required: In tFiel .vent > =a LIse cannot provide the Off- street parking .5paces required b 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 n ie Parking Program as established in this Section. I or a treat parking space requirements may be isfied by compi'iance with this Section. Ln C. forFnula for calculating said' Resolution of the City Council. W ae effectivecia°fey operating un er, : e se entitlement and = E subject to the terms and Ireement. As a conditio Lnts agreed to participa ed by the City Council. parking program refer Parkin' Fee and . the all a established by es. .jruse which pre - ordinance and�hich is hority o discretionary opment ajreement shall mditions Maid approval those entitlements, the 6$n any in -lieu program his Article constitutes the I ed in the resolutions and in those certain 1. Eligible persons or businesses desiring to participate in fife In -Lieu Parking Program established herein shall submit a written application for participation to ,4t he Director of Development Services on a form prescribed by the City. If the Director determines that !Z; such application meets the requirements set forth in Sections 28 -1255, at seo, of this Code, the Director shall, within thirty (30) days of the completion of such A1whd I.i=m do In -Lion Pzkmg Staffs CC Srsff Rmw 33 Provision ofh7formation— Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main ,street SO ecjflc Plan Area City Cozmcil SYaff4ort December 12, 2005 application, calculate the applicable in -lieu fee an grant permission to participate in the program, if, Director makes 'the following findings: a) Participation in the In -Lieu Parking Program Will not create any significant adverse traffic safety impacts, pedestrian vehicl conflicts, br parking impacts. b) Participation in. the In -Lieu Patlur�g zPregra . will not 'be detrimental th public eaih,_ safety, and welfare, r`� k 2. The Director may deny r ue t to participate in the program, if the Q' •, or is utia"ble to make the findings set forth ins . bsection I "i 3. The Director kaj estrictt the applidwa s participation in the progra if t• e,�- Director dete nines that.such restriction is necessary <to =make the findings set forth in subsection 1. : �-r . 4. The Direr ar s "decision shall tei~n.: . 'ting, and shall Be" served "ups x r ap licant b certed m il, return requested E. Appeals: The decision of t `Director maybe appealed to th -!Planning Commission by aggrieved person, in the time and manner provided in ArtiEle 29.4 of-Chapter 28 of 0 I. P ymentss oL�-in-L -ie „Parking Program Fees shall be made purFsuaff &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 Maim 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 hall 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 ruCOhOl UMM & >n U= Pmkb2p Staun.CC sraffIiepad 34 1 Provision ofl.., rrmation — Alcohol Licenses and In -Lieu Parking Issues, Main Street Speck Plan Area City Council Staff'Report December 12, 2005 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„ , se on any other property. 1:4 Requires Additional Off- Street Parking Spaces: Should the use of -any property within the Mai Street Specific' Plan Zoning be' proposed for expansi • n, enlarge§11ew'use ent structural alterations, intensification or co versiE Uda which requires additional off -stre parking spaces. the owner, lessee or sublessee o property shaiH provide the required additional off- -s t parking, eithe on -site, within 300 feet of the properly on wh'chtlae buildi g is located, or through payment of in -lieu aiiR g £ ogram fees, or additional in -lieu parking program fees,. as required by this Article. , I. AcceDSr- ce of Terriis a t Provisions 1 app 'ICant's panic ation in the progranW %sfKn not becomWER, cfive, and a c e ificate of occupancy shall of be issued unless and until° the participant first executes nd submits for recording on fhetitle to the property a covenant accepting the terms of theap � roval, in a form to be prow ded by the City Attorney. kkzaid ,covenant shall be recorded a the office of the Orange ounty ecorder and shall also; T maintained in the office the CI'e J. Viol ors urns J- b v I='me and Imprisonment. Any person, firm of coTpoiat o� n 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 At more than six months, or both such fine and Alcohol Licenses & In -Lion Pzdft stm.ee Suff Repay 35 Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit 09-3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 CUP 09-3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 16 12 -12-05 Wes er Avenue, and for public utility services. The Director clarified e bonds are id by a special tax assessment that is leveled on rfvate properties that ncluded within the boundaries of the CFO, a future purchasers of the 'ness park development parcels and bull ' s will pay, as part of their tax bill, the ciai lax assessment. Yost moved, second by La to adopt RE RESOLUTION OF THE C17Y NCIL OF ESTABLISH CITY OF SEAL BEAC OMM' 200541 (PACIFIC GATEWAY BU IN— C LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN C FACILITY DISTRICT NO. 2005-01 (P IC By unanimous consent, full reading esolui AYES: Antos, Larson, , Yost NOES: None ABSENT: Ybaben Yost moved, s nd by Larson to adopt RESOLUTI OF INTENTION OF THE SEAL H TO INCUR BONDED IN C F SEAL BEACH COMMUNI , IFIC GATEWAY BUSINESS�C,E,�M readinq of Resolution Number 54�s w AYES: Antos, Larson, Levitt, Yost NOES: None .ABSENT: Ybaben The City Manager 'to °tt_coettcu cna ITEM 'AA"- I COHOL LICENSES IFS= I SPECIFICiPLAN The Diredtcf of Development Services slated staff has.provided Council with information Isa Planning Commission considered regarding licenses ;o ansion of existing licenses f license. Council concerns and staff responses: o High cririi' area — Department of Alcohol statis the 2001 census — Old Tow The Citlr trash °more current information an ,. would n..b 'considered a high crime area n mber 5415 entitled °A OF SEAL BEACH TO FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. AND TO AUTHORIZE THE EAL BEACH COMMUNITY VAY BUSINESS CENTER).' nber 5415 was;E ivedZL:, ion carried 1 ?, Rtumber. titled °A `1C0 GILOF ;T E OF IEDNESS WIINI�[ PROP D LITIES DISTRIC N0. 200 ° By unanimous consent, full Motion carried pproving eu,parigg — The way wdinances are constructed, it gives the Directory oiment Senn the authority to make a written detenont4 aQl�eatperiod — it goes before the Planning Commission if an appezt rs flied'within the 10 day period. a In -Iieu parking does not create any new parking spaces and only Impacts public and residential streets — Cal'ifomia Coastal Commission does not recognize in- lieu,parking and has different parking requirements. o 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 iiference between bars and dinner restaurants that provide hard liquor with eals. Want to help establishments to be successful. anningz Commisslon should not turn down a request just because they .f uQ liquor licenses. P" ud ru blem with the Conditional Use Permit with regard to granting liquor licenses is that the license runs with the property and the establishment changes and can operate using the old establishments approved license. 1�, i 12 -12 -05 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 .�.; The Manager said that the resolution Joint Po Agreement (JPA) between it (RMC), Stat astal Conservancy, the Ci Beach to esta the Los Cerritos W:etiar a member of the uncil to serve on!- resolution is to app r a In November 2004 Pursue the formation restoration of the wettanc that can take title of the p too large of a pr? for of all the interes1W., 6' project to rest�`the wel of Long Beach Authority (Aut iority Board of .fund the Ct JPA to assis `'inn ea. One obstade. and manage it o agency to her n ffl � . e ability and $25,()Rq�a year there after value of rvices of any employees emphasized that this agreement would b I that an %&f the agencies would have. many yW re to accomplish and the ity a a c3 restora%m� not only the water quell perspe requested that he be allowed to s e an the A termed out afoffice that the ncl appoint attend _ rrteetmgs and will tinue to repre be done but'ttfd% the JPA has beer Seal Beach, after Conservancy woL be meeting in Jar the wetlands unti Cerritos W elan I as the altema not only hav shield the Citv.ir City to enter i9 )n o appoint .The other are of the JPA th anzed staff to in, planning, and need for an entity i restored. This Is mbined resources L„cpmplexity of the hope of reston&Khe wetlands ation of the wMands will take al has a self interest in the rbut an environmental project, gity Board but since he will be Itemato that will be able to t e City after he leaves — he H also stated that this is a Y as how the restoration will any II 111ty. The formation of K bytheR;thd City of Long each and the City of 'I adapts *wft - w►aproposed resolutio the State Coastal e the° Drily gency left to approve this j t effort (they will r). The money has not been allocated fo he purchase of entity is formed to accept the tiffe, this w d be the Los hority (JPA). Yost moved, ecofid by Larson, to adopt as amended Resolution Nu er•5417 entitled °A SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY SEAL BEACH, C IFdkNIA, APPROVING THE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS DINT EXERCI OF`'POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF L BEACH, tTY``QF LONG BEACH, STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY, D THE .R EAR AND MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY.- Amending Section 2. reads" onze the appointment of City Council member Paul Yost to represen of Seal Beach to the Board of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority and au es the appointment of Mayor Pro Tern John Larson as the alternate.- By un lmous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5417 was waived. Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Pern7it.09 -3 210 Main Street April 8, 2009 ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT PLATS CUP 09 -3 210 Main Street PC Staff Report 17 y B _ Y _ ft G I�p �KmMMU�Ie - - _ .J Nllfrhlu PM�lll�l /,T, EU _ ®d �� • _ ■ ■ *I 0 - El b a Q 0 II I BI �� — �nm�i��mn ®rrdnmi ©uo��uuenmm7uomncm - ©11'�IGIIIIclllll ®Im111111711 Eu�l�nn�lnpnu�umm�mm� 0 1T111 1 21� E, E C ATTACHMENT DEVELOPMENT