Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Council Report April 1, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Council Report

April 1, 2014

To:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From:

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator

Submitted by:

Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Subject:

Consideration of Urgency Ordinance NO. 2014-03 of

the Ci ty Council of

the City of Carmel- by-the-Sea Adopting a Moratorium on Approval of Use

Permits

for New Wine Tasting Room Establ ishments for a Period of 45

Days

Recommendation:

Adopt Urgency Ordinance 2014-03 establishing a moratorium on approval of Use Permits for new wine tasting establishments

Executive Summary: On March 25, 2014, the Plann ing Commission held a special meeting and discussed the City's Wine Tasting Room Policy. The Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a moratorium on approvals of Use Permits for new wine tasting estab lishments.

An urgency ordinance has been prepared for the Council's consideration {Attachment A). The moratorium would allow staff to process revisions to the City's existing Wine Tasting Policy (Attachment B) prior to approving new wine tasting establishments. The ordinance would exclude from the moratorium any Use Permits that prior to April1, 2014, have been deemed complete for processing. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 (Attachment CL the urgency ordinance shall expire after 45 days unless the City Council grants a time exte nsio n.

Analysis/Discussion: On March 25, 2014, the Planning Commission, on a 4-0-1 vote, recommended that the City Council adopt a moratorium on approvals of Use Permits for new wine tasting establishments. The Commission's

motion included

establishments that had been deemed complete for processing by City

sta ff shou ld not be

subject to the moratorium . The Commission also

a recommendation that Use Permits for win e tasting

provided input on potential revisions to the Wine Tasting Policy.

1

108

The moratorium is intended to allow sta ff to make revisi ons to the Wine Tasting Policy to refine and clarify the policy. Staff currently anticipates that revi sions to the policy would require 1 or 2 meet ings of the City's Wine Tasting Room Subcommittee, followed by hearings before the Planning Commission and then the City Council.

In recent year s, the City ha s seen a mar ked increase in requests fo r wine

tasting establishments. Since

total 18 applications for wine tasting have been submitted, an d 11 of which have been approved. Five of those applications were submitted in 2014, and over the last few months, the City has also received an increase in inquiries regarding potentia l new establishments.

the poli cy was adopted in June 2011, a

Currently, there are eight pending wine tasting room applications. Of these, three have not yet been deemed complete for processing, three have been deemed complete and are tentatively scheduled for the April 17, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, and two have been appealed and are pending review by the City Council.

Alternatives:

Staff recommends that the Council adopt Urgency Ordinance 2014-03 to

esta blish a moratorium on approval of Use Permits esta bli shments. Staff further recommends th at the

only those Use Permit app lications for new wine tasting establishments that have been deemed complete for processing. Fina ll y, staff has included language in the ordinance to clarify that staff work on applications subject to the moratorium would be suspended. This would allow staff to focus necessa ry re so urces on revising the Wine Tasting

Policy.

for new wine tasting moratorium apply to

The Council could expand or contract t he appl icabil ity of the mo ratorium. The moratorium could be expanded to include all permits for wine tasting establishments, including those that have been deemed complete. This would make the moratorium applicable to all eight pending applications. Alternatively, the Council could narrow the moratorium 's applicabi lity to exclude applications that have been submitted but not yet deemed complete. This would allow those application s to proceed through the approval process, but would not allow new applications to be subm itted or processed.

Another alternative is to have the moratorium exclude appl ications for wine tasting establishments that would have a single Monterey County

a State ABC Dupl icate 02 (W inery) License.

winery rep resented utilizing

2

109

This alternative would allow the processing of those types of applications to proceed; however, the basis for this type of an exemption would be tied to speculation on the likely outcome of the revisions to the Wine Tasting Policy, which have not been vetted by the public review process or examined by staff for legal enforceability.

Finally, the Council cou ld also opt not to adopt any moratorium at th is time, in which case staff would continue to process existing and new wine tasting appl ications according to the existing Wine Tasting Policy. This alternative would not allow for possible clarifications and refinements of the policy prior to Planning Commission consideration of such applications. It would also present challenges to the Community Planning and Building Department's workload as sta ff would need to simultaneously process new wine tasting applications as well as revisions to the Wine Tasting Policy.

Fiscal Impact:

Staff work to process the urgency ordinance, any future extensions, and process revisions to the Wine Tasting Policy would be a part of the Community Planning and Building Department's operations and budget, which are supported by the General Fund.

Previous Council Action/Decision History:

The City's existing Wine Ta sting Policy was approved on June 23, 2011.

Attachments:

• Attachment A- Ordinance 2014-03

• Attachment B- Wine Tasting Room Policy

• Attachment C- California Government Code Section 65858

Reviewed by:

City Administrator ~

City Attorney

Administrative Services D

Asst. City Admin.

D

Dir of CPB

Dir of Public Svcs

D

Public Safety Dir

D

Library Dir

D

Other

D

 

3

110

Attachment A

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL

URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2014-03

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE No. 2014-03 OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON APPROVAL OF USE PERMITS FOR NEW WINE TASTING ROOM ESTABLISHMENTS FOR A PERIOD OF 45 DAYS

WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a unique coastal community that prides itself in its community character; and

WHEREAS, the City's General Plan encourages a balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non-local populations; and

WHEREAS, the City requires a Use Permit for certain new wine tasting establishments;

and

WHEREAS, on June 23, 2011 , the City adopted a Wine Tasting Policy to guide the City's review of new wine tasting establishments; and

WHEREAS , the existing Wine Tasting Policy was developed to

recognize the demand

for establishing wine tasting facilities but also to recognize that their proliferation could impact

the balanced mix of uses that the General Plan encourages; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the City's existing Wine Tasting Policy requires revisi ons for clarity and to better ensure compliance with the objectives of the policy and the City's General Plan; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the facts set forth herein, this ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure necessary for the immediate protection of public health, safety and welfare; and

WHEREAS, this Urgency Ordinance is authorized by California Government Code Section 65858 in order to promote a balanced mix of uses within the City; and

WHEREAS, for initial adoption of an urgency ordinance, no public hearing is required, and the urgency ordinance can take effect immediately upon adoption with no second reading or waiting period. Adoption of an urgency ordinance requires a four-fifths vote of the City Council and expires 45 days after adoption.

111

THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS :

Section One. The City hereby establishes a moratorium on the processing ofUse Permits and Use Permit Amendments for new wine tasting establishments to enable City staff to process possible revisions to the City 's Wine Tasting Policy. The moratorium applies to all such applications that have not yet been deemed complete for processing by City staff.

Section Two. If any section, subsection, or part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unenforceable, all other sections, subsections, or parts of subsections of this ordinance s hall remain valid and enforceable.

Section Three. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediatel y upon four- fifths vote ofthe City Council. This ordinance shall expire in forty-five days unless readopted, or readopted with amendments, at a public hearing prior to the expiration. This is declared to be an urgency measure as authorized by California Government Code Section 65858.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE- SEA this L day of April 2014, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ASTAIN:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST:

Daryl A. Betancur, CMC Deputy City Clerk

2

SIGNED:

Jason Burnett, MAYOR

112

Attachment B -Wine Tasting Policy

Purpose

Wine Tasting Policy

(Adopted 6/23/2011)

To establish guidelines for the review and approval of wine tasting facilities in the Central Commercial and Service Commercials Districts in the downtown.

Policy

The General Plan encourages a balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non- local populations. The Planning Commission recognizes the demand for establishing wine tasting facilities but also recognizes that their proliferation could impact the balanced mix of uses that the General Plan encourages. The following standards are recommended and should be considered by the Planning Commission in its review of wine tasting permits:

When Associated with Retail Wine Shops and off-site Wine Tasting Rooms:

• The primary purpose of wine tasting should be to encourage patron s to purchase wine for consumption off-site. Establishments should not operate as a wine bar where the primary purpose would be for patrons to drink wine.

• In order to avoid the appearance of a bar, the wine tasting service and seating area should generally be limited to no more than 30% of the floor area ofthe retail space.

• Tasting should only involve traditional wine based products such as still wines, sparkling wines or Port, no other alcoholic beverages should be permitted to be tasted or purchased.

• The maximum serving size should be 2 ounces per serving. Customers should not be permitted to drink bottles of purchased wine in the store and no wine tasting should take place on public property.

• Light snacks may be allowed, however, appetizers and/or meals should not be permitted.

• In order to encourage diversity and maintain a balanced mix of uses, one retail location offering wine tasting should not be located directly adjacent to another retail location

offering wine tasting (not including restaurants).

establishments offering tasting should be permitted along any one block* .

Generally, not more than five

• Night time hours should be limited to no later than 10:00 p.m.

• Wines originating from Monterey County Vineyards and Wineries and locating their off- site tasting rooms in Carmel are desired and strongly encouraged.

When Associated with other Uses (Art Gallery, Clothing Store, etc.)

• All the standards listed above.

• Limited to retail spaces of2,000 square feet or larger.

*For the purposes of this policy a block would include all commercial spaces on both sides of a street located between the next two cross streets. For example, no more than five wine tasting establishments should be permitted alo ng San Carlos Street between Ocean and Seventh avenues.

113

Attachment C - California Government Code Sections 65858 and 65090

65858. (a) Without following the procedures otherwise required

prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance, the legislative body of a county, city, including a charter city, or city and county, to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, may adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time. That urgency measure shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. The interim ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may extend the interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently extend the interim ordinance for one year. Any extension shall also require a four-fifths vote for adoption. Not more than two extensions may be adopted.

65090. (a) When a provision of this title requires notice of a

public hearing to be given pursuant to this section, notice shall be published pursuant to Section 6061 in at least one newspaper of

general circulation within the jurisdiction of the local agency which is conducting the proceeding at least 10 days prior to the hearing, or if there is no such newspaper of general circulation, the notice shall be posted at least 10 days prior to the hearing in at least three public places within the jurisdiction of the local agency.

(b) The notice shall include the information specified in Section

65094.

(c) In addition to the notice required by this section, a local

agency may give notice of the hearing in any other manner it deems necessary or desirable.

(d) Whenever a local agency considers the adoption or amendment of

policies or ordinances affecting drive-through facilities, the local agency shall incorporate, where necessary, notice procedures to the blind, aged, and disabled communities in order to facilitate their participation. The Legislature finds that access restrictions to commercial establishments affecting the blind, aged, or disabled is a critical statewide problem; therefore, this subdivision shall be applicable to charter cities.

114