Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

one commissioner missing tonight. Yes. Uh Mr. Luhan. Um did he did he call you guys too? Mr. Luhan, he texted me this afternoon. He's trying to fly back from Mexico City. Um, recording in progress. Okay. So, yeah. Okay. You are aware of it because he did text me and so forth. So, um, okay. The April 16th regular council me regular council, the regular meeting of the planning commission will now come to order 6:31 p.m. U please rise. And would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance on there? Place your right hand over your heart and begin. I pledge alce to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Um, and with the planning commission meeting, I'd like to just do a short invocation. Um, good and gracious God, thank you for the gifts you give us each and every day of our lives, of our faith, family, and friends. And tonight, as we meet as a planning commission supporting the city of Downey and all our residents, please give us uh strength and wisdom to do what's right for those who we serve and for the goodness of all the people here and uh and for those who are less fortunate, please be with them tonight, especially during this Holy Week. In your name we pray. Amen. Amen. Okay, great. And Rio, would you uh please take the role? Yes. Commissioner Luhan excused. Commissioner Sakali here. Commissioner Legospi present. Vice Chair Uva here. And Chair Gara, I'm here. Thank you. So this is the time set aside for oral communication from the planning commission. Does any commissioners wish to make a statement report on a

conference meeting or request for future agenda items? I'll start. Uh vice chair. None for me. Okay, Mr. Sley. Uh nothing for me either. Mr. Legosi, I have none, sir. Okay, great. All right. Um, presentations. Uh, do we we don't have any presentation. Does the community development director have a report on any city council action or any other general updates? Um, yes. Uh, Chair Gara, just wanted to let you know that item number one, which is a public hearing item, uh, will be continued uh tonight. And uh that item uh we've communicated with the applicant and the property owner so they're aware of that. Uh staff will be working with both parties uh to see if that item would come at a later date and if it does it would require a new public hearing uh that would be noticed. So that so tonight we only have one public hearing item, the zoning text amendment. Thank you. Was that at the request of the applicant or the request of the the applicant is aware of it? Yes. No, not aware of it. The request of the applicant. Um there there's a technical technicality with their application. So they are immunable to the the continuence. Okay. But we notify them of the technicality. Yeah. Yes. Both parties have been notified. Okay. But did we catch the technicality and then let them know about it? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Um Okay. So now is the time set aside for public hearing. Um, PLN25000043. Does the planning uh commission secretary RIA have proof of publication? Yes, I do. Great. Will the community development director introduce staff making the presentation? Uh, yes. Tonight, we'll have Lindsay Ortega, our planning consultant, providing the presentation tonight.

Good evening, Chair Gara and members of the planning commission. My name is Lindseay Ortega. I'm with Sage Crest Planning and Environmental. Before you today is a zoning text amendment for a city initiated request to amend article 9 of the Downey Municipal Code regulating the location of bars, taverns, pubs, nightclubs, restaurants, I'm sorry, and restaurants with live entertainment. On January 14th, 2025, the city council directed staff to initiate a zoning text amendment to regulate the location of businesses whose primary function is to is focused on the exclusive sale of alcohol or restaurants providing live entertainment. Council's direction included amending the Downey Municipal Code to require a minimum 500 foot buffer with with from sensitive uses such as schools, childc care facilities, senior centers, and hospitals. Per the city council direction, the buffer would apply citywide with the exception of the Downey uh downtown specific plan and the Downey Landing Prominade specific plan areas. There are 13 businesses operate currently operating as bars or restaurants with live entertainment excluding those operating in the downtowns Downey specific plan and Downey Landing Prominade specific plan areas. Nine of the 13 bars listed in the table shown and operate operate with a 10 type 40 and 48 ABC license. Of the nine bars, seven also provide live entertainment. Four of the 13 businesses are restaurants with live entertainment operating with a type 41 or 47 ABC license. None of the 13 businesses identified in the table on the screen operate as a nightclub. In 1933, the federal

government gave exclusive jurisdiction to the state over the sale, purchase, and possession of alcoholic beverages. In California, this regulatory authority is vested in the department of of alcohol beverage and control. Though the cities do not have the authority to regulate liquor licenses, they have the authority to regulate ancillary aspects of alcohol sales, including land use. An example of a locationational standard is established is establishing zones which bars and other similar uses are permitted or prohibited. In addition to establishing zones, cities may also um include buffer distances. As a local example, the Downey Municipal Code currently prohibits live entertainment businesses within the CP zone from locating within 100 ft of a residentially zoned property. The city council direction is to prep was to prepare a zoning text amendment focused on the regulation of businesses whose primary function is the exclusive sale of alcohol and restaurants providing live entertainment. The Downey Municipal Code land uses that most closely correlate to the council's direction are the following categories: bars, taverns, micro breweries with food and drink, light nightclubs, and restaurants, cafes, coffee establishments with live entertainment. In accordance with city council direction, the proposed zoning text amendment would establish a new 500 foot buffer requirement for businesses that are classified as a bar, a tavern, a pub, nightclub, or restaurant providing live entertainment. The distance would be measured from the property line of the sensitive use of the property line of the parcel of the new proposed bar, tavern, pub, nightclub, or restaurant with live entertainment. This requirement would be incorporated into

the Downey Municipal Code as per the text shown on the screen. This language would be included with the with within the notes and exceptions in table 9.35 commercial zones use regulations of the Downey Municipal Code. To determine the impact of the proposed zoning text amendment, staff overlaid a 500 foot radius from public and private schools, child care centers, hospitals, and city operated senior centers on the city map. Analysis analysis of the map shows there would be several properties on Telegraph Road, Firestone Boulevard, Imperial Highway, Paramount Boulevard, and Lakewood Boulevard where future bars, taverns, pubs, nightclubs, and restaurants with live entertainment locations could be could be established. In council district 1, there are three locations with one location currently being legal non-conforming as it is currently located in the C1 zone which does not permit restaurants or alcohol uses. The other two establishments would not be impacted by the ordinance. In district two include in district two, there are two existing establishments, one of which is currently legal non-conforming as it is also located in the C1 zone. Establishment number 12 would become legal non-conforming as a result of the ordinance as it is located within 500 ft of a school. In council district 3, there are five existing establishments, none of which are currently legal non-conforming. However, establishment 1, 10, and 13 would become legal non-conforming as a result of the ordinance as they are located within 500 ft of an identified sensitive use.

And in council district 4, there are three existing establishments. However, none of the locations would be impacted by the proposed 500t buffer. Further analysis of the city map with the radius overlaid shows that the five of the 13 existing businesses numbered 1, 3, 7, 10, and 13 would be classified as the legal non-conforming uses. should the city adopt the ordinance as proposed. In addition, there are currently two existing businesses, as mentioned previously, that are classified as legal non-conforming uses due to their location within the C1 zone, as these uses are no longer permitted in that zone. As with all legal non-conforming uses, they would be subject to the provisions of the Downey Municipal Code section 9410. Per that section of the code, non-conforming uses are not permitted to expand um the use, increase the size of the tenant space, or relocate to another tenant space except if the new location meets the minimum buffer requirements or is located in an area that does not have any restrictions for that particular use. As with all non-conforming uses, they are permitted to continue operations provided that they are not discontinued for 180 days or more. Currently, the Downey Municipal Code does not provide a definition for a nightclub. To provide clarity within the Downey Municipal Code, a definition for a nightclub will be added to the Downey Municipal Code section 9418. The proposed definition is consistent with the definition that already exists in the city's land use documents such as the Downey downtown muc municip I'm sorry Downey downtown specific plan. Additionally, a modification is

proposed to provide clarification to def a definition of the of a bar in section 924. It would be proposed to be modified to add a section in under in the underlying text or in the blue text um on the screen which would add clarification regarding andor live entertainment and a bar shall mean the same as a tavern or a pub. Additionally, as part of the zoning text amendment, minor clarifications are proposed to definitions of uses correlated to the city council direction, which include the bars, taverns, and pubs, nightclubs, restaurants with live entertainment, as well as micro breweries with food and drink, and cafes, and coffee establishments with live entertainment. Micro breweries with food and drink are currently categorized together with bars, taverns, and pubs. The definition for micro breweries and and brew pubs is proposed to be modified to reflect the existing Downey municipal code requirements that are that the use must offer meals regardless of the ABC license type within DMC section 9314.04 04 in the commercial zones use regulations, micro breweries with food and drink would be renamed to micro breweries and brew pubs to match the existing Downey municipal code definition in section 946 as part of the zoning text amendment. The definition shall be modified to remove the section shown in the strikethrough on the screen and add sections shown in the underlined text on the screen. And there are no microbururies currently operating in the city. Microburies are proposed to be identified as an independent land use designation separate from bars, taverns, and pubs and would not be subject to the

500 ft buffer distance requirement. Similar to cafes, coffee establish and coffee establishments, micro breweries with food and drink do not focus primarily on the exclusive sale of alcohol and therefore would not be subject to the 500 ft location buffer. At the direction of the city council, the proposed buffer requirement excludes any businesses within the downtown specific plan and the Downey landing specific plan. However, the Ranchelos Amigo specific plan, Lakewood Firestone specific plan, and the Stonewood specific plan would require a specific plan amendment to add the 500 buffer buffer requirement. A subsequent ordinance will come before the planning commission and city council at a later date to make modifications to the Ranchelos amigo specific plan um Stonewood specific plan and the lake Lakewood Firestone specific plans. Modifications to the city's specific plans requires the city as a lead agency to consult with California Native American tribes prior to amending a specific plan under Senate Bill SB18. Notice inviting the California Native American tribes to consult on the proposed amendments were sent on April 7th, 2025, and the item to amend the specific plan will be forthcoming at a future planning commission and city council hearing. The proposed zoning text amendment is exempt pursuant to sequest section 15062 as it would not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable physical change to the environment. And on April 3rd, 2025, a notice of the pending public hearing before the planning commission was published in the Downey Patriot and mailed out. staff received one comment from one of the current establishment owners requesting to understand how

their site would be impacted. The bar in question um with live entertainment is already a legal non-conforming use at is as it is located in a C1 zone and therefore would not be impacted by the proposed ordinance. Staff recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution number 25-40447 recommending approval to the city council of a zoning text amendment to section 931404 of the Downey Municipal Code to regulate the locations of bars, taverns, pubs, nightclubs, and restaurants with live entertainment and to section 9124 to modify definitions of a bar. and to section 9146 to modify the definition of micro breweries and brew pubs and section 9148 to add the definition of a nightclub. This concludes my presentation and I am available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. I do I wanted to start out with a couple questions. We got we have the copy of the letter here from that establishment. So you said it's illegal non-conforming now. Yes, it's located in a C1 zone. Okay. So, what does that mean exactly? So, with or without this particular ordinance, um the establishment already um is restricted from expanding or um relocating within that C1 zone. If they chose to um move to a different location that allows for that use, then they would no longer be legal non-conforming. But at that location they are non-conforming. Okay. So does that also we had this questions when Dar can I expand on that just for clarification. Um table three in the staff report shows uh current where currently bars are permitted. Um and so the reason that it's legal non-conforming is because in the C1 zone

it's currently not a permitted use. Back when it established it probably was. The code has changed since then. So I just wanted to provide that clarification. Thank you. Thank you. It just brought up a lot of qu I mean these questions I kind of want to ask these questions in general not just about this particular project because we have this issue with the smoking uh you know uh establishments and so forth. So, I want to make sure. So, this Okay, not talking about the Glenn specifically, but if you have one of these establishments, you're saying they can't expand. And how about if they want to sell, can they sell to a different property owner, another business? Yes, they're able to sell. They'd be able to continue operations unless at any point they cease operations for more than 180 days, then um their legal non-conforming status um is vacated. But as long as they continue to operate, they can they can sell um and continue to operate at that location. Okay. And if the place next door to them opens up and they want to take it over, can they do that? If they're located within the buffer zone, no, I'm talking about just an establishment. You forget the Glenn, but another one right now that's going to be impacted by this ordinance. Okay. So, we're saying that the day after the ordin passes, the the place next door is now available. So, they can't buy it and expand their bar. No, as currently proposed, they would not be able to expand. Um, unless that part Yeah. No, they would not be able to expand cuz that was an issue that we had. Just further clarification on that. The businesses that would not be able to expand are the ones that are within uh within 500 feet of a sensitive use as defined by the council's direction. If you were um a new business that came in and were not in the buffer zone and then subsequently wanted to expand, those businesses could expand. Okay. Well,

what I'm saying is this is the same issue we had with the smoking. It's exactly the same with the smoking uh locations on there that originally in the and we changed it that night here on there that if if you couldn't you know the same thing you can't you can't buy the place next door now under one of these locations on here. So what we did we changed it on the smoking that these people were grandfathered in. So all I'm saying is I understand we don't want a new one. Okay. But if I own one of these establishments and I've had no issues with the law, I've had no complaints, I've been a good citizen and so forth, and tomorrow then opens up, you're taking my right away from expanding my business. You're taking some property away. So, is this something that we can discuss that's what the planning commission wants to do? Yes, it's at the pleasure of the commission for your deliberation to consider what's before you and we can and to look at changes in it possibly to grandfather some of these businesses in that that recommendation would be at the pleasure and discussion of the commission. Okay, great. Thank you. Is there and this was I understand that the city council uh I saw that the you know directed to do this but has there been any problems or complaints bes I you know we hear the general complaints oh we have too many bars you know but is there any was there any issue cuz the smoking one there was no issues we just wanted to do that and on this one here has there been issues within those C1 during the two um meetings that we had with the city council um in I believe in April of 2024 before and then in in in January prior to that um there was general discussion about um having uh sensitive uses being lo uh bars and uh live entertainment being located in proximity to sensitive

uses. And during the discussion with the city council, as we were discussing what was being considered as a sensitive use by the council, uh city council, it was further defined that it was uh concern over schools and daycarees and proximity of these locations to um areas where children um would come by. So that was the concern. As far as a specific location, there was not a specific location that was discussed uh by the city council, but rather uh the subject matter of of uh regulating in the future that these loca businesses would not be uh so close to uh places where uh children uh would be on a regular basis. And I understand that then. So, but I guess what I'm asking is so there wasn't an issue on any particular one. I understand we don't want any more next to sensitive issues. That's the direction of the council. But I guess my question is if we said, "Okay, we're going to grandfather these in, no new ones coming in." Is that something that the planning commission can decide if they wanted to? The planning commission can make a recommendation, but but I would um just maybe add for the planning commission's consideration that the city council wanted to lessen uh the proximity to a bar, for example, to a school. So if a business were allowed to expand, that could be that that business is expanding and getting closer to a sensitive use and that would be contrary to the council's uh direction. So that's just something you can consider. But the question at hand is can you make a recommendation to change staff's recommendation? Yes, that is at the pleasure and discussion of the planning commission. If you made such a recommendation, then uh we would somehow incorporate your uh collective um recommendation into what we forward to the city council. Okay. Could you answer

some of these questions? So, are any of these listed businesses going to be forced to close or are they grandfathered? Can we take Yes, I I'll have um Miss Swatty Mushroom answer some of these questions. I want to do the same thing. So, Chair Gera on the table number one in the report and also within the um the slide deck uh shows you locations of the 13 that are um currently operating within the city outside of the downtown Donnie area and the map. Um thank you. Um, so the ones that are shown in gray are the ones that will become legal nonconforming after the adoption of this proposed zoning text amendment by the city council. The two which are uh which have a little star next to them which is uh row number two and row number three are already legal nonconforming independent of this action. Okay. So, to answer the question on there, they're they're not being forced to close. No, none of them none of them would be forced to close. Okay. Um and they can continue indefinitely up till the point that they stop their business for 180 days. Okay. If I may just right on that point. So, numbers two and three. Yes. Two and three. The ones with the asterisk, they are not near a sensitive. They're not in that buffer zone. Is that why they're okay? They're they are still located in within a buffer zone. Oh, they are. Um well, number two is not located within a buffer zone. Number three is, but number two is in a C1 zone. Um both actually number two and three are in C1 zone. So

regardless of whether or not the ordinance were to be um approved by city council, those two would still continue to be non-conforming uses. So they wouldn't be able to expand um or continue operations if they were to cease operations after 180 days. Okay. Thank you. I have a question on the matter of expansion. Um you see a lot of these uh small shopping centers sometime the business like there's a wall separating the two businesses and what have you. um on the assumption that uh one business in this case one of those businesses legal non-conforming um has been experiencing a lot of uh uh businesses in the last several years um and it just so happened the business right next door that's separating him the wall separating him from the other business uh gets vacant. What are the chances if he wants to expand? All he had to do is knock off one wall and he expands to the other side. And now he has plenty of room for his customers. He's still within the same location. Uh maybe moved. Well, not even moving. He's just right there in the same spot. So why would that be illegal for him to expand? I understand if let's say he he wants to uh go to another location within the buffer the zone, he's not allowed to do that. But if he's expanding within within feet of his present location, why would that be illegal? So currently um as the ordinance is proposed we um or as the ordinance has been written it's from property line to property line. So if the property line if the parcel um is located within that buffer zone it would become the entire parcel would become legal non-conforming. Um and therefore expansion would not be permitted. Um and as community development director uh Hutram was saying um in this case the the it would be potentially exacerbating the non-conformance by expanding and making

that use larger if it's been identified as a non-conforming use. Um okay I'm sorry. Go ahead. I have a subsequent question to that one. Um I'm sorry. see what you did. I'm so sorry. It'll come back. You want to You want to take over? Come back. Sure. Sure. You You'll be next. Um, Miss Ortega, thank you for your presentation. Thank you very much. We appreciate you you uh being here. So, many times when people sign a five or 10 year lease agreement with a property owner, it's with the intent of them being successful, hence why they save their money and they sign a long-term lease agreement. Many times if the lease is written correctly, they have options to ex to to ex to renew their lease, usually another five or 10 years or two five-year options. Many times there's verbiage there that if the neighboring unit becomes available either to the right or to the left, they have what we call the the right of first refusal. That means that the property owner goes to them before they go to anyone else. Mhm. Whether it's to the right or to the left. So, if there's a legally binding agreement between the property owner and the existing tenant, in this case, our business, and assuming they have no issues with our local PD or or any issues with the ABC, right, within compliance uh for compliance purposes, are we are we doing the right thing by not allowing them to expand their current footprint like my fellow commissioners said, to the right or to the If they're successful, why are we stopping them from being even more successful if they're bringing tax sales revenues to

our city and no one's complaining? I I think u that is a fundamental issue that we're going to have to discuss. Currently, um there would be three locations that are impacted um that are not the other two are already technically legal non-conforming. Um so they're not permitted to expand anyways under the current municipal code. So there would be three of the total 13 that are are newly impacted by the current ordinance. Um there are a number of other areas um in the city that would still be available for a new um establishment to be located. Um but for the most part the ordinance was drafted in a way um that uh per direction from city council based on concerns of the current locations that are non-conforming um or I'm sorry that are existing that are in close proximity to sensitive uses that were identified by the council. So the from direction from them um the ordinance was crafted in a way that would potentially um ins insulate I suppose those um sensitive uses identified sensitive uses. Thank you for that. Thank you. I'll just I'm sorry. Go ahead. No no I go ahead. Yeah. You know, it it just it seems a little unfair to the lease, if you will, that signed that lease agreement, and they have every option. They have every right to ex exercise that option to go to the right or to the left, and now we're saying no, you cannot expand your business. It's it just doesn't feel right. Um so I I think there's I think there's room for for more discussion on that. Um, sir, if if I may, if I may, Chair Garrett, just a quick recap, is that the when the city council discussed this item, and I have the dates now, April, April and 2024, and again on January of 2025, uh there were seven options given to city council on how to potentially uh

address the concern that was being brought to the council. Um creating the buffer zones was only one of those um choices. There was other other choices that would have uh not uh created uh legal non uh conformities which we uh described to the city council. They were aware that buffer zones would potentially create uh legal non-conforming uses. Um and uh some of the other choices were to continue to require the businesses to apply for a cup and that the city would have operational standards uh performance standards related to noise and adverse impacts to sensitive uses. Um that was just another buffer another uh option just for example. And so, um, in considering the various options, the city council really was looking at, uh, reducing or eliminating the proximity from sensitive uses to the bars and and live entertainment. Ultimately, um, I think that the the topics that are being brought up to up until now, I think were brought up during the city council meeting during their deliberation and discussion. Um, and so their direction ultimately was to create the buffer zones which they were aware would create legal non-conforming uses. So I just wanted to provide that context. Thank you for that. You you mentioned there were seven of them. Could we could we go through each one real quick? So one one is obviously what we're discussing. The second one is a conditional use permit. What would be the other five that were brought up as options? Um I could I could look up that report right now and um if we want to take a couple of other questions I can pull up the report and go over them. Thank you. So but we again with the direction but did they specifically say we don't want to have a

business be able to expand next door? I mean I guess what I'm getting at is like if we didn't have a chance to vote on this or to make amendments and why are we here, you know, kind of thing on there. So I I mean I I do feel that that's unfair. I I understand that. I'm not quite sure the direction is specific to exactly that. That's the only or or maybe it is, but I I it doesn't it's inherently unfair what he just said. Okay. For a business not to be able to, you know, I understand the Glenn, but if Donna's Cleaners next door, both businesses have been there for 30, 40 years have been there. So, if Donna's Cleaners goes out of business, that the Glenn can't knock down the wall doesn't seem right. And you're saying they already can't do that, right? But when did that happen? Um, I believe as of 2008. Okay. So, they cuz I believe the Glenn's changed ownership since then, but I mean, and they can continue to change ownership um even with their non-conforming status. It's only if um let's say they stop operating for for the 180 days. and then maybe a year later another um operator wants to open back up. They if they come back in for um their business license, they would be told they wouldn't be able to operate at that location even today in present day. But okay. Okay. But but it just seems inherently unfair to to to do that. Chair Garrett, I just want to let you know that as staff um we're conveying the message. Sure. Um I'm providing additional context. Um if it's the desire of the commission collectively during your deliberation to make an alternate uh suggestion for recommendation uh we'll work with you to achieve your goal as a commission. Um I think uh Chair Garrett to your point uh

you are reviewing it for a reason because you have uh greater bandwidth now during the public hearing to discuss it um under the land use uh umbrella that the planning commission has. So I just want to let you know as staff we do appreciate your feedback and the reason that I provide you uh the history of the city council is just to provide you the context. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody since that initial thing of April 2024 that any new businesses open up in the city that would have like hey you wouldn't have been able to do this under this ordinance staff is not aware of any such new business chair Gara okay so it hasn't been an issue we just don't want it to to become an issue I guess right it the the city this this is not a a a staff initiated amendment This is a so the city council as per my earlier uh uh discussion on this is um they didn't specifically uh ask us or we didn't bring in any data that said these establishments are creating an issue. It was rather the city council wanting to uh create in the end a distances between a sensitive use uh and the establishment so that children would not be exposed and see and be near the uses was what their uh message was to us. Okay, I get it. Certainly question. Did you did you remember the question? Um besides the one I forgot but um was there any uh study to determine uh the distance the actual distance um from the businesses to the to the required buffer zone? Um are they 490 ft, 495 ft, 300 ft? Was there any any

dimensions any distance measured determined? Yes. So we overlaid um so we took a a map of the entire city and then mapped all of the um identified sensitive uses that city council requested. So they went through at their April 24th, I believe it was 24th meeting um um in 2024 and identified which uses they were concerned with um that felt were sensitive uses. And that was identifying um child care centers, hospitals, um city initi or city operated um senior centers and schools. And we mapped all of those and ident and created a 500t buffer around every one of those uses in the city. And then we went and we identified through business um license records all of the existing um establishments that again were also identified by um city council as uh uses of concern and that included bars, taverns, nightclubs um and uh restaurants with live entertainment um they operated with live entertainment. So we mapped those uses throughout the city and then identified in what proximity those uses would be to the sensitive identified sensitive uses and that's where we we had our 13 um um identified establishments and that's how we identified whether or not um those uses would become non-conforming because they're located within that buffer zone. We did that in particular to identify how impactful the ordinance would be if it became um an ordinance that essentially made it impossible for any type of of restaurant with live entertainment or bar alcohol um type use to come into the city. Then we knew that that 500 foot buffer was infeasible and would not be um would essentially be a prohibition of those types of uses in the city. Um, in this

case, there are a number of commercial um sites throughout the city that could still operate and have um these types of uses still locate without being considered non-conforming. Okay. Um I want to clarify something. What took place on in April 2024? Uh there was a city council meeting in April um that initially brought the seven different um options before the council. Uh council requested that um staff begin the research to identify um um potential ways to regulate these types of uses. So staff came before um city council in April of 2024 to present options for regulating these types of uses in the city. Um, and then from that uh discussion, staff then went back and mapped all of these sites, identified potential impacts to those to to sites being able to locate or establishments being able to locate within the city, and then brought forth three additional options um or or three um more limited options to the city council. And those three options that were discussed in January of 2025 included a 500 foot buffer um establishing a um no change to the existing um ordinance leaving it to the conditional use permit process to the um zones which permit it. And then the other option was to add um locationational more locationational um code requirements to that cup process that would give some discretion to the planning commission to be able to decide okay this location is within that 500t buffer so we're going to apply additional hours of operation or we're going to provide uh um apply uh other types of um conditions of approval that may more better insulate those types of

developments from impacting the sensitive uses. And with that, the city council selected to go with just the um 500t buffer that would essentially prohibit those um uh types of establishments and uses from uh locating within that 500t buffer to sensitive uses. And when was that decision made? Which city council meeting? That was uh January 14th, 2025. Okay. Um, what I'm leading to is this. from April 2024 to January 25. Was there any notification to any of these businesses that uh the city planning to modify the city code uh and um placing maybe placing a buffer at any time at all or you just sent them on April whenever you sent them the uh the notification? public notices for the hearings were sent out um for both city council meetings um at that time. I can clarify those those were not public hearings. The uh yeah I can clarify the January 14, 2025 and the April 23rd, 2024 city council meetings were what are called administrative reports and those are for discussion with the city council. It's an agendaized item where the city council can uh openly discuss a specific topic without violating the Brown Act, but is not required to be a public hearing because at that time there was not a specific amendment to any code being considered. It was simply for them to be able to deliberate openly without violating the Brown Act. And so at the April at the um January 14th at the January at the April 23rd 2024 meeting um the various options that were presented to them and I think I might have misspoken earlier. I think I said

seven. I'm looking at the staff report right now and it's actually uh first option was um for staff to potentially um to continue to require CUP to operate a bar. Um that was option no change would be required to the zoning code. Option two was to establish buffer zones um for businesses that operate as bars with the exclusive sale of alcohol uh focusing on those with exclusive sale of alcohol, nightclubs and live entertainment uses. Um and this there was no set uh buffer distance u provided by staff but rather staff because this was a discussion item. uh we uh let them know that when based on our preliminary research of other cities, there was a wide range that could be considered. Um and that was a subject of discussion during the city council meeting. Um possible discussions for them pointed out to them for that evening was to discuss what potentially would be a buffer zone and what that distance would be. Um, we also advise them that there would be a creation of legal non-conforming use where uses would be uh limited and being able to expand and also if they were to cease operating for more than 180 days that that would be a factor in determining whether or not their legal non-conforming use could be continued. Um, we let them know that if they selected that option that staff would prepare uh the ordinance specifying the requirements for buffer zones. And so subsequent to that um they asked us well let me finish the options. Another option was for staff to research and provide recommendations for developing best practices that provide operational and performance requirements and guidelines in order to streamline the review processes. Examples of these topic areas would be hours of operation, lighting, security measures, sound attenuation and noise monitoring services to name a few. This option was presented as an option that wouldn't

really would work in conjunction with the existing CUP requirement and it would uh serve as a tool where we could specifically uh address uh in advance um by creating performance standards of any um potential adverse impacts to uses. But that was not the option that was selected. Another option was uh that we provided to them that evening was to explore zoning regulations that would limit zoning districts in which the the uses, bars, nightclubs, and those with live entertainment would be allowed. That would require that staff research the zoning districts and provide options for uh which zones they would uh continue to be allowed or not be allowed. Um but that option was not selected as well. We let them know that if they selected that option that our research and findings would be presented to the planning commission. And then the last option was just to continue to require CUP as specified by the zone requiring no buffer zones and no op no specific operational standards that they would be standard that would be set forth through conditional conditions of approval um unique to that specific conditional use permit application. Um and uh that that was uh the end of of the options provided to the council on the meeting of April uh 2024. Mr. Cyclley, I think I can answer the the short question is no on there to your question regarding that there was nothing there because there was nothing to really present to them. That's true at that point. So, we're here presenting these to these businesses that as of whenever this uh extension of the code gets adopted, you're going to write them a letter that you can no longer expand, blah blah blah, whatever the case may be for for the the new um a new language that you're going to be putting in the code. Now, if I'm a businessman and I have a business and um I'm willing to

expand my business, it's going to take me some time uh to draw plans. I'm going to let's say whatever I need to do next door. Uh draw some plans, get a permit from the building and safety department, get it approved and get into the construction and expand my business. How long do you think that's going to take? My estimate would be between between one maybe two years at the most. Was any of those if none of those businesses were notified at that time and they were planning to expand now they cannot because the new municipal code language. So in reality we are actually um uh not allowing to expand and not not generate any additional revenue. In order for this to happen to adopt this language, there should be a a grace period for the businesses if they're willing to expand. You have to apply for a business or building permit within the next six months. expand build with the next 24 months. Anytime after that, you're not allowed to do anything because we already gave you plenty of time because all these business all this work requires time and you're not giving them that time. How however if you put that kind of requirement the the place next door may not be available within that six months to whatever that time period is and then it kind of it's null and void for them because it's not available. They can only act upon it when it becomes available. Well, we can we can also come back and again it's our discretion to make the recommendation that um these businesses are grandfathered in just like we did with the smoking the tobacco stuff the tobacco thing because that way they they have that opportunity and you

know I'm looking back at this could you tell us what the sensitive areas you said hospital and that just kind of surprised me what what are the other sensitive areas hospitals so the sensitive um uses that were identified by city council um during their April 2024 meeting um included hospitals, uh senior centers operated by the city, um uh schools which include private and public schools and childcare centers. Okay. I mean, you know, you obviously understand that schools and everything else, but you know, I don't know. If I have a place next to PIH, I guess, you know, 500 feet, I guess it's be hard to get anyways, but Okay. All right. Um, so can you go back on that list again one more time of the places there? No, the one that we just showed of all the Yeah. 13 places. The 13 places and so forth. And and the only Yeah. Go back one. Okay. So the only reason I'm saying is like number six. So number six u I happened to go by there again over the weekend because 9514 next door it was originally a public hearing location. So I went there and I walked around and so forth and then I realized that same old saloon is right next door to that and and so forth. How is that I don't understand what the sensitive area is. That couldn't be any more commercial to me on that corner. Firestone and and uh Old River and Stewart and Gray. Stewart and Gray and Firestone. So, how is that how is that close to a sensitive area? I'm sorry. Um number six is not located near a sensitive area. So, it's Okay, that's white. Yeah, it's white. So, it's it's not identified. It wouldn't be the legal non-conforming use. Um only that the um items in gray. Okay. So, gray. Okay. sold Gloria's Mexican restaurant over there up in up on floor. You know,

I guess there's houses back there behind the thing on there, but they haven't had an issue. Well, anyways. Okay. I believe Gloria's is um is because they have live entertainment. Um and they are located near a school. What school is Gloria's by? That's on right. That's on Florence. Um so it's and actually in this map um the buffer zone's not shown but it's up on uh 13 there's a um well that's more than 500 ft. The the blue thing way over there. No, not that one. It's it's not um unfortunately the Oh, I don't know what I did. Okay. Is it is Oh, it's on the bottom. No. How do I make it red? Okay. It's unfortunately this map um was not the latest map. It's missing the buffer, but there is a buffer zone um here. What? Well, it's not a public school. There may be a child care center somewhere in the neighborhood or something like that because there's nothing of these uh senior center schools or child care hospital that Yeah, I believe it's a private school. Unfortunately, I don't have the list of the schools um with me. I can pull that up though. Um, but that's that's what would make it a a non-conforming use. And you're talking about 13, number 13 on the screen, right? Okay. We just didn't put the blue thing in. Yeah. I unfortunately um there was a change that got made to the map and the buffer got left off, but that'll be corrected for the next meeting. Okay. Can can we answer some of these questions because I understand now you're saying that the Clinton since 2008 and so forth, but I want to know for the other ones on there. So, uh, question number two, what happens if a new sensitive used business open within 500 ft of existing bar that has an entertainment license? So, and there it

can't where you're basically saying a new business can't open up. What happens if a new sensitive use business on there? Okay. Within 500. So, you're saying that can't happen in number two. Number three, will any of the listed businesses be losing their entertainment license? So, the answer is no. Okay. All right. No. What kind of changes should we expect in the entertainment license? So, basically none. You just can't expand on there. Okay. No changes now. Okay. So, none. I'm just like I said, I know that this was specifically asked by one order, but it's so pool tables, dart boards, and other coin operating machines are okay, but what about TVs and Z boxes? Uh there there whatever they're approved for under their live entertainment um license um would continue. No, there are no changes to their operations that are proposed. The only proposal would be that if you are located within a buffer zone, um you wouldn't be able to expand. Okay. And that's you're talking the physical location, not the internal. Like in other words, if I have five TVs and I put 10, that's not an issue, right? Of course. Uh that would be determined by their live live entertainment license. But um so whatever they it is. Yeah. Okay. Is a jukebox usually considered live entertainment? Do you know? I can answer that question. Uh so uh live entertainment TVs and juke boxes were to be not be under the um cup classification of live entertainment. That would be under a police permit that requires um entertainment of that type uh to um obtain a police permit. Thank you. Okay. So can we go back to the list again? I just want to make sure the one with all the the other ones on there. Okay. So, okay. So, the white one with the exception of two, the five of the 13 business would

be legal non-conforming as a result the ordinance on there. So, what does that mean? So, what is Again, I'm just using same old saloon just because I happen to drive. I've never been inside there. Um same old sharers. Uh just to clarify, 13 businesses are not all becoming legal non-conforming. This is just a list of 13 businesses that are existing within the city. Only some of them will become legal non-conforming and those are shown in gray. Okay. So, okay. So, okay. The same old saloon as number six. Look down here real fast. Okay. 66. Where's So, six is located down here. Okay, that's well in our screen it's right where the the teleprompter thing works on there, but okay. So, I see it down here. Okay, so there's just outside of of a buffer zone. What's the buffer there? There's um a school. Oh, a bunch of Kirkwood about away a couple blocks away. Okay. All right. But that's in a private residential area cuz Okay, cuz I'm just looking at it. It's like, you know, if they if the car wash closed down next door, they can't expend expand next door to that. Um, they may be able to um just because they they aren't considered legal non-conforming and there is a commercial portion of that property that um is also outside of the buffer. Um it just depends on property lines. um because the ordinance was written unlike the tobacco ordinance which is written um from tenant space to property line. This is written um from property line to property line. Okay. Okay. I have another question actually on on ironically um question number six. Would we be able to expand to the next door suite? Brings you to my earlier what I

was talking about. Now, let's assume I have this business right here and you're not going to allow me to expand, but the next suite is couple hundred square feet larger than the one I have. Can I just relocate? It would depend. Um, if you're a legal non-conforming, um, you are really legal non-conforming. You're now legal non-conforming. So, you're one of the three that will become legal non-conforming as a result of this ordinance. um you would not be able to expand into the adjacent suite. Um if you were if you're one of the units or the businesses that is already currently legal non-conforming because they're operating in the C1 zone, they wouldn't be able to expand regardless of whether or not this ordinance were to be approved. If you're one of the other um eight, if my math is correct, um locations that are not um within a buffer zone, then you'd be able to um expand as long as you're not expanding into a suite that is now um well, and actually it's as currently written, it's property line to property line. So, if you're a a legally established um establishment that does not have um is not located within one of the buffer zones, you'd be able to locate and expand into the adjacent suite. That we understand. Now, I I have a question. Did did the city notify these specific businesses uh via a letter or just uh we just floated a uh a public outreach uh you know in the newspaper and what have you? Yes. Because it seems like we we um we uh we followed the municipal code requirements which is we sent them a public notice and we also sent the the business um a notice as well and that was done last week. that was done u per the slide on April April 7th. We can

pull up the slide to show the date that was shown a week ago. So you sent him a week ago tell them you no longer be able to expand and we're going to change the municipal code or what? Uh no the notice um would have said that it's coming before the planning commission for a recommendation. Um and then the planning commission would make a recommendation to the city council. So, the city council will then um review this item and the c uh planning commission's recommendations and have a discussion as well and decide whether or not to approve, modify, um or not move forward with the ordinance as written or or modified by the planning commission. Um and then at that point, uh there will be a second reading. So, it'll come back for a second reading to another council meeting. Okay. So, it's gonna take two readings. Okay. So I in fact that now these businesses were never given the opportunity to pull a business license or I'm sorry to build a a building permit uh if they want to expand prior to this uh acceptance of the amendment of the code. They now once they receive the letter they their hands are tied. They can't do anything. Well, in other words, you you need to give them time if they want to expand prior to the acceptance of this code. They should be able to do that knowing knowing that they will not be able to expand thereafter. You need to give them some time to do that. If you're not giving them enough time, you only give them 30 days. What's he going to do with 30 days? In the meantime, let's assume you notify the business and say, "Oops, I better go pull a building permit because I plan to expand." He goes out to building permit. Oh, I'm sorry. We can't you can't expand because uh it's u the municipal college has been adopted and you can't do that anymore. you just skill this business. And the planning commission can decide to um amend the ordinance and um and add a provision such as the one that you're um recommending as a recommendation to

the council for their consideration and and to determine whether or not to to include that in the adopted ordinance if they do choose to adopt the ordinance. Could you go back to the list again, please? I'm sorry. That just speaks volumes to me. I apologize. Would you do you want to see it on the map or do you want to see it? No, no, that's okay. That's all right. I mean, for the moment. Yeah. Okay. So, so it could be our our discretion to recommend that all 13 of these are grandfathered in. So, I mean, what does that mean? In other words, you know, I understand the purpose of not wanting to add more bars and restaurants and stuff, but we're saying Gloria, you've, you know, you've been here a while, okay? many years, right? You own a couple establishments on there, so you're grandfathered in, whatever that means. Okay. Uh, and some of these other I mean, again, unless there's been an issue from the legal standpoint or from, you know, uh, too many police calls or we're selling alcohol to, you know, whatever I'm saying is I' I'd sure like to when we get to that point, I guess, consideration on there, but we can do that if we want to. I'm not saying you're saying it's okay to do that. I'm just saying we can do this. The planning commission can make a recommendation at your pleasure. Okay. Okay. So, and and and technically what would that mean if we said we're going to grandfather these? So, the white the two exist are currently on there five of the existing 13 would become legal on forming in the as a result of the ordinance. Okay. So, that would be the gray ones. One, two, three, four, five. No. Right. And and it's somewhat misleading in that um technically two and three are already legal non-conforming. Right. Right. But and what's the blue? There's no code on the blue. The blue

is the blue actually designates nothing in this chart. It was supposed to be white, blue alternating rows and then when we added the gray shading to show the ones that will become non-conforming, it kind of lost the the formatting on it. Okay. All right. So really to to be paid attention to is the gray which becomes which would become non-conforming white which would continue to stay. So will the blue. It will continue to stay because it is outside the the buffer zones. And the only other thing to bear in mind would be rows two and three which have little asterisks next to them because they're already they already Okay. All right. But what I'm saying is so 12 kind of a Tropicana. So they want to you know make it nice now and take over the rest of the shopping center and we're going to say no you can't even though it's not an issue on there. the one that they can 12. They can they can take over the entire shopping center if if that's the route they wanted to go in the future because they're uh white. They are unaffected by this action. It's just the gray locations. They're not in a buffer zone. They're not in a buffer zone. Okay. And and just to um chair Garrett, if I may, and your discussion regarding which um locations are affected by legal non-conforming um just based on your reference of past uh action by the planning commission where there was a recommendation to change um the staff's recommendation, the ones that you would focus on would actually be the gray, but would exclude number three. number three is already legal nonconforming because it's not permitted in the zone. So that's that's something that's not being newly uh they would already not be able to expand because they're in a non-conforming zone. So that this this action really

would be to prevent uh by this staff report uh prevent any based on what the planning commission is saying prevent any businesses from becoming uh from attaining or or having the new legal non-conforming. So it would be locations one 7 10 and 13. And and just to clarify, Miss Wr, the blue means nothing. That technically should be white. That technically should be white. Should be correct. Thank you. Yes. So So if the guardsman number five, you know, buys the the burger place next door, they can expand there. They're not within a buffer zone. They're not within 500 ft of a sensitive use. So they would be able to expand. And that one seems to be more sensitive. There's houses. Yeah. And just as as a reminder, the the actual location is not the sensitive use. It's what is near them. Is there a school, daycare, hospital, senior centers as defined by the city council as being a sensitive use? But so but residences is not the city council did not define residential uses as a sensitive use in this case. So you can although um next although uh there is already currently a buffer of 100 ft um to residential from a uh CP zone. I'm sorry we were talk I didn't hear what you just said. No, it's our fault. I apologize. Can you repeat that please? There is an existing municipal require municipal code requirement for um locations located within a CP zone that they need to be situated 100 ft away from residential and that would be for live entertainment only. I was going to say for live yeah entertainment guardsman on there is you know 25 ft away from residents. Yeah. So as they're operating currently they're fine. if they were to um want to add in um live

entertainment that would be prohibited, right? Because of the noise factor. Yeah, it makes sense. Yeah, it makes sense. Okay. So, really just to cl if we could please go back to that one chart that chair Ggera loves and we all know it makes sense. It's just it's a place. Yeah, we're looking at the big picture. really we're just talking about five locations that would in essence be affected if this was to be um four locations because number three in essence is already falls within those guidelines. Understood. So we're talking about four. Okay. So yeah. So the four are number one 7 10 and 13. Yes ma'am. Thank you. The purpose of showing us 13 locations was not to confuse us, was just to let us know how many we have within. Yes, that is correct. Um 13 are not becoming. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay. Any further questions from my fellow commissioners? No more no more questions. Yeah, my notes. But what I would like to say that um I would really like to amend um code and I'm I'm going to rely on our city attorney to draft the language at least maybe send these affected businesses an NOI or notice of intent that the city is planning to do whatever they need to do under the municipal code and if they have any intention to expand uh they have certain amount of days let's say 30 or 45 days to apply for a building permit. Uh if and um if they plan to expand a plan to whatever they need to move to another suite, larger suite in this case, uh they have to notify the city within a certain amount of time uh pull a building permit and construct

within a certain time of a certain period of time and complete it. I really want to give these businesses a chance. If if they don't want to expand, blend, they're not going to respond to you. But if they do want to expand, they've been waiting opportunity for that next door to expire to move in. Now they they lost that opportunity. So sir, that's great. Let's finish come back to the deliberation on why don't I open up the public hearing. Oh yeah, absolutely. I just clarify to Commissioner Seli that that that could be integrated into the ordinance as you recommend it for approval with modifications or otherwise. Um, I think what you're asking, you know, in terms of a letter to be sent to the businesses is somewhat outside the ambit of the ordinance. I I think it would ordinarily be integrated into the decision you're making tonight rather than like a separate um directive to my office or the director of community development's office to notify the businesses. The businesses were notified in accordance with the municipal code of the action under consideration tonight. Um, the city has been compliant with the law in that regard. We we can't change the code per se, but you're absolutely right. It's just not enough time. I've always complained about that that it's just it's not enough time for somebody that has their all their assets in something to I mean, it's the code, so they're legally doing it, but yeah, if you give them a week's notice or it's not. So, okay. So, um so I at this time I'm going to open up u the public hearing. There's not going to be Oh, thank you. By the way, we're sorry that you were on there and you should have drank the water. She brought you back. So, God bless you on there. So, thank you, Mr. Yeah, we appreciate it. Uh public hearing is now open. Uh may staff confirm or any uh correspondence besides the one letter here in favor opposition. We got the one letter in in opposite or questions if you will. No additional written

communication was received. Okay, great. So, um, is at this time any members of the audience wishing to address the planning commission regarding the public hearing item may come up to the podium uh, with your numbers called and there I'm looking back there. I can't see the you know it's I'm you're number one so there's nothing shorter but I'm just want to see if there's anybody after you but yes u and um uh remind speakers you have three minutes sir to listen you've been patiently waiting here so we we'll patiently listen to you regarding this item. Go ahead, sir. I think most of my questions have been answered, but I do have uh one thing with uh we've been in contact to potentially purchase one of the places that's in the gray zone. If we were to purchase and we'd have to remodel because a couple of those are older, so to speak. If we were remodeling for more than 6 months, would we not be allowed to reopen because Sure. That's a great question. Because we took longer than six months to remodel for a place in the gray zone. I mean are we so this is public hearing so are we allowed to this is not just public comment right we're not allowed to answer him we can we can hear all the the questions and comments and then staff would be happy to answer the questions uh following public comment it's just a technicality that we you know from that stand yeah I'm not quite sure yeah then about the I don't have an answer for you we will get an answer for you but can you I I don't want to speak proprietary but are you which one of those businesses are you considering you don't have to tell us Uh it stardust the uh the owner passed away um I want to say a year ago or so maybe about a year ago. Okay. Um the wife has been unsure about keeping it going or not. So we have made contact and we've also made contact in the past about potentially taking over the place, but uh the place is quite old on the inside and would need some sort of rehab to really continue on as a business to uh have

future. Perfect question for sometimes some of these things have unintended consequences. So, it's a good timing that you came up. And I guess it's the same thing, too. If my place if I had something happened, if I wanted to remodel, can I ask you what your place is? Uh, I own the Glenn. Oh, okay. All right. One of the two owners. Yes. Okay. All right. So, so yeah, I mean, we don't currently need a remodel, but I mean, if something happened or whatever, you know, you never know if a busted pipe happened or something that requires length. I don't know what's going to happen if it takes longer than 6 months if we're closed. Is that considered oh, we lose our business at that point? Yeah, that's a that's a those are great questions, Syl. The good news is evidently you can have a whole bunch of more TVs in there. I'm being sarcastic. Well, I I that question I brought up because I know under the entertainment license, live or TVs are considered live entertainment along pool tables, but uh within the reading that I found on the website for tonight, it did specifically list that pool tables and point operated games could be or still going to be okay for all these businesses going forward. Okay. But I just wasn't sure about like TVs and juke boxes. Okay, those are anything. I I think that's all my questions. Okay, good. Well, we'll make sure we'll we'll answer what happens is we'll close the public hearing and then we'll we'll answer that. Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else you guys like anybody else out there wants to speak on this? Okay. Okay. All right. Are you Katie Les that sent the email? Okay, that's what I'm saying. Oh, Kimberly, I'm sorry. I didn't have my glasses on. I apologize. Well, good question. See, we read your questions out. Okay. Um, so there's been no other one. The public hearing, I see nobody else. Public hearing is now closed. So now is the time for the uh planning commission deliberate, but I'm going to ask um community development if you can answer some of those questions. Of course. Thank you, Chair Garren.

Thank you for the question. Um, a business would be able to take over an existing business that is currently operating. They could apply for the business license under their name, their ownership, process the paperwork to essentially transfer the business to them. They can obtain and apply for permits to remodel and uh they can their remodel can take as long as they need as long as they have valid permits. We understand sometimes remodels take longer than 60 days even. Um, so I would just say um that the main thing is to maintain the valid uh payment of business license um and any uh fees for permits during that time to ensure that there is uh no ambiguity about whether or not they were uh operating or in intending to operate during that time. Um, I've seen it before. Other businesses uh take over and take some time um and we do that research and we determine that they're taking over and it just took them some time to buy new furniture or do some cosmetic work that that's not an issue. Okay. So, just to be clear from the business owner perspective here, so the Glenn, you know, two months from now they decide, hey, we we're going to spend money and redo the inside and so forth. So they go through the process and the permits and stuff like that. So they close down seven or eight months from now and they're going to have two months to redo their stuff. So that's perfectly okay cuz that goes past the 180 days. That goes past the 180 days. But we look are they maintaining their business license active? Any other permits with the city active? Have they have active utilities? Because typically businesses don't cancel their utilities that time. They don't abandon the building. Okay. Uh so if a building was abandoned and we saw there was no activity and now we have transients and we have overgrown vegetation and it looks like an abandoned building that's when we start questioning whether or not it was valid. But even in those cases we look at business license records and other city

permit records to determine whether or not it was actually abandoned. Okay. All right. And the last question I think that the gentleman asked for too I'm curious because it's a gray one is number one the stardust. So under this scenario, if if it got sold, the Stardust sells to somebody else on it's okay. It's okay for me to purchase the Stardust uh on Firestone. Is that okay? The Stardust can uh a new person can become the new owner of the business being that it's a gray in the gray row, which means that it would become a legal non-conforming use. What it would mean is they would be able to take over the existing floor area of that tenant space, but they would not be able to expand, add another 50 square feet, add another 100 square ft, add a whole another tenant space. They would have to stay within their existing footprint of the floor area that they own or lease at that time. Okay. But they can make improvements on it, right? They can make improvements as far as like interior modifications, tenant improvements, new counters, new floor plan configurations, uh as long as it stays within the approved land use of a bar, right? Um then we would consider it to be a continuation of a legal non-conforming use. Um in this case, there's uh we have record that it's a bar with also um no food service and live entertainment permits. So, they would need to maintain their police permit for live entertainment and any business license active. And I would just advise them that they obtain uh proper advice from the building division to make sure that all the work that they do um that may require permit that they obtain a permit for it. Okay. And and that just you just asked you just put another question on there. We'll talk about that one. Just I don't have a clue. I don't know what these are and I don't know anything about the stardust, but a a new owner comes in and they want to start selling some kind of food. So, obviously, you're going to have to go to

the county for a health uh health permit. But, is that allowed or does this ordinance restrict anything that they can do in there from that perspective? Um, in that case, that that is an excellent question. Um, no. that I would say that the sale of food um generally is that's a restaurant is not the type of use that a restaurant alone requires a CUP. It's usually the bar component or the live entertainment component that requires a cup that's considered to be an intensification of use establishing a a restaurant as long as a restaurant is permitted in the zone which in the C2 zone it would be permitted then it would be a use that's permitted by right it would be ancillary to what they have and just really from a neighborhood standpoint a business that provides food in addition to alcohol consumption is a more favored um business model. Sure. Even if it's less than 50%. In other words, so they, you know, they're going to provide sandwiches on so down there. So they're it's only 20% of their sales. They can do that because they have a type 48 license. And the type 48 license from the state allows them to sell alcohol for on-site consumption without offering food. So food really just would be something that would introduce ancillary um uh to to the to the use, right? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I was looking. I didn't know what the If they would stay within their type 48 license, but want to offer the food, then you're correct. They would need approval from the health department. They would need any uh city approvals for any types of modifications that they would need to establish a small kitchen or an area. But at that point, it would be an ancillary, a secondary use to their primary use, which is a bar, a type 48 license with live entertainment. Okay. under the type 41 right above the thing here 41 it says the sale of food is required there's only one on the in the magical 13 there

it's like elante de fry yes there so that is food is required is there yes a type 41 is typical type of license that a restaurant would have okay so that is a type 41 or a type 47 the difference between those is uh the sale of distilled spirits for on-site consumption but they'll both 41 and 47 require food service, a restaurant type of establishment. And again, it doesn't it doesn't specify any particular percentage, right? It does. It requires that um over 50% the state the state ABC Okay. has that threshold and the city just follows that threshold because that remains in compliance with state licensing. Okay. Okay. So now where are we? We're um ah is there any other questions that we have for staff based on the comments that we heard um and and so forth? Any questions or any comments on there? Because I I'm I want to I want to go into deliberation now. Right. I I I don't have any questions, but thank you for uh to the entire staff because it's been a long night and and a well put together presentation. Thank you. Okay. And if we're passionate, it's not it's nothing personal. Okay. Uh again, stab we just have a lot of questions. So, thank you. Um and this is, you know, this is a big change for 13 businesses on there potentially, even the ones that were white. Um you know, and and whether we agree with the city council or not, you know, um I mean, I think we have to do whatever we think is the right thing. So, I mean, I'm in favor of uh you I want to see how my fellow commissioners I'm in favor of grandfathering these 13 just like we did the uh the prior businesses that we did for the smoking. I mean, it only impacts five, but at least the grandfather all of these. Um I just I feel strongly that we're we're taking people's property away, you know? I mean, to to

not be able to expand next door on there, it's it's I'm a business person. that I'm here. And again, as long as we don't um we I don't have any issues. You know, if the police have to come to my establishment every week and there's been some, you know, underage al you know, drinking or I mean, you know, okay, that that's shame on me. But it's hard for me to say I I agree with what you said earlier. We're we're saying, "Hey, you're a good business person and we can't you can't expand and we're now confiscating some of your property rights uh as far as I'm concerned." So, I don't know. I I want to entertain a motion that you know and we can expand more and I want to hear what you guys think that we grandfather these 13 businesses in. Mr. Chair, just if I may interject, if there's no more public or comments or questions by members of the public, um the public hearing remains open and should be closed before deliberation. Oh, I thought we did close it. I'm so sorry. I did close it. You did close. Oh, we did. Oh, forgive me then. My my apologies. All right. I know I speak in a monotone voice there, Mr. city attorney. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for that. No, you did. Yeah, I I heard it too. Okay, good. Heard it too for the record. And um Chair Cher Gar, I I you know, going back to my previous comment, what if again the property owner has the contractual obligation to the tenant. It's part of the lease for them to be able to expand, right? And now who's is the property owner now being held liable because that the tenant is not being able to enjoy what's in writing? There's there there might be other legal issues between the tenant and the property owner that we we need to consider. So I I you know uh grandfathering all 13 of them I think makes sense to me. Yeah. Um, I concur because I think it is a contractual it could be a potential

contractual problem for the tenant and for the landlord and I don't want to be interfering in a in a business contract. They're thereby prohibiting a business owner from uh acting to the terms of their lease. We want to them to be able to fulfill their lease if they want to do something like that. If they have options to extend, we shouldn't we shouldn't be restricting that. I agree 100%. Mr. Exactly. I agree with you. Okay. All right. Well, no need to say more with that on there. Can I ask you something? So, I remember what you said about the the grade number three. Going back to the to the chart. See, aren't you glad you did this chart because it's we spent all night on this thing. So, I understand number number three, we talked about the gland and I apologize to the owners that are here that no, you cannot take Donna's cleaners evidently from a 2008 ordinance change. But why was the number two the anarchy even though it's white? Number two is located in the C1 zone which is the same um as the Glenn. They're both in the C1 zone which does not permit um restaurants or alcohol uses um in that zone. Uh the reason the Glenn is gray, which I can understand the confusion, is that it's in addition to being in the C1 zone, it's also located within a buffer zone. Okay. So the anarchy is not in a buffer zone. It just happens to be at C1. Yeah. So it may have been permitted at the time that it was originally located there. And it may not even have been the Anarchy Library at that time. It may have been a different um um bar previously. Um but at that time whenever that bar opened, it was it was allowed. Um I have a question. Thinking forward, these white um establishments, they're fine now. They're not in the buffer zone. What if a child care facility

wants to open up within 500 ft of one of those that it's not in a buffer zone now? What would happen? It would then become a a legal non-conforming use. Oh, wow. But but the child care knows that they're moving in next within 500 ft of a bar and that's and that and we're going to punish the bar a as currently written um if that we would add that buffer zone um around that sensitive use and then confirms that would potentially become 13 to be grandfather. I think that confirms our our a decision if we go that way even more now. Yeah. Wow. I'm glad. Good. Thanks for asking. Good question. Okay, Ria, make sure that that's in the minutes. Okay, this that's crazy. So, yeah, just a just a reminder that sites two and three are existing legal nonconforming um we couldn't supersede what the zone currently doesn't allow through any action. We Yeah, we're not arguing that. I like to put the Glenn on there. I haven't been there in 40 years, but uh you know, I'd like to be able to to help them out. I just wanted to point that out as you're deliberating, you know, which ones to exclude. Correct. That would not be included. Sure. Sure. Um Okay. I Is there a motion to Well, I'll make a motion that we grandfather all 13 of these here because it's the right thing to do, you know, for these businesses. And is there I think what Irma's trying to point out is that two and three we get we get it. We I mean I sorry I didn't mean it. I I understand that but I don't know I still want to grandfather this from the well from the buffer zone. I mean you know I don't want to Okay. Why if we're if they put it down for 13 and you already told us two and three we can't do anything about. I just I'm sorry. I'm just saying

I'm using all 13 because it makes it easier. That's what the charge is for the motion. Yeah. You know, but I mean, yeah, if you look at this, uh, well, because in the five it says 1, three, and seven, uh, 7, 10, and 13. So, one is the Stardust, and three is the Glenn. Anyways, I just, you know, Yeah, I like to grandfather all 13 and with the whatever the the current laws are in, which includes whatever two and three, you know. Chair Garrett, could I clarify that the um potential recommendation is to not apply the buffer zone not apply to the buffer zone to the existing businesses that are listed and those uh legally permitted upon the effective date of the ordinance. Yes, I think that's the buffer zone would not apply to these businesses and any business that's legally established at the time that the ordinance is adopted. Correct. Because I think you would make them legal nonconforming which makes it even it's just as hard. Anyways, yes, that is what I'm saying. Yes. Is that Yeah. You guys understand that? I think that that term uh that direction would allow us to uh create the right language for table table three. Uh similar to a previous action on a different day, um our recommend the the ordinance would be modified per planning commission's recommendation uh when we take it to the city council. So not applying the buffer zone to the locations listed in any any establishments legally established at the time that the ordinance is effective. Sure. Correct. Of you know my view is these 13. Well, again, what if I want to make sure too if you if you missed one on here, there's a 14 somewhere that that we missed. I want to make sure that you know, as long as it fits these categories, as I've stated it, that does

include that. So, any business listed here and any business that's legally established at the time of the effective date, which would be um 30 days after the second reading at city council. Okay. So, would it include any business that's established between now and then? Correct. Perfect. I will second that motion. Okay. So, before we vote is Okay. So, we're saying u I just take a a a gray one that would have been before. Let's take um Gloria's. So, I don't know what my question is. I guess I'm talking about so these are okay if they want to uh I don't have a clue where the love foot bar the shuttle on Imperio is but if they wanted to expand to the business next door that they got it that's perfectly okay now it's still still okay because I mean we could have before the ordinance and I don't have a clue where they're at or who they are next to the which one are you referring to Moses's butcher shop the veteran guy it's in that shopping center's market Louis's Oh, okay. All right. So, if that place Oh, I like Louis's Market down there. They got got great great burritos, don't they? I'm sorry. Sorry. Uh I didn't get this way overnight, guys. Okay. I've been working on this for 60 years. You're making me I know. Me, too. So, that that uh that Love Foot Bar and Shuttle, if they want to expand next door uh and take some of Moes's spots on there, they legally can. If you under what we're going to be voting on the the buffer zone would not apply to them which means that they would be able to expand but they would still be subject to a conditional use permit approval. Yeah. Oh for expanding just because they're a bar. Yes. Okay. That's just any bar would happen that would correct whatever laws are current. Yeah. The the buffer zone and actions by the planning commission doesn't supersede what the zone allows or doesn't allow.

Sure that makes sense. So so I just thought about something shar. So, the the way the motion is being proposed, are we saying they could expand to any of the suites within the shopping center or should we consider adding verbiage that they're they could expand either to the right or to the left of their existing location? Well, if they're going to be exempt from this, they can expand on that location from what I understand to any other suite, any other shopping center. Well, no, I don't think any other shopping center. the the the concept of expansion when it comes to land use matters before the planning commission is that a business has a specific footprint for example suite 101 and assuming sweet to 102 is next to them they would expand their floor area to include that additional suite 102 into their suite 101 that is in land use matters that's what we typically look at as expansions perfect so that so it it's it would be irrelevant further to sorry further the interruption. Uh it would be irrelevant whether it would be to the left, to the right, to the back, as long as it's immediately adjacent and incorporated into their floor area as one business. Perfect. Okay. But it's got to be immediately adjacent. So, you know, again, I we're using hypotheticals. I want to get on there. So, that left love left foot is next to Louis Moyes, but in the same shopping center way at the other end, there's now two locations that came. I want to close mine down here and go take those two not immediate adjacent. Are we is that is that legally permissible I guess is what I'm saying is is I understand if they move to a new buffer area that's you know now within 500 feet of a hospital I guess. Um but it doesn't have to be immediately adjacent. It has to be in that same shopping center. So if you're talking about business named business A

right is now not liking suite 100 they want to move to suite 300 which is on the other side of their site right can they transfer and move that's a whole that does not fall under what is being discussed tonight okay that is that is would be a new location and a new location would be subject to ensuring that that new location is not within the sensitive uses this buffer zone and most likely it would be if it's within the same shopping center shopping center. Hence why I No, but that's okay. So that's a good question. So sweet 300 is is totally different but it's still now we grandfathered them in but is that grandfathered come in to a different part of the shopping center? No, it would be considered a new legal a new use and it would be uh subject to the new requirements. So the difference in a way is expanding the use where they are currently located versus relocating the use. I think what I'm understanding the intent is to allow them to expand if the opportunity came up. Um but now we're also discussing should we allow them to relocate to a different different location even if it is within the same plaza. Okay. And that's what I'm asking on there. So you're saying no they can't do that. So they would not be able to do that as being proposed or as we previously discussed. And if that's something that the commission would want to consider, I would ask that you continue this item so that we can give that some thought and come back with some language because that would be a different from what we've been talking about and and staff would need additional time. I have I have a question on on the on the table here. Maybe clarify something for me. It says here five out of 13 existing business would become legal non-conforming as a result of the

ordinance 1 3 7 1013 and so on. At the bottom it says two existing businesses are currently classified as legal non-conforming non-conforming two and three. So three is already uh legal non-conforming but up on the top you're saying three would become legal non-conforming. Which page am I misunderstanding something? Which page are you on? Yes, sorry. Which page are you on, Commissioner? On the screen right now, and I apologize for that. It is a little um confusing um in that uh three is uh unique in that they're legal non-conforming because of the zone that they're currently located, which does not permit the use um as it exists today. Um but also now in addition to that they've got a double legal non-conforming in that there would now be a buffer applied to it. So um as it stands today without the ordinance they cannot expand they cannot um cease operations for 180 days or else they lose their ability to continue to operate. Um but if the ordinance were to be approved that would add additionally add that buffer um that they're within that buffer zone. So, I I'll I'll edit this for the next presentation so it's not as confusing, but that was the intent was to say five of these locations are in buffer zones and two of um the establishments within the city already operate with a legal non-conforming status. Thank you. Okay. and Chair Garin, uh, Commission, I would add that by not applying the buffer zone to all these locations and any that exist at the time the ordinance becomes effective, sites two and three would still considered be considered legal non-conforming because they're in the C1 zone and the use is no longer permitted. So, those two and three would still not be able to expand. Okay.

[Music] Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Okay. To repeat the motion, please. I I think it was to grandfather these 13 per se obviously I understand two and three but to grandfather the businesses that would not have to uh from the buffer zone uh there so they're grandfathered in um if we don't want to have to call them legal non-conforming they're just grandfathered in chair I think everyone on uh realizes what you mean by grandfather but I would just um recommend that the motion as made incorporate the language that director um had indicated so that staff has the direction it needs to in order to advance the matter. Okay. Could you repeat the language then? Yes. Uh for the record is that the motion would include a request that the ordinance uh be drafted in such a way that the buff the proposed 500 ft buffer zone does not apply to the existing bars, nightclubs, and restaurants with live entertainment, including those listed in the planning commission staff report today and any establishments ments in these land use categories that exist at the time the ordinance becomes effective. Okay, that's perfect. Yeah. Yeah, that's okay. We all on the same page. You guys understand? Okay. So, just clarification. That's the legal ease. I like grandfather, but Okay. I mean, understood what? Yeah. Okay. So you want to grandfather him in as as not being affected by the by the buffer zone. Correct. Okay. Uh if we do that um what happens afterwards? What happened to these businesses when you apply the buffer zone? We would not apply the buffer zone. Commissioner

Psychi. The buffer zone would not apply to these businesses. Okay. They can expand. There's no there's no restrictions as long as they expand. expand just like it is today. There's no difference. Totally different. Okay, that's great because I I did see the example of the stardust. That's kind of what I was leading to earlier. If the person wants to expand, give them a notice. If that's the case, if you want to remove that restriction, uh by all means, then yes. And and to just to make sure we're 100% clear, Miss Witro, we're saying they're able to expand the buff by not applying the buffer zone. The by not applying the buffer zone, it means that they would not uh be subject to having to become a legal non-conforming use that they would be able to expand their use. And we would make sure that that language is included appropriately worded in the packet that's uh the ordinance that's forwarded to the city council for their first uh reading. I want to make sure Mr. I'm sorry that that is all we have in the city that would have been legal non-conforming. Uh unless we find some other business later. Oops, we forgot one. Um sorry. Yeah. Do we include that also as part of that or yeah through through the chair the the uh upon planning commission's request I have provided the language uh don't ask me to repeat it right now because I may not be able to repeat it as eloquently as earlier but um the language that I suggested for based on hearing uh the deliberation of the planning commission um included language that said um includes any business that is illegally operating on the effective date of the ordinance, which means it's 30 days

after the city council approval. So, it would include not only these, but any business that's legally operating on the effective date of the ordinance. Okay. But I'm I'm so basically to me what this what we're passing tonight is saying, okay, these and and if we forgot one and Lawrence on there and stuff, it just it's it nothing happens differently to them. I mean, they still have to comply with all the regular, you know, what have you, but there there's nothing. It's no different than it is today for them, you know, whatever. Okay. Right. Okay. Are we good with the deliberation on there? We have a motion in a second. So, at this time, I'm going to call for the question on there. So, yes. Motion passes. 40 and one absence. Thank you to my fellow commissioners. This next one will not be very long. Thank you. We won't have multiple colors. Multiple colors. Yeah. 1 through 13. Uh can I have a motion to approve the consent calendar, please? I'll second it. Okay. Um anybody if there other discussion, please vote. Okay. Didn't go through. Um, motion passes 40 with one absence. Okay. Well, thank you folks. I mean, I know it was, you know, I I you know, the time went by pretty quickly, I guess, because we had we were all engaged. If if you have the baby tonight, it's his fault. Okay. So, God bless you on there and and thank you. I think we we deliberated enough that and I I think you see that we're all pretty pro businesses here. We want to make sure our businesses are protected in the city. Do you have

anything else further? Uron I do not anything that you like to bring up? Uh no, thank you. Okay. No, thank you. Cuz we he doesn't want a question off of it. So, okay. There being nothing else on there, our planning commission meeting is now adjourned. All right. Yay. I know it's a process. I feel sorry. Let me introduce myself to you folks out there.