Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2001-02-12 1-22-01 / 2-12-01 'ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, February 12th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. o clerk I Approved: ~cdJU(~~J~ 0 ()~ 15, ~,~ c:/ City Clerk Attest: Seal Beach, California February 12, 2001 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Campbell Councilmembers Boyd, Doane, Larson, Yost Absent: None Also present: Ms. Yeo, City Clerk The Interim City Manager and City Attorney joined the Council in Closed Session. CLOSED SESSION The City Clerk announced that the City Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda, specifically, a conference with the City's real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 relating to 201 - 8th Straet, a personnel item with regard to City Manager employment pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, a conference with legal counsel relating to existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9{a), and pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9{c) a conference with legal counsel relating to two potential cases. I The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:03 p.m. and reconvened at 7:10 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items identified on the agenda, gave direction to the City Attorney and City Manager, he then recommended that the Closed Session be continued until after the conclusion of the regular meeting. Boyd moved, second by 2-12-01 Yost, to continue the Closed Session as recommended. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried I ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Approved: '-!J~~e~ g~~,# City Cle Attest: Seal Beach, California February 12, 2001 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:12 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Campbell Councilmembers Boyd, Doane, Larson, Yost Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Dorsey, Acting City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Badum, Director of Public works/City Engineer Chief Sellers, Police Department Chief Cushman, Lifeguard Department Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation, Parks, and Community Services Ms. Arends-King, Director of Administrative Services Mr. Cummins, Associate Planner Ms. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilman Yost requested that Items "C" and "L" be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration. Boyd moved, second by Larson, to approve the order of the agenda as revised. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Campbell declared Public Comments to be open and mentioned that there would be an opportunity for the public to speak to the public hearing items at the time they are heard. Ms. Juliana McCants, Seal Beach, said as a resident she wished to bring to attention the parking problem on 8th Street. Ms. McCants said she resides in an apartment adjacent to Grace Community Church, across from the Fire Station and City parking lot, upon returning from work there is never available parking, to that she suggested that consideration be given to providing a special parking pass for use of the City lot after the posted hours for persons who can prove their residency on 8th Street. She made mention that the lot is used primarily by City employees during the week, the Fire Department has designated spaces, yet the City is closed on weekends, possibly there needs to be some leniency for the residents. To a comment that the lot is believed to be available for resident/public parking from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m., Ms. McCants stated it is not. Mr. Bill Ayres, Seal Beach, noted that he has been asked to serve on the Ad Hoc parking Committee, he knows for fact that Main Street employees who are not residents use a parking permit that is somehow obtained by their employers, cars are always parked on Central near his residence, businesses should not be allowed to purchase a dozen or more guest permits and then distribute them to their employees, something is wrong with the system. Mr. Bob Rence, College Park West, mentioned that he had contacted the Council with regard to some off-road vehicle activities in the area of College Park West, Councilman Larson provided helpful suggestions, thereafter some positive meetings were held with City staff, the Police Department provided a means to access their assistance quickly, the Recreation Director is being proactive with regard to problems relating specifically to the south three hundred feet of Edison Park, that area open on a twenty-four hour basis whereas the remainder of the Park can be closed off during nighttime hours, which solves the problems within the rear nine hundred feet of the Park. To the concern as to the front area of the Park there seems to be some support and consensus for restricted access after hours by means of a pull gate at the College Park Drive entrance which would solve some of the problems, possibly the residents could help with the installation of the gate. Councilman Larson too expressed his appreciation to staff. Mr. Glen Clark, Seal Beach Trailer Park, once again extended appreciation to the Council for their effort on behalf of the Trailer Park residents, all too often Council's across the State have determined that residents of trailer parks are not to be paid attention, not this Council, it went gone beyond for the residents. Mr. Clark presented the Council with a plaque in appreciation 'for going the extra mile from the residents of the Trailer Park, thank you for our future.' Mayor Campbell mentioned having attended the Orange County Coast Association meeting recently during which the Mayor of Laguna Beach was asked how the Treasure Island project was going, the response cited the new development going in, to which the Mayor recalled that that area had been a trailer park owned by Richard Hall as well, if this City had not stepped in that could be what would have happened to the Seal Beach Park. Mr. Jerry Tone, Hellman properties, stated that he would be returning to this area later in the week to meet with a couple of State non-profit organizations regarding the 2-12-01 ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements made. I I I 2-12-01 I sale of the one hundred acre lowlands, one of the appraisers being considered to evaluate the property will also be present, this one of the first steps in a process of which there are many, it is necessary to obtain bids from the appraisers under the State evaluation methodology, select the appraiser, wait for the work to begin, have the appraisal done, the appraisal then reviewed and accepted by the governing board, finalize a contract and close, there are a lot of steps yet it is hoped this will be completed this year. Mr. Tone stated that his reminder is that the sale of these lowlands is the first of three projects, the Los Cerritos complex is likely the most important, the highest priority of the wetlands task force in Southern California, these are the Hellman, the Bryant, and the Bixby pieces, the Hellman project is far ahead of the process for the other two, of that he is proud and excited, a recent news article quoted the wetlands task force as saying there is money however no projects, these projects will be in place, and it is hoped will move forward as quickly as possible. As to a time table, Mr. Tone said it is hoped to be within the year with a willing buyer and seller. The Mayor mentioned the other two projects, Bixby and Bryant, Bryant is the descendant of Susanna Bixby Bryant, all part of the Bixby family on the opposite side of the River. Councilman Boyd noted that Mr. Tone has spearheaded this project, the first in Orange County with the exception of the Bolsa Chica, and thanked Mr. Tone for his efforts. Mr. Jack Ross, 17th Street, said he has lived in his home for three years, it has a twenty-five foot frontage, and spoke in support of approval of the Shore Shop project, it will be good for Seal Beach, will serve to clean up the easterly area of the community, the property owners have worked hard to have that property cleaned up, and it is felt the builder will build a good product. Mr. John Unrath, Dogwood Avenue, noted that the College Park East Neighborhood Association started a paper' drive about three years ago with a goal to benefit the parks in College Park East, the initial plan was to obtain new playground equipment for Bluebell Park, the program is called 'Adopt a Park'. The price of paper over time has fluctuated from $90 a ton to zero, it is now in the range of $30 per ton so about $120 per month is realized and all monies go to the 'Adopt a Park' fund, not to other programs, however the Association started to look at improvements to other parks in the CPE system inasmuch as Bluebell Park will likely be part of the tennis facility improvements. Mr. Unrath noted that the fire hydrant drinking fountain in Heather Park is old, does not work properly, parts are not available to fix it, the fountain in Almond Park has been vandalized to the point that it is no longer repairable or functional, therefore, the Association decided to use some of the 'Adopt a Park' funds to replace the drinking fountains in both Almond and Heather Parks, as of this date a check in the amount of $3,200 was sent to the drinking fountain supplier, paid from monies derived from the paper drives over the past three years, and he understands the City has already picked them up. Mr. Unrath mentioned that the next paper collection will be in the vicinity of Bluebell Park on March 3rd and 4th from 9:00 a.m. until noon, all paper, cardboard, etc. are accepted, all monies to benefit the parks in College Park East. The Recreation Director noted that installation of the fountains is the next scheduled project. The Mayor mentioned that the membership dues for the Neighborhood Association are used to fund other activities, the next membership drive is in July. Ms. Shirley Verne, 8th Street, agreed with a prior speaker that there is no parking available for 8th Street residents, I I 2-12-01 on weekends the lot is filled with non-Seal Beach people, there is a need to separate the people who live on that street and the businesses from the out of town visitors, the issue is more complicated than just changing the hours. There being no further comments, Mayor Campbell declared Public Comments to be closed. COUNCIL ITEMS II APPOINTMENT - AD HOC PARKING MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Councilman Boyd moved to appoint Mr. Bill Ayres as a District One appointee to the Ad Hoc parking Committee. Councilman Larson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "B" thru "L" Boyd moved, second by Larson, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except for Items "c" and "L", removed for separate consideration. B. Approved the waiver of reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. D. Approved regular demands numbered 30736 through 30739, 30841 through 30842, 30863 through 31103 in the amount of $842,287.69, payroll demands numbered 10662 through 10930, and 27705 in the amount of $305,143.77, the payroll liability account numbered 9000489 through 9000512 in the amount of $160,468.52, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I E. Received and filed the staff report relating to the Draft Environmental Assessment, Surfside/Sunset Beach Nourishment project, Stage 11, authorized the Mayor to sign the comment letter thereto, and instructed staff to forward this item to the Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. F. Received and filed the staff report relating to the Draft EIR - Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Installation Project, AES Los Alamitos/Long Beach - SCAQMD, authorized the Mayor to sign the comment letter thereto, and instructed staff to forward this item to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. I G. Received and filed the staff report with regard to the Focused Site Inspection Phase II Report, Naval Weapons Station, authorized the Mayor to sign the comment letter, and instructed staff to forward this item to the Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. 2-12-01 H. Adopted Resolution Number 4875 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR A 2000/2001 PARK PLAYGROUND ACCESSIBILITY AND RECYCLING GRANT PROGRAM." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4875 was waived. I I. Received and filed the staff report relating to the submittal of four applications for funding of water quality improvement projects under the Non-point Source Pollution Control and Watershed Program of the State Water Resources Control Board, and directed staff to propose the required matching funds in the proposed 2001/2002 fiscal year budget. J. Approved a professional services agreement to retain W. G. Zimmerman Engineering, Inc. to perform on-call engineering services for public works, transportation, traffic and street facilities, and authorized the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City. K. Approved a professional services agreement to retain AKM Consulting Engineers to perform on-call engineering services for water, sewer, and storm drain projects, and authorized the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "c" - APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilman Yost stated he would abstain from voting on the January 22nd minutes as he was absent from that meeting. Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to approve the minutes of the January 22nd regular adjourned and regular meetings. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson None Yost Motion carried I ITEM "L" - AWARD OF BID - POLICE MOTORCYCLE After brief comments relating to the purchase of a Kawasaki motorcyle as opposed to a Harley Davidson or BMW, Yost moved, second by Boyd, to forego the formal bidding process and authorize staff to purchase a fully equipped 2001 Kawasaki police motorcycle from VIP Kawasaki, Buena Park, at a cost of $13,357.60. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None 'Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-18 - DENIAL - EXPANDED OPERATING HOURS / LIVE ENTERTAINMENT - HENNESSEY's TAVERN - 143 MAIN STREET Mayor Campbell declared the public hearing open to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the request for expanded operating hours and live entertainment at an existing restaurant, 143 Main Street, Hennessey's Tavern. 2-12-01 The City Clerk certified that notice of the January 22nd public hearing had been advertised, posted, and mailed, the continuation of that hearing was then posted and remailed, and with regard to mailing procedures explained that resident/owner addresses are obtained from the County Assessor's parcel book and the notices are placed in the United States mail. The Clerk reported having received two communications relating to this item, one having no objection to the indefinite extension of the previously approved CUP, both expressing objection to live music. The Associate planner presented the staff report, stated that the appeal filed by Hennessey's Tavern is of two conditions which they had requested the Planning commission modify, more specifically to commence operations at 7:00 a.m. daily rather than the current hour of 11:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday and 9:00 a.m. on Sunday, also for reinstatement of the conditional use permit for live music from 9:00 p.m. until midnight on weekends and holidays. The Planner described the surrounding land uses as commercial businesses to the north and south, as set forth in the Main Street Specific Plan, and to the east and west, residential housing in the Residential High Density Housing zone. He noted a number of previous land use approvals on the property, in 1984 a variance for less than required parking as well as a CUP to allow alcoholic beverage sales, in 1989 another variance to allow less than required parking and an on-sale general liquor license, the property initially received CUP 92-13 for live entertainment in 1992, the current CUP, 98-18, was for an interior remodel and new outdoor dining area, one of the conditions of approval of that CUP was to remove the land use entitlements of CUP 92-13, the ability to provide live entertainment, the applicant agreed to those terms at that time. The Planner explained that what is not under review is the ability of Hennessey's to serve alcohol, that is part of the land use entitlement from 1989, nor a change of conditions other than the hours of operation and live music, Hennessey's initially considered requesting modification of conditions other than the two on appeal, if it were the opinion of the Council to look at those modifications a recommendation could be made to the applicant to submit them to the Planning Commission for consideration, the six month extension of the CUP to allow the outdoor dining area is not in question and no appeal was filed on that issue. with regard to the request for expanded hours, the Planner offered that staff has no specific problem with that request, however it was found that there were a number of conditions, approved by the Council in 1999, that Hennessey's was not abiding by, opening for breakfast early each day rather than the allowed 11:00 a.m., the condition prohibiting all outdoor advertising for alcoholic beverages, to which they did not abide, nor the required closing of the double paned patio windows at 9:00 p.m. The Planner noted that at the time of granting the six month approval the Commission felt that due to Hennessey's not abiding by those conditions it would not be appropriate to grant extended hours of operation, and with regard to live music, as mentioned, CUP 92-13 was surrendered with the consideration of CUP 98-18. He explained that current policy with regard to live music is to process such requests pursuant to a special event permit rather than through a CUP process, the Hennessey's operation is in close proximity to other businesses and residential property, the Commission and staff feel the special event process is a good means of dealing with live music requests, conditioned and limited to three to four times a year, and even through the event process other businesses inquire as to how they too can I I I 2-12-01 I obtain permission for live entertainment, to grant a live music CUP would be precedent setting. The Planner explained the standards for review to grant a conditional use permit, in this case the answer is yes as to the review and conformance with the Main Street Specific Plan. Councilman Yost noted the three areas mentioned of non-compliance by Hennessey's with the conditions of their CUP, and inquired what action was taken in that regard. The Planner stated that he had not been aware of violation of the hours of operation issue until a resident brought it to attention, then while Hennessey's was making application for their extension they were advised that they could also make application for revised hours. To the question if Hennessey's continued to operate outside the CUP condition after being notified, the response was yes. Councilman Yost made reference to condition 16 of the CUP that states it shall be automatically terminated if no longer maintained as a bonafide eating place as defined by the ABC and as audited by the City, to which he inquired as to the ratio and if the City has conducted audits. The Planner said he could not cite the specific ratios however stated Hennessey's does fall within the definition of a bonafide eating establishment. Councilman Larson made reference to and asked for clarification of the ordinance that says for a conditional use as a restaurant the hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, yet all such operations seem to operate until 1:00 a.m. The Development Services Director explained that at the time the Main Street Specific Plan provisions were adopted there were restaurants on the Street that had previously approved hours of operation later than the Specific Plan ordinance, those operations were grandfathered and allowed to remain under their previously approved CUP's, in this particular case when the use transferred and the application proposed to open the front of the building for a semi- enclosed dining area, the original hours were retained, and acknowledged that if the business location had been vacant, to reopen would have required compliance with the hours set forth in the Specific Plan for Main Street. Councilman Doane said the indication was that the policy for live entertainment is citywide, yet there are operations that do have entertainment, is this meant to be citywide or specific to Main Street. The response of the Planner was that his understanding is that this is a City policy, the only live entertainment he is aware of is the Glider Inn, Panda Panda with a piano permit, the Surfside Taco Surf, and Spaghettini's. I I The Mayor invited members of the audience desiring to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Pat Brown, Independent processing Services, Marine Street, Gardena, was duly sworn by the Clerk as requested, mentioned his affiliation with local governments for the past thirty-four years, retiring this past year, and familiar with Seal Beach as a resident for a period of time. Mr. Brown stated that the proposed change in hours of operation are not thought to be out of order, Hennessey's is not enjoying the same rights as other operations on Main Street, why would it be that he can not open at 7:00 a.m. allowing people to have an early morning breakfast, a benefit to the public and economics as well, it is hoped the 7:00 a.m. opening will be granted. A response of the Mayor was that Hennessey's has been doing the 7:00 a.m. opening anyway. Mr. Brown said if that is so the intent to is to correct that so Mr. Hennessey can be a good 2-12-01 corporate citizen. He also submitted a petition in support of the requested revised hours and live entertainment said to be signed by some two hundred persons. With regard to the entertainment request, Mr. Brown said that would not be large ,bands or musical groups rather acoustical music performed by small groups, this is a coming trend in the entertainment and retail business, the noise would not be excessive, it is known that Seal Beach has always tried to maintain the small town atmosphere, and in fact he has mentioned to Mr. Hennessey the possibility of doing an up-scale restaurant setting on Friday and Saturday evenings. For cities like Seal Beach they need to rely heavily on sales tax for revenue generation unless the State determines to go to a per capita system, to that he mentioned that Mr. Hennessey is willing to try to increase the sales tax as well as the stature of his establishment which would be good for the City, as to the outdoor dining the area is semi-enclosed and can be cordoned off after 9:00 p.m. to prevent sound from emanating to the outside. To the mention of alcohol advertising, he said there is a mural that is barely discernable on one wall, inquiring if other Main Street merchants have similar types of advertising, there are certainly no murals as attractive as that of Hennessey's, there is however lighted beer and liquor signage that is visible from other restaurants in the immediate area, there needs to be uniform enforcement, not just single out one establishment. Mr. Brown asked that the entertainment portion of the request be continued for a period of thirty to forty-five days during which time they would approach the Planning Commission to discuss entertainment for Friday and Saturday nights, however requested that the hours of operation be extended to open at 7:00 a.m. for the serving of breakfast. I I Mr. Kai Giffin, Independent Processing Services, Fullerton, requested that the representatives of the applicant be afforded additional time for rebuttal and clarification. Mr. Giffin stated Mr. Hennessey has invested considerable time and expense to bring them into this case, with his growing regional business he has found it necessary to have representatives such as themselves to come to cities to assure there is a true understanding, which is where a problem lies right now. Mr. Giffin said there was a lack of understanding as to what was surrendered with regards to the hours, the operation moved from across the street where there had been breakfast served, the property into which he moved had undergone three to four types of graduated uses but did not include breakfast, then a six month review period came about, that was missed and it went to a year, the local manager felt all must be okay if no review was requested, all of their paperwork is valid, there are no restrictions to be posted for the public, therefore breakfast was being served, however, upon notice by the Planning Department Hennessey's ceased serving breakfast, and since that time they have realized an economic disadvantage to the other businesses of similar use in the City, that is unfair and unjust. Mr. Giffin said when they were called in they reviewed the paperwork, even for them it was not easy to unravel the conditions, they had never heard of a six month review period in that the City is empowered to look at each business license annually, I Mr. Bill Ayres, Central Avenue, was duly sworn by the Clerk. Mr. Ayres stated he could contest many things that have been said, for one, Spaghettini's is about four miles up the road, not a similar neighborhood, nor is the Surfside Taco Surf, 2-12-01 I there is considerable alcohol on Main Street, the Street has changed since the 1960's and 1970's, people on the streets disturb the neighbors, particularly on weekends, entertainment can not be tolerated, if one location is allowed they all will, recalled that Mr. Hennessey said he would be running an up-scale restaurant, he did not know why there was a need for a CUP, which, given his business experience he knew what a CUP was" there was no misunderstanding of communications, he did not abide by the regulations of the CUP, this request should not be granted, especially the entertainment. Ms. Juliana McCants, 8th Street, noted she has already addressed the parking issue and behavior in the evenings especially when alcohol is involved. Ms. McCants said she and her husband are also business owners, to say that one does not know something is an unacceptable answer, it is one's responsibility to know or to get the answer, one manager of the Hennessey's establishment, when asked about the posting of the CUP, said he did not know, when told it needed to be posted, it was not, not the next day or even in following weeks, the closing of the patio at 9:00 p.m. issue, the answer again was we did not know, the mural, the response was that they could paint over it. Mr. Hennessey owns a number of establishments in other towns, he needs to step in and manage his own businesses, this is Seal Beach, it stands aside from others, people work hard to protect that, people are lucky to be able to come here and enjoy the town the way they do, it is known that they are doing breakfast, not closing on time, and not known if the CUP conditions are posted even yet. The Council appoints the Planning commissioners then there should be trust in their decision, they listened to everyone, their decision is believed to have been to not ask for extras when they have not been abiding by the rules, yet the Commission generously gave them a six month extension to allow them to show that they will abide by the rules and respect the town. Ms. Lisa Woodruff, Seal Beach business and property owner, agreed with a prior speaker that Mr. Hennessey has been in the restaurant business for a long time, he knows what a CUP is, it is unlikely that he did not read it, also, he agreed to take over the hours of papillions, he can not say he did not know. Ms. Woodruff said it is of no concern to her whether or not Hennessey's is open for breakfast, what she cares about is when any business does not follow the rules and gets away with it let alone gets rewarded for it, bottom line is that Seal Beach is responsible to enforce the rules, the people are present to assure that the City does so, what good is a CUP if no one enforces or follows them, then why should any other business follow their CUP or any other rule since no one is taking the responsibility to enforce them, the six month review was missed, it is the nearby residents and business owners that suffer when that happens, are they the ones that must make sure the rules are being enforced. Ms. Woodruff noted that the Planning Commission went through this, heard both sides, and decided fairly, Hennessey's was let off easy, for all of the violations of their CUP they are lucky to have gotten just an extension and not had it revoked, their manager had no words to cover their violations so now they have hired a public relations firm, it is good they did that because they need someone to teach them about public relations, not someone to plead their case. Ms. Woodruff requested that the Council consider their decision carefully, the decision will set an example to all existing and future businesses, this will either tell all businesses that the CUP is to be taken seriously and obeyed and if not they will be revoked or put on probation, in her opinion when I I 2-12-01 there are violations there should be a fine, or turn away and ignore the CUP violations, letting businesses get away with whatever they want and then reward them with extensions or worse ,yet more lenient CUP's, it is up to the Council to determine if businesses should be rewarded for bad behavior, this will be setting an example for all, this would not be taking place if Hennessey's had followed their CUP for the first year and be considerate of their neighbors. Mr. woody Woodruff, Main Street business and property owner, two doors from Hennessey's. Mr. Woodruff said before coming to Seal Beach he was a bar/restaurant manager, he would have been without a job had he allowed his operations to deal with a town as has Hennessey's. He stated he is pro-business that are responsible and not predatory neighbors, he like others were told that Hennessey's was a family restaurant and spoke for them when they wanted to locate here, what came in was a bar with habitual noise and related problems. Mr. Woodruff described various occurrences that he observed of Hennessey patrons at their previous location across Main Street, then Hennessey's appeared before the Council stating they wanted to come back to Seal Beach as a high-end restaurant with a patio in their parking lot, not on Main Street, yet what came was hamburgers, the patio on Main Street, and the most open bar on the Stree,t, it can be shown that to be a successful business it does not have to be open to the street or serve breakfast, that can be seen by the most successful restaurant in Seal Beach who is also an good neighbor, and of those he has talked to most people would have protested if it had been known it would be another open bar to the Street, yet neither he or they received written notice, in his opinion the noticing process needs to be looked at. Mr. Woodruff said when walking down the sidewalk there is merely a thin divider between the bar and the street and he has observed food, etc. going out onto the street, there is no constant supervision when alcohol is served, the beer sign remains, can be seen from the other side of the street, the patio doors are not double paned as they were to be, however Hennessey's did follow their hours but only for one month, then, they opened and closed as they chose, including the patio. Mr. Woodruff stated those are not the only problems, Hennessey's built a concrete ramp over the alleyway then a steel rack for beer kegs, then a fifty gallon grease drum, trash from one side of the alley to the other, garbage bags, not recycled materials, this required alley travelers to get out of their cars to move the materials, another problem, delivery trucks, deliveries to another restaurant takes ten to fifteen minutes, to Hennessey's thirty to forty-five minutes, the manager has been observed talking to a truck driver who was blocking the alley for forty-five minutes and then invite the driver in for lunch, they do not even allow a small truck to park in their lot, they prefer to block the alley, too, there are sixty-five parking spaces off the alley behind businesses that people can not access, in addition there is smoke from the roof mounted vent. Mr. Woodruff made reference to this issue being before the Planning Commission, they seemed to understand the situation, they spoke of a revocation hearing, Hennessey's has not complied with the rules, to reward them is a total mistake, they have brought in a highly paid public relations firm, they will be paid and gone, Mr. Hennessey knew his contract, he broke it, this should be revocation if nothing happens. Dr. David Rosenman, 8th Street, said Hennessey's has a history in Seal Beach, in the past the ABC and the Fire Marshall had to be called in, this organization never seems to understand, they knew the terms, they just do not care, their customers are bothersome to the I I I 2-12-01 I neighborhoods, and asked that the community and the Planning Commission be listed to and that the appeal be denied. Mr. Myron veron, 8th Street, said he would not like to Seal Beach move towards hooliganism as is seen in Huntington Beach. Mr. Dale McCants, stated he and his wife are business owners, they try to maintain the rules that the City set forth for their business, Hennessey's needs to do the same, the Council needs to listen to the community, businesses can not be allowed to run the City. He said he owned restaurants in Texas and Louisiana, had his business padlocked because he opened a half hour early, it took considerable time to have it open again, Hennessey's should get the same kind of treatment, fine them and it will get their attention. Ms. Gail Ayres, Central Avenue, stated she had spoken before the Planning Commission and brought letters from others requesting that Hennessey's be denied. Mr. Jeff Edson, owner of property two houses away from Grace Methodist Church, their home is built to the back of the property to the alley, said he has had to call the Police Department on more than one occasion because of disturbances by Hennessey's patrons, his concern is with the possibility of live music, an increase in the number of incidents, a direct impact on his family, and requested a vote against an extension of evening hours and live entertainment. There being no further comments, Mayor Campbell offered an opportunity for rebuttal comments from the representative of the applicant. I Mr. Kai Giffin, Independent Processing Services, stated that the mural to which comments have been directed is an artistic mural which was approved in the original CUP, if that was surrendered during some change the applicant was not aware. with regard to the operation of businesses by the applicant, said that Mr. Hennessey has confidence in his managers, the CUP was posted, posted where all rules for employees are posted in the locker area, except that the license for health restrictions, etc. is on the front door. He claimed that a Commissioner accused the applicant of falsehoods, one Commissioner could not recall if the applicant was present, requested, or was aware of the meeting at which the surrendering took place, also, there has never been a bouncer hired or working with Hennessey's at any time, as to deliveries, those to the opposite restaurant are quicker because they have two forty foot roll-offs that are allowed for storage at their back door, that makes it easier to unload, also, there can be no complaints relating to music because there has been no live entertainment, this request is not for entertainment that would be amplified, at this time they are not even asking for music at all, only the extension of the hours. Mr. Giffin said it appears that fourteen years in this community has not been enough for Mr. Hennessey to be appreciated as a member of Seal Beach, his managers and employees are from Seal Beach, half of the people who signed the petition in on week were from Seal Beach, the others from outlying areas which in fact helps the economy, yet Mr. Hennessey is willing to work with some of their other clients, their firm is not a public relations firm, they are facilitators and lobbyists, they represent six cities with regard to waste management, Mr. Hennessey is willing to discuss with staff how to alleviate traffic problems by working with a firm to commence a shuttle service, he also has the financial capability of stepping forward and possibly negotiating with Bank of America for rights to segregate their parking, to segregate parking that is enjoyed by all is not necessarily what would be wanted, as he speaks, they have discounted speaking directly to the market because that is I 2-12-01 close to entering escrow, at that point it did not seem right to address the letters when they are not relevant because they do not know the next step of that location or the parking issue because by lease rights it is completely open, first come, first served, that is the law. With regard to debris from cigarettes, he understands that they can flow to the ocean, he personally deposits them in a container, not everyone is that conscientious. He said he has other clients that could come in and replace all of the top containers on Main Street with silicon and a screen so that cigarette debris can be removed with a scooper. Mr. Giffin said they understand the community, they have worked in beach communities, the applicant is paying for them to step forward and try to show he is a good neighbor by bringing these tools to the City, they are willing to work with the City, but it is not fair for him to not have the same economic advantage as other like and in-kind businesses, he is also willing to look at how he establishes and runs his business, their firm has reviewed and understand his plan, reviewed all of the documents and tapes, and it is understood that a commitment has been made by his establishment, therefore they are willing to discontinue drink specials within the confines of the business itself, they will highlight food specials, no advertising of happy hours, discounting of alcohol, or half- priced drinks for Monday night football, rather, highlight the food portion of the establishment. It is hoped that with the annual review of all business licenses that other businesses be encouraged to follow suit with what Mr. Hennessey has guaranteed that he will set through his business and with their firm attempting to help with that management for the City and Mr. Hennessey. With regard to the City's parking and Code enforcement, from their interview of people on the street, it is difficult for anyone to understand the parking if Code enforcement people disregard the signs posted on Bank of America as an example which says no parking unless you are a bank customer and for only thirty minutes, except, they are instructed by the City managers to disregard those signs on weekends, holidays and in the evening, it is difficult to interpret the rules or know what is wanted if a standard is being set but Hennessey's is not aware of it, it needs to be clear and an even playing field, Mr. Hennessey is not the villain, there has been a misunderstanding. Mr. Giffin said what is taken with the most exception, for someone who has been here' for fourteen years and has brought a substantial amount of tax revenue to the City, trying to participate in community activities, helping Grace Church with parking, doing good things in the community, that there is zero recognition, there is no one present for that. He said in reviewing this document it was felt the issue was clear that there is an economic disadvantage afforded their client which is not thought to be fair or right, if there is a desire to condition the request on some of the things they spoke of that is fine, they are prepared to put a fifteen passenger vehicle on the road to shuttle Seal Beach residents to and from the facility which should address some of the concerns with regard to Hennessey's patrons, that is not his intent however, it is his responsibility to make certain his bartenders and servers do not serve someone who is already intoxicated, if he did the ABC would be here immediately with a suspension. Mr. Giffin mentioned also the provision for audit, said there has been no notice of an audit, there has been no audit, it is not understood how a staff person could say that more than fifty percent of the revenue is generated from alcohol, they themselves should know if that is occurring in their business I I I 2-12-01 I yet no one has been there to check the business, and asked if a six month review is something that happens readily in this City, their concern would be whether this six month review happens constantly, if it is not, this goes a step further which is selective prosecution. The Mayor clarified that the six month review is not selective, it is done to the best of ability. Mr. Giffin responded that all cities are different, there are ninety-three cities in metropolitan Los Angeles, this process is not known. Mr. Giffin said even though the request is to postpone, with regard to the entertainment portion they are prepared to bring in acoustical engineers to make sure of the direction of the guitars, possibly pianos, also, there is provision that if the City does not want this and the desire is to change the standard, first go back to the City's stated standard with regard to Code where there is, under Section 11-49, a statute which allows this to take place, it is discerning for them to come into the City where it is said there has been an understanding, it is difficult for a businessperson to plan their future on an understanding that they have not been included in, if entertainment is not wanted then strike it and the people who have it, grandfather them. I Councilman Boyd noted that this has been characterized as a misunderstanding, item 20 of the CUP states that 'the CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless or until a City Acceptance of Conditions form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services or notarized and returned to the Planning Department and until the ten day calendar appeal period has elapsed,' therefore it is difficult to understand how Mr. Hennessey did not know what the conditions of this CUP were, he signed and notarized the acceptance and returned it to the City stating that he agreed to the conditions, Section 9 states that the hours of operation shall be established by CUP 2-89, ll:a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday, those hours are fully stated in his Conditional Use Permit which he signed and accepted the conditions thereof, also, Section 18, relqting to the surrender of the entertainment condition, it was said by Mr. Giffin that Mr. Hennessey did not know it was surrendered, however that was agreed to at a City Council meeting. Mr. Giffin responded that Mr. Hennessey understood the surrendering of the entertainment, it was the hours that he did not understand, and had they been involved they would have argued that that affords him an economic disadvantage for a like use that is enjoyed by the other businesses. Councilman Boyd said nonetheless Mr. Hennessey did sign the acceptance of the conditions, and as to the six and twelve month review, Section 35 outlines the terms and conditions as to when the reviews shall occur, that Section defines the process for Mr. Hennessey, it is not a mystery or misunderstanding or an arbitrary policy of the City or of staff, and is defined in the CUP. Mr. Giffin stated that the condition says it shall take place, it is the responsibility of the City to assure that the 'shall' occurs, if it did not occur then why should it not be the assumption of Mr. Hennessey that he has moved to the twelve month review. Councilman Boyd said it was the City who chose to exercise this option, as elected officials it is the responsibility of the Council to enforce the law, the conditions are the laws to which he must abide, therefore, again it is difficult to see how there could be a misunderstanding inasmuch as he signed as accepting the conditions. Mr. Giffin said once he was aware Mr. Hennessey went forward to cure this injustice, I 2-12-01 that the economic disadvantage. With regard to Condition 16 relating to being a bonafide eating place, Councilman Yost noted the comment that there was no audit in terms of alcohol versus food, is it then understood that the percentage of alcohol is greater than fifty percent. Mr. Giffin responded that to what is being said they are unaware, they were never given notice that an audit was going to take place, no one has come through the door of Hennessey's to do an audit. The Planner stated that as part of the original CUP application Mr. Hennessey was contacted to have an audit performed, the audit was actually performed by Lance, Soll and Lunghard, certified public accountants, in a communication dated ' November 2, 2000 to the attention of the Interim City Manager, it describes the scope of the procedure and related findings, alcohol sales shown at 40.5 percent or 43.6 percent of dollars depending upon how wine is reported. Mr. Giffin said his recollection was that staff had reported greater than fifty percent. There being no further comments, Mayor Campbell declared the public hearing closed. I Mayor Campbell stated that she fails to see an economic disadvantage, there is no business on Main Street where live entertainment is permitted, no business with live entertainment is located on Main Street, a reason for that is that there are residences to the rear of Main Street, they were here first, someone moving onto Main Street needs to be a good neighbor, it has also been policy to not advertise alcohol whether it be by neon sign or whatever means. Councilman Yost noted with concern the comments relating to being financially disadvantaged in terms of like to like, yet one needs to understand the history of this particular property and how it obtained its CUP for alcohol sales, starting as a delicatessen with the service of wine, their CUP for alcohol started with that, the location then intensified into what was said to be a nice restaurant with linens and tablecloths, an addition to the community, which then turned into the fourth Irish bar on Main Street, a major intensification of use, to say this is not like treatment then it should go back to being a delicatessen, he too was present when Mr. Hennessey surrendered his entertainment permit, which he did willingly, he understood that as well as the terms and conditions of the CUP which he accepted. Councilman Yost said he does not necessarily have a problem with serving breakfast, it would possibly be more of a restaurant, which he would prefer, but first they need to show that they can follow the rules, he has been to Hennessey's, nothing has changed, the crowd and the menu is the same, that is not what was said it would be. I Yost moved, second by Boyd, to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the appeal and affirming the decision of the Planning Commission. The City Attorney explained that the applicant has modified their request with respect to entertainment, a continuance of that portion of their appeal to bring that back before the Planning Commission, the requests could be separated with that as a fourth option if desired. Councilman Doane said he is the only member of the Council that was on Council at the time of the visit to Hennessey's by the Police and Fire Departments and the ABC, thereafter they did comply and the problems ceased, however there was never a complaint about the serving of breakfast, so why is it the new location does not serve breakfast as they had in the past, his belief is that these requests should be addressed separately, he would have no problem with the serving of breakfast however would agree with the I 2-12-01 I continuance of the entertainment issue, breakfast service would help the City and Hennessey's, and if the motion relates to both requests he would vote against. Councilman Larson expressed his belief that one of the problems is that Mr. Hennessey has retained people to come to the City and explain what it is that Mr. Hennessey is said to have understood, he is not before the Council to answer the questions. Councilman Larson noted that he was on the Planning Commission when the CUP first came up, he was not familiar with Hennessey's yet there were a number of people who expressed complaints about their operation on the east side of Main Street, he recognized from that hearing that their sign reflected the serving of breakfast yet the hours of operation did not commence until 11:00 a.m., it is understood that that same question was put forth during the Council consideration. Councilman Larson said to his recollection it was Mr. Hennessey who asked for 11:00 a.m., now Mr. Hennessey is supposedly saying this is unfair and that he did not understand yet he is not present to address that issue, therefore he would have to agree with the Planning Commission and even though that body indicated that possibly the earlier hours might be acceptable this operation has not shown itself to be a good neighbor, they asked for the hours, they got them, they were not being deprived, now in the next six months Hennessey's can come to staff, a right that they have, discuss how things can be done better, the trucks in the alley, etc., because the Council is here to protect the residents, businesses too, but not to their detriment. Councilman Larson spoke for supporting the decision of the Planning Commission, and if it can be shown that they can be a good neighbor, then consider the breakfast hours. Councilman Boyd read an excerpt from the January 11, 1999 Council minutes relating to the menu showing a breakfast listing to which the response was that there could be a Sunday brunch until about 3:00 p.m. and possibly a Saturday lunch until 2:00 p.m. and if there were public requests for breakfasts that could prompt a request for an earlier opening hour. Councilman Boyd encouraged Mr. Hennessey, present in the audience, to have a good business, accept the conditions, live by them, then approach the City again in six or twelve months for reconsideration. To a question of the Mayor with regard to breaking apart the issues to be voted upon, the City Attorney noted that the motion on the floor is to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, also explained, to make it clear with respect to the Planning Commission action, they approved the six month extension period and if during that time there are no problems they could reconsider the requests, those requests were denied without prejudice, the six month period from the date of the Commission Resolution would be June. The Mayor mentioned that the purpose of a CUP is to see how an operation performs. I I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried The City Attorney advised that a Resolution reflecting the action of the Council would be presented at the next meeting. By unanimous consent, the Council declared a recess at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened at 9:16 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting to order'. 2-12-01 PUBLIC HEARING - AVALON HOMES - 321 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1442 - ZONE CHANGE 98-2 / RESOLUTION NUMBER 4876 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15832 Mayor Campbell declared the public hearing open to consider Zone Change 98-2, the second reading of Ordinance Number 1442, and Tentative Tract Map No. 15832, Resolution Number 4876. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, posted, and mailed, and reported no communications received relating to this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, noted that the first issue is adoption of Ordinance Number 1442, the approval of the introduction approved by the Council in December, 1998 at the time the General Plan amendment for commercial to residential use was approved for the subject property, first reading of the Ordinance was approved changing the zoning to medium residential, also at that time it was indicated that second reading of the Ordinance would be withheld pending presentation of a subdivision map or agreement to City to conform to the lot arrangement approved by the Council, the Tentative Tract Map under consideration is the document that conforms to those lot arrangements. He noted the staff report contained Commission and Council staff reports, minutes and resolutions as well as the Ordinance that received first reading in 1998, included as well a copy of a letter sent to the Coastal Commission urging approval of the project at the time of their consideration of the project in 1999. At the time the Planning Commission considered the Tentative Tract Map for this project, January 17th and February 7th of this year, the Commission determined to recommended denial of the Tract Map on a four to one vote, that due to their feeling that all of the lots created by the subdivision should be a minimum of thirty feet wide, the subdivision before the Council does not conform to the recommendation of the Planning commission yet does conform with the previous decision of the Council for between twenty- six to thirty foot wide lots. The Director noted that the Map under consideration does comply with that earlier decision, the initial request had been for nine homes to be built on the property, Council approval was for eight homes subject to these current lot sizes. He pointed out that the two major issues in approving a tract map are that the zone change and subdivision be consistent with the General Plan, the General Plan was changed in 1998 to the medium residential designation, adoption of Ordinance Number 1442 will make the zoning consistent with the General Plan, then the subdivision map will be in conformance with both of those land use determinations, the second finding is whether or not the Map complies with the subdivision requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City's subdivision ordinance, the determination of staff is that both of those requirements have been met. As to historical background for this property, a General Plan and zone change application was filed in June, 1998 and at that time a variance for a zero sideyard setback for the proposed homes, that proposal was scheduled for Planning Commission hearings, a negative declaration with regard to environmental impacts was prepared, circulated for public review and comment, the Commission hearing was held in September, 1998 and on a three to two vote denied the request, resolutions were prepared for Commission consideration to reflect their actions, the Commission did not take action on the resolutions to deny and instead forwarded the recommendation to the City Council to request authorization to consider changing the zoning of all of the properties along Seal Beach Boulevard from commercial I I I 2-12-01 I or the limited commercial designation to a residential designation, the Council considered that matter in early October, the direction was to deal with just the issue relating to the Shore Shop property and at some future date the City would look at the land uses for the remaining portions of property along Seal Beach Boulevard. During that time the applicant revised the plans based upon the concerns expressed at the Planning Commission level, upon reporting the decision of the Council to the Commission that body determined to table the issue until such time as the revised plans were submitted, the revised plans submitted, the Commission then held a hearing on the revised project on November 18th which is reflected in the subdivision map now before the Council, the revised plan reduced the number of lots from nine to eight, eliminated the variance request, and proposed a lot configuration as now shown, three twenty-six foot wide lots, three twenty-nine foot wide lots, and two thirty foot wide lots. The Director reported that the Commission recommended approval of the General Plan amendment and zone change on a four to one vote and made an additional recommendation that the City Council consider imposing a minimum thirty foot lot width on all of the parcels, hearing was then scheduled before the Council for the General Plan amendment and zone change on December 14th, approved on a four to zero vote with one vacancy, withheld the second reading of Ordinance 1442 until such time as the subdivision map was presented, and approved the lot configuration as is presently proposed. The Director noted that thereafter the application was forwarded to the Coastal Commission, hearing held on May 11, 1999, the City supported the project by letter dated May 4th, the Commission approved the project on June 22, 1999 with findings on what is recalled as a twelve to zero vote. He noted that it is the opinion of staff that the map does comply with the Subdivision Map Act, the General Plan, and the City's subdivision requirements, the recommendation is approval of the map subject to the fifty- eight conditions of approval set forth in the approving Resolution. I I Councilman Yost noted that when this was initially presented there was discussion with regard to the architecture and other amenities, and asked if those considerations were obtained from the applicant. The Development Services Director suggested that that response be made by the applicant, recollection is that a conceptual site plan with building elevations, floor plans and architectural treatments was presented at both the Planning Commission and Council hearings when the project was resubmitted, and that there have been no changes to those. Councilman Yost asked if there is a reason for not building on the eighth lot. The Director responded that there is a condition recommending that the most northerly lot, immediately adjacent to the liquor store property, not be allowed any grading or building construction activity at this point in time, as that lot has not received final clearance from the Regional Water Quality Control Board for some contamination issues that have come from the liquor store property, there is monitoring on that one parcel to assure that the subsurface soil is adequately remediated, all of the other parcels have received clearance for development by the Water Quality Control Board, a copy of that clearance letter contained in the agenda packet. The Mayor asked if all of the gas tanks have been removed, the response of the Director was that at this point it is believed that all of the tanks have been removed, recalling that the liquor store property was once used for a service 2-12-01 station, the investigation has resulted in the removal of four tanks to this point in time to his knowledge, it is believed there are no remaining tanks on the property, it was difficult to do tests and borings within the building, those that were done are felt to have been spaced adequately enough so that if there was a tank directly beneath the building it would have been found, however if the Water Quality Board were to be asked they likely could not say with total assurance that a tank does not remain under that building, at this point the issue is that the remediation program has been effective enough to reduce the contamination to an acceptable level underground to result in a clearance letter from the Water Quality Control Board. The Mayor inquired as to the depth of the test borings and whether the borings could have been angled under the existing liquor store structure, the Director said he believed about eight to ten feet, the applicant may be able to respond in more detail. To the question of Councilman Yost with regard to the plans for the eighth lot, the Director stated it will be required to be fenced and kept in a vacant status until such time as clearance is received, no grading or construction allowed as part of the construction activity on the southerly lots. Councilman Yost asked if there is some means to encourage something other than a vacant lot as part of the gateway to Seal Beach, the response of the Director was that that has not been addressed at this point as the time period for remediation is not yet known, it is believed that another monitoring report is to be completed by the end of this month for review by the Board in March and if clearance is given they would be allowed to commence construction fairly soon, if the level of contamination is high enough then there would be need for additional monitoring of that site. Councilman Boyd noted that the Tentative Tract Map outlines all of the conditions for its approval and appears to answer all of the questions posed, also pointed out that during the project construction and prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy a number of things are required, submittal of CC & R's, public right-of-way improvements such as sidewalk, curb, and gutter, street lighting, landscaping within the street right-of-way which includes the widening of the existing parkway by five feet from all lots on Seal Beach Boulevard, a curb transition, new curb alignment, redoing existing curb alignment, construction of one-half of a raised concrete street median with irrigation and landscaping along the entire subdivision frontage, a street tree per lot, installation of irrigation and lawn in parkway for each lot frontage, undergrounding of utilities for the subdivision frontage, installation of decorative street lights for that frontage, and installation of a Seal Beach entrance monument sign in the street median south of Pacific Coast Highway. Councilman Yost asked for explanation as to where it is shown that something will occur on the 8th lot instead of just being fenced and vacant. Councilman Boyd responded that it is addressed under the Prior to Grading Permits section, it speaks of the SCAQMD, Erosion Control Plan, on-site work, also under the Tentative Tract Map provisions. Councilman Yost said that pertains to what is required prior to building, his question is if it is very expensive to clean that property what is to prevent it from remaining vacant, the response was nothing, it is private property. I I I Mayor Campbell invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and identify themselves for the record. Mr. Scott Redson, President of Avalon Homes, said after two years he was pleased to be 2-12-01 I before the Council to hopefully commence the construction process, supported approval of Ordinance Number 1442 relating to the zoning of the property as authorized by Resolution 4671, adopted by the Council, which changed the zoning from commercial to residential. He noted that originally this was a nine lot subdivision, it is now eight lots and conforms to all of the current zoning for this district. Mr. Redson also requested approval of Tentative Tract Map 15832 as it too conforms to all of the zoning provisions and Ordinance Number 1442. He stated that Avalon Homes agrees to all of the conditions imposed on this project including its fair share of the improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard as a gateway to the City, it is felt that this project will be an improvement to the City as well as the Boulevard. Mr. Redson confirmed that the lot configuration and architecture was approved by both the Planning Commission and Council and the Coastal Commission, and there are no changes proposed, with regard to the eighth lot, he said there is no reason for one to not develop it given the land value, once it receives clearance there is certainty it will be built, the process for remediation is in progress now, the cost thereof is being borne by the owners of the liquor store, it is constantly being monitored, the process could take a year or three years, that is unknown, it will continue until released. Mr. Redson urged approval of this project that started back in 1998. Mr. Mario Musso, representing the Musso family, owners of the Shore Shop property, recalled that about three years ago they sat down with members of the Council and staff to discuss rezoning of the property and sought input as to what would be the best plan for the community and for themselves, the Musso family has been residents for the past thirty-five years, plan to remain for at least that many years, the family takes great pride in this project, they have tried to do everything reasonably possible to beautify the street and accommodate the needs of the community, the Street is in dire need of improvements, this project can be a beginning, if so, the rest of the street will not be recognized within five years. Mr. Musso noted again that upon the advise of the City the project has been reduced from nine to eight lots, it is known that the size of the lots was a major issue with the Planning Commission, he would not want to go through that process once again given the decision of some two years ago. Mr. Musso again mentioned their on-going effort to cooperate with the community' and in turn it is hoped there will be cooperation with them, and requested approval so that this project can go forward. Ms. Seretta Fielding, Seal Beach Boulevard, said she had spoken to all but one member of the Council this date, she would like to see a unanimous vote, there is need to get this project under way. Mr: Dave Bartlett, representative of the applicant, mentioned that two years ago there were unanimous approvals received for this project by both the City Council and the California Coastal Commission, they worked in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation with the City for those approvals, the end result of that process was the Council adoption of Resolution Number 4671 and 4672 which established the General Plan provisions and certified the Negative Declaration, also approval of the first reading of Ordinance Number 1442, second reading of which is before the Council at this meeting, those documents actually discuss the changes made to the project, one specifically is the reduction from nine to eight lots, as a result the twenty-five foot minimum lot width was eliminated during that process and a varying lot width program was implemented, that basically the result of Council direction, the Tentative Map only serves to implement existing City and I I 2-12-01 Coastal Commission policy, one of the Resolutions states that the General Plan Amendment creates a land use that is compatible and consistent with prevailing land uses in the vicinity, etc. Mr. Stan Anderson, Marina Hill resident, stated he has been supportive of the improvements proposed, the project meets the General Plan, the property standards for Old Town, they have downsized from one unit on a twenty- five foot lot, from nine to eight lots which helps them to do a better home design, the Musso's and Avalon Homes have worked hard to put a plan together that will beautify Seal Beach Boulevard, they have made concessions, there have been enough delays, over two years, they have the release to build on the seven lots, it is hoped the eighth lot will soon follow. Mr. Anderson said whatever the Council can do to speed this project along will be good and the neighborhood will benefit. Mr. vic Peterson, Seal Beach Boulevard, property owner, stated this project is long overdue, improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard have been promised for over ten years, this project encountered environmental problems that have now been mostly resolved, to not approve the project would almost be an abuse of the process, and he looks forward to this improvement on the Boulevard. Councilman Doane said he understands that there is some type of enzyme that is put into the soil that eliminates the contamination. Mr. Musso suggested that the question be addressed by their consultant, Kleinfelder. Mr. Juan Guerrero, environmental manager for Kleinfelder, a nationally known environmental consulting firm, said they also do work for this City on their environmental projects. Mr. Guerrero said the responsible party who owned the tanks and was responsible for the gasoline in the subsurface have themselves employed the services of a consultant, they are and have, since approximately November of last year, injected a compound that is termed oxygen releasing compound, known as ORC, a liquid mixture which combines with the natural microbes in the soil, they live, as do humans, with oxygen, the more oxygen the more they live and flourish, as the microbes live in the subsurface they feed on the gasoline, they eat the gasoline for food, once they eat the gasoline and there is no more gasoline they die, then the microbes are gone as is the gasoline, that is the technology presently being employed by the responsible party's consultant. Mr. Guerrero said his understanding is that they will be attending a meeting in March with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the arm of the California ,Environmental Protection Agency that is charged with protecting the waters of the State, in this case the site at 321 Seal Beach Boulevard, at this point the CAL EPA has given its blessing that there are no environmental impacts on the other lots and in effect on the one lot in question, based upon memory, there is only encroachment from the liquor store property onto the eighth lot by about five or seven feet, so the gasoline is barely encroaching, and the use of that lot presently by the other consultant is to monitor the degradation of the gasoline products in the subsurface, therefore the eighth lot is not a site that is heavily contaminated yet it is being used as a monitoring point to make sure that the gasoline from the liquor store is not encroaching to the south in that water flows from the mountains to the south into the Pacific Ocean. To a question as to a time frame for the eighth lot, Mr. Guerrero said that is really unknown at this point, however in sites that are typical and similar to this specific site it can range from six to twelve months as a for instance, if the gasoline contamination is highly concentrated it could be a year or I I I 2-12-01 I longer, unfortunately the consultant for the responsible party injected the oxygen releasing compound in November and they are not required to present their first findings until March so it is somewhat premature to even receive their data to find out if the decrease of gasoline in the subsurface is significant or not, it is unknown, yet six to twelve months may be a good time frame to have data to review. There being no further comments, Mayor Campbell declared the public hearing closed. I Councilman Yost said he knows that this problem has not been with the Musso's; he was somewhat reticent that once one gives up the commercial it can never be brought back, no one takes out homes to put in commercial, ,but he had been convinced that commercial had an adequate trial and did not work and with the various amenities that will be put in this will be a major improvement and a real gateway to Seal Beach, Avalon Homes does build a nice product as well and he is confident they will do so on this property. His primary concern is the eighth lot that is not going to be built on, what is to keep someone from not building on that lot if they build on the other seven, thus a vacant lot at this gateway, therefore is there a way to add a condition that construction will actually happen, he would feel more comfortable if the stipulation were in writing that it will be built at the first opportunity, he would not want to take an action that would leave the City with a vacant lot. Question was posed if he wanted the Musso's to put something in writing that as soon as the lot is deemed to be clean that they will build. The response of Councilman Yost was yes. Councilman Boyd noted that the builder is buying the property, he has a debt service for the property, therefore he will not allow it to sit vacant, his economic incentive is whatever the profit margin is on the homes, it is for certain that he will pursue remediation as quickly as possible. Councilman ,Yost countered that may be unless it is more expensive to clean the lot and make it buildable in which case it would be a write-off loss. Mayor Campbell mentioned that responsibility lies with the persons who own the liquor store lot, they are the ones that have to have the lot cleaned. Councilman Yost noted that once the subdivision is allowed and the profit center is taken out the City then has no more pressure to assure that it goes forward. Councilman Boyd countered that the City does, that is in the form of litigation unless they continue to go forward to clean up that property, there are economic damages to the City as well as the Musso'S, the liquor store owners have been noticed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board which is the lead agency for enforcement action and they will pursue legal action if they do not clean it up. The Mayor stated again that the day and hour that they get the go ahead they will build, the property is too expensive to let it sit vacant. Councilman Boyd said the Council always likes to follow the lead of the Planning Commission, in most cases that is so, however in this case he would respectfully disagree, their efforts are noble, the desire is for the largest lots possible rather than maximum density everywhere, yet given the concessions made by the developer, the economic viability, etc., this is the first of the restoration and rehabilitation of Seal Beach Boulevard. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1442 - ZONE CHANGE 98-2 - 321 SEAL BEACH /-1<:~~.c>. ~ BOULEVARD - (ANAHEIM BAY VILLAS) ;:/U" 4~2. h,+ ~, Councilman Boyd moved to adopt Ordinance Number 1442 entitled Or.0~~ "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE ~~ CJ 98-2 (ANAHEIM BAY VILLAS)." By unanimous consent, full ~Jj' ~~ I 2-12-01 reading of Ordinance Number 1442 was waived. Councilman Doane seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4876 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15832 - 321 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD - (AVALON HOMES) Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4876 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15832 (32l SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD.,. AVALON HOMES)" as conditioned. By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4876 was waived. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried The City Attorney clarified that the Resolution adopts a Tentative Map, it is not a Vesting Map, and with the adoption of the Resolution they have received their final approvals. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report was presented. CITY MANAGER REPORT No report was presented. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Doane noted having received a telephone call from Mr. Dave Saunders, resident and publisher of the Leisure World News, his concern is with the bus service that is financed by various entities, including the City; and with the opening of Bixby the service will need to be expanded, to that Mr. Saunders asked that as long as this issue is being looked at would it not be feasible to have the-bus also serve the downtown area, he then mentioned to Mr. Saunders that this has come up in the past and at that time there was little interest by the Business Association to contribute towards the cost of the bus service. Councilman Doane suggested that possibly this be agendized for a future discussion, mentioned that there are nine thousand people in Leisure World who have the need to shop and they depend on this bus. Councilman Boyd commended the idea, suggesting that staff be directed to bring back a report as to the financial considerations, hours of operation, etc. I CLOSED SESSION The City Council adjourned to Closed Session, continued from the regular adjourned 6:00 p.m. meeting, at 10:00 p.m. to continue discussion of the items identified on the agenda. The meeting was reconvened by Mayor Campbell at 10:18 p.m. without the presence of Councilmembers Larson and Yost. The City Attorney reported that the Council had met in continued Closed Session, no reportable action was taken. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent of those present, the meeting was adjourned until Monday, February 26th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. This meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. I ty Clerk and of the City of clerk 2-12-01 / 2-26-01 Approved: --j)oki~~ ~~ ~~~u: . City Clerk Attest: I Seal Beach, California February 26, 2001 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:01 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Campbell Councilmembers Doane, Yost Absent: Councilmembers Boyd, Larson Councilmembers Boyd and Larson were awaiting the majority of the Council in the Conference Room. I Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Ms. Yeo, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would met in Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda, a conference with the City's real property negotiator relating to 201 - 8th Street pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, and a conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.9 (b) and (c). The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:03 p.m. and reconvened at 6:48 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported that the Council discussed the items identified on the agenda, gave direction to the City Attorney, there was no other reportable action. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 p.m. I Approved: Attest: