Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1993-01-04 I I I ., .~ . .... 12-28-92/1-4-93 ::;t11Jayof D/imber, M. Yeo, Cit~ of Seal Beach 1992. Seal Beach, California January 4, 1993 The Council of the city of Seal Beach met in special session at 6:02 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe callinq the meetinq to order with the Salute to the Flaq. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers Brown, Doane, Hastinqs, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, City Manaqer Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk Mayor Forsythe read the Notice of Special Meetinq for the record as follows: "Gwen Forsythe, 523 Riviera Drive, Seal Beach Marilyn Bruce Hastinqs, 121 - 12th Street, lA, Seal Beach Georqe Brown, 1710 Tam O'Shanter Road, 12-H, Seal Beach William Doane, 1401 Skokie Road, 83-A, Seal Beach Frank Laszlo, 4480 Candleberry Avenue, Seal Beach NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Gwen A. Forsythe, Mayor and presidinq officer of the city Council of the city of Seal Beach, does hereby call and qive notice of a special meeting of the Seal Beach City Council to be convened at 6:00.p.m. on Monday, January 4, 1993 in city Council Chambers, 211 - 8th Street, Seal Beach, california, for the purpose of meetinq in Closed Session with reqard to pendinq litiqation in the Mola Development Corporation versus City of Seal Beach matter, and to take any measure or action that may be deemed necessary. DATED THIS 29th day of December, 1992. Gwen A. Forsythe, Mayor city of Seal Beach By: Joanne M. Yeo, city Clerk city of Seal Beach" CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to discuss the Mola Development corporation versus city of Seal Beach matter, and threatened litiqation pursuant to Section 54956.9(b). It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council, to adjourn to Closed Session at 6:04 p.m. The Council reconvened at 6:28 p.m. with the Mayor callinq the meetinq to order. The City 1-4-93 Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items previously identified, and that no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to' adjourn the meetinq at 6:29 p.m. I of the Approved: 4~.I./~J~dh Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California January 4, 1993 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in reqular adjourned session at 7:02 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe callinq the meetinq to order with the Salute to the Flaq. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers Brown, Doane, Hastinqs, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, city Manaqer Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberq, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Hastinqs moved, second by Brown, to waive the readinq in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of readinq shall be deemed to be qiven by all Councilmembers after readinq of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the readinq of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastinqs, Laszlo None Motion carried I Mayor Forsythe advised of a storm front anticipated on-shore by as early as the followinq morninq and in conjunction with hiqh tides. She asked that residents take precautions, advised that sand baqs are available at the City Hall and at the Public Works Yard, that access is beinq provided to the First Street Beach to obtain sand, and noted a second storm, anticipated for Thursday, predicted to be equally stronq and aqain coupled with hiqh tides. I I I 1-4-93 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, complained of the onqoinq impact of Calvary Chapel services on adjacent residential properties, such as his residence, and inquired as to the status of the concerns he brouqht forth some time past. With reqard to the issues forthcominq on the aqenda for discussion, he stated his belief that anyone intendinq to open a business in the community should first conduct a marketinq study rather than make after-the-fact requests of the City that will have an impact on residents, that residents "take priority over developers and businesses. He complained also that nothinq has been done with reqard to the rezoninq of the Hellman land nor has the deck encroachment on the Hill been resolved. Ms. Mitzi Morton, Seal Beach, stated that the predominantly residential Old Town area does not exist simply to support or quarantee the success of ~ommercial businesses on Main Street, that the Street is an attractive asset to the adjacent residential community, and future commercial must not be desiqned to dominate this atmosphere. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, said he hoped the drains and pumps are in workinq order so that the floodinq of Seal Beach Boulevard can be avoided durinq the approachinq storm. He also'suqqested the installation of parkinq meters in the beach parkinq lots and on Main Street as a source of revenue. There beinq no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. . COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT SELECTION The Director of Development Services presented the staff report and request that a two member city Council subcommittee be established to interview the seven firms respondinq to the Request for Qualifications for Archaeoloqical Consultant Services, the subcommittee to make a subsequent recommendation to the full Council of the three top firms selected in accordance with the RFQ, the selection of three firms eliminatinq the need to aqain qo throuqh the RFQ process as other projects come forward. He also inquired as to the desire of the Council to include the Council subcommittee appointees to the Archaeoloqical Advisory Committee as part of the interview panel. Councilmembers Hastinqs and Brown offered to sit as the Council subcommittee and concurred with the suqqestion to include their Archaeoloqical Committee appointees on the panel. The morninq of January 14th was indicated as a preferable time for the interviews or any block of hours on January 15th. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-2 - EXTENSION OF HOURS - SEASIDE GRILL Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearinq open to consider an appeal of Planninq Commission approval of modifications of conditions for Conditional Use Permit 92-2, a request for an extension of hours in conjunction with an existinq restaurant, Seaside Grill, 101 Main Street. The city Clerk certified that notice of the public hearinq had been advertised and mailed as required by law, that the notice of rescheduled hearinq had been advertised as well, and reported there had been no communications received either for or aqainst this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report relatinq to bhe requested modification of hours to allow one extra hour of restaurant operation from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday throuqh ThurSday, or five additional hours per week. It was noted that the current hours of operation, approved May 6, 1992, are from 7:00 a.m. daily until 10:00 p.m. Sunday throuqh Thursday, and until 11:00 p.m. on Friday, Saturday, for Special Events and on Holidays, that the approved Alcoholic Beveraqe Control hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. each day of the week, and that the approved modification of Conditional Use permit 92-2 allowed the operation of the Seaside Grill from 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. daily. The Director , 1-4-93 reported that the grounds for appeal were that the Commission action was in opposition to the staff recommendation to defer the request until the twelve month CUP review; that the categorical exemption was inappropriate and that the cumulative impacts of this proposal should be considered; that the modification of hours should not be approved since the business has been open for only five months and the applicant had indicated an awareness of a CUP condition violation where alcohol had been served after the required hour of closure; that the Commission did not give due consideration to the comments of neighboring residents; and that the provision for an indemnity agreement brings into question the appropriateness of the extension of hours and whether this action puts the city in some jeopardy of litigation. To the issues of appeal the Director explained that a staff recommendation is generally based on technical review without the advantage of public testimony, and upon receipt of such testimony determinations are often made that are different from an initial staff recommendation; although the Commission determined the categorical exemption was appropriate in this case, staff prepared an Initial study and examined the potential cumulative impacts arising from the request, even though there is no legal obligation to do so, the Study was circulated to various agencies for review and comment, that period expiring January 11th; that although the commission did consider the after-closing-hour consumption of alcohol, they chose to grant the request subject to certain terms and conditions, however directed that a copy of the minutes which included that discussion be forwarded to the ABC for their consideration and action; that after hearing testimony in favor of and in opposition to the request, the Commission approved the request by a three to two vote with conditions designed to mitigate potential adverse impacts, the final decision as to the appropriateness of that action now before the Council for final determination; and that the indemnity provision was a recommendation of the city Attorney to limit the city's exposure and reduce any potential legal expenses, a condition that has become standard in other cities and will be imposed on most, if not all discretionary approvals in the future. The Director reviewed Municipal Code standards for evaluation of conditional use permits, noted the need for Council decision as to whether the request is compatible with the General Plan, surrounding uses, and the community in general, and the options of the Council to either sustain the decision of the Planning commission, grant the appeal of Mr. Gordon Shanks, et aI, reversing the decision of the Commission, or upon presentation of new information, referral back to the Planning Commission. The Director reported that at the time of the Initial Study the Police Department had indicated that the Crime Reporting Districts for the downtown area were Three and Four, however as of this date the correct District for Main Street and the commercial properties along Pacific Coast Highway was found to be Seven and a comparison of those statistics from 1985 until September, 1992 has been provided for Council information, that the crime and arrest activity of 566 between the high reporting year of 1989 and the activity in 1991 of 476 has decreased 15.9 percent in the District Seven reporting area, 1992 being 244 through September, and explained that Reporting District Three covers the area westerly of the 8th Street Alley and District Four covers the area easterly of lOth Street Alley. Councilmember Hastings requested the totals of crime activity for Reporting Districts Three, Four and Seven for the seven year period and 1992 to date. Upon inquiry of the Council, staff clarified that should the public hearing be concluded at this meeting, an action to deny the requests under appeal could be taken, likewise, any of the options set forth in the staff report may be postponed until the next meeting. Council indicated it was not likely an action would be taken at this meeting. I I I I I I 1-4-93 Mayor Forsythe invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this matter to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Gordon Shanks, said he was one of eleven appellants, residents of various areas of the city, to the approved modification of conditions of CUP 92-2. Mr. Shanks expressed regret with the apparent conflict between the merchants and residents regarding Main Street, said that the ambience of Main street is one thing that makes Seal Beach what it is and most people do not want that changed, and although the merchants are looking to make a living, he could not support certain changes for their financial benefit. He mentioned a recent news article that said 'many of those that come to enjoy the beach or pier first enter Old Town, the heart, soul, and historic center of Seal Beach, the various shops attesting that this Main street is more than a Disneyland facade.' Mr. Shanks mentioned that it has been said that the four to five hours, the subject of this request, would not matter, however claimed that it will because in giving this approval there will then be others that will approach the City for consideration of similar requests. He noted the original request had been for a 1:00 a.m. closing seven days per week, that was not allowed, and predicted that that request would be resubmitted upon conclusion of the twelve month review period. Mr. Shanks requested that this type of request be stopped now, and that the appeal be approved. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, spoke in support of the appeal, citing specifically the lack of regard for the residents. Dr. David Rosenman, resident of Eighth Street baCking to Main street, stated he is affected by that Street. Dr. Rosenman also referred to a news article entitled 'residents upset as nightlife grows' which he said showed the over concentration of alcohol service on Main Street. He clarified that the issues under consideration are problems that have resulted from past actions of the city, predicated on in-lieu parking, and stated his belief that there is no valid in-lieu parking in Seal Beach, documentation of that program appears to be non-existent, therefore should the appeal be set aside such action would in essence be making something kosher that is illegal. Dr. Rosenman called attention to the communication from the Grace community Church requesting that the extension of hours not be granted, questioned why a negative declaration is now being considered, cited the failure to consider cumulative impacts, and claimed that actions of the city are negatively impacting property values. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach, spoke in support of this appeal, expressing her opinion that requests such as those under appeal are affecting property values in the Old Town area, parking is impacted, that there is no authority for an in-lieu parking program, claimed that past procedures have been incorrect and in 1985 she had advised the City that an environmental impact report should be prepared where there is an intent to intensify use. Ms. Juliana McCants, Seal Beach, mentioned her opposition to alcohol and liquor licenses some years past as well as now, noted impacts with regard to parking, safety, etc., stated she did not see how another business intensification could be justified, and asked for support of the citizens views and preservation of the pace of this city. Mr. Bruce stark, Seal Beach, complained that the three members of the Planning Commission living,furthest from Old Town voted in support of the extension of hours for Seaside Grill, stated such extension would impact his property as well as the property of others, made a comparison of Main Street to the Belmont Shore community of Long Beach where there is now a restriction on liquor licenses, mentioned a previous request of the City for copies of all in-lieu parking agreements, yet to be provided, and took exception to the reference of such local establishments as restaurants rather than beer bars. He expressed opposition to summer special events that involve alcohol and the lack of attention by the city to the impact on the residential neighborhoods. He suggested that the city is not 1-4-93 in compliance with the law where, in the case of Seaside Grill that began as a take-out business, this and other establishments are proliferating the sale/use of alcohol which constitutes an intensification of use and requires more than a negative declaration. Mr. Stark concluded that parking is one issue, the quality of life is another, and Old Town residents are impacted. Mr. Laird Mueller, 235 - 8th street, stated the residents have I constantly protested alcohol, late night alcohol, and the enticement of large numbers of persons to drink. He noted the alcohol establishments all want to stay open later, that late night emptying of trash is an impact, the patrons are not sensitive to the residents, spoke in support of daylight and early evening businesses and the relocation of establishments with alcohol elsewhere. He concluded that there is an impact on the City, Old Town in particular, that the issue is not the residents versus business, it is residents versus late night drinking. with regard to Papillon Restaurant, Mr. Mueller noted they have a parking area, are adjacent to a church where residents will not be as greatly impacted, and suggested that Clancy'S and the Irisher are the worst offenders in that they have no parking. Ms. Gretchen Shegina, 235 Surf Place, said during her thirty-seven year residence in Belmont Shore she observed a decline of the area, prior business locations giving way to restaurants and bars with the highest percentage of disturbances and impacts occurring after closing hours, and people having knowledge of the area now do not choose to live there. She urged that Seal Beach not make the mistake of allowing that to occur here. Mr. Joe Palmer, College Park East, said it appears that the alcohol industry has targeted Seal Beach, possibly because of its small town atmosphere. He read several quotes from a September National Geographic article regarding the effects of alcohol. Mr. Palmer expressed his I opinion that to even consider extending the hours for someone to consume alcohol is against the public interest. Mr. Roger West, Electric Avenue, voiced his support for the appeal and against the extension of hours for the Seaside Grill. He expressed amazement that this license was granted initially in view of the memorandum from the Police Chief that cited the business location to be in the highest crime reporting district thus the issuance of additional licenses would be contrary to ABC rules, and in the opinion of the Police Department the license could be a disservice as to the liability of the citizens of Seal Beach, and that there was already a concentration of alcohol licenses in the district, again contrary to ABC rules. Mr. West objected to the persons promoting this request by referring to those in opposition as anti business or alcohol, and stated pUblic drunkenness is not necessary for prosperity. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:09 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:23 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. Ms. Norma Strohmeier, Seal Beach, stated her support of the appeal and cited the impact of this type of request on everyone, recalled the period when live music was allowed and bars closed at midnight, and said her sympathy, if any, would be with the bar I owners that have been operating for forty years and now another establishes in the immediate vicinity to their location. She suggested that Councilman Doane should possibly remove himself from voting on this matter as a result of his recent statements in a news article regarding the business community and the quality of life in Old Town. She concluded that persons in opposition to late night hours and alcohol licenses should not be condemned. Ms. Helen Potepan, 1870 Sunningdale Road, spoke in support of the appeal, indicating her belief that the current hours are sufficient to make a living without causing harm to the people of Old Town. Mr. Mark HotChkiss, Seal Beach, stated his I I I 1-4-93 disagreement was not necessarily with the CUP, rather the op1n1on of staff that there was no legal mandate to prepare an initial study or negative declaration, his opinion based upon Section 2 of the Planning Commission findings which stated 'because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment,' also said in order to utilize the categorical exemption there can not be any cumulative impact, however a 1989 court decision determined that cumulative impacts must be considered even if there is no intention of a similar type project in the same area, therefore in his opinion the cumulative impacts must be addressed in this matter since there are similar requests being processed. He expressed concern that negative declarations are not being reviewed by the Environmental Quality Control Board or the Planning Commission, claimed that they do not address cumulative impacts, rather they are deemed to be insignificant unto themselves, and suggested that all CUP's need to be considered with a complete environmental review required. Mr. Hotchkiss suggested that the appeal be approved at least until all of the issues are addressed. Mr. Mario Voce, Seal Beach, expressed his belief that one of the bonds that bring people together is the enjoyment of late night and early morning peace and quiet of Seal Beach, yet mentioned the observance by many of the deterioration of the quality of life in Old Town which in turn does have an impact on property values. He indicated his desire that the apparent conflict between opppsing opinions in these matters will cease. Mr. Voce called for the preparation of a planning policy setting forth the principles under which the City considers such CUP's, whether it be through the CEQA process or otherwise, and explained that his joining in the appeal of this matter was the result of the poor procedures of the Planning Commission. Mr. James Goodwin, 1405 Crestview Avenue, spoke in support of the appeal as well as for establishing standards for future consideration of environmental matters. Ms. Carla Watson, 1635 Catalina Avenue, expressed affection for the Seal Beach community as a whole, specifically the downtown area and Main street, and the involvement and support of the business community throughout the years. Ms. Watson indicated that although she may also enjoy piano bars, questioned if there isn't a need to make choices, if the community can have it all, the question then being what does the community want Main Street to be like in five to ten years. Dr. David Rosenman, 8th Street, suggested that a clarification be sought from the City Attorneys with regard to the validity of requiring indemnification clauses, specifically if the applicant does not have sufficient resources to indemnify the city for legal fees and potential cumulative damages. Ms. Linda Park, Dolphin Avenue, indicated her residence and employment in Old Town, stated her frequent patronage of Main Street businesses, including the Seaside Grill, of which she spoke favorably. She spoke in opposition to the appeal and in support of the one hour extension of operation. Ms. Glynnis McCants, 1000 Electric Avenue, lifelong resident, spoke of the Seaside Grill as an asset to the town, a friendly place to frequent, and stated no comparison can be reached between Seal Beach and the Long Beach area of Belmont Shore. Ms. Linda Dobson, Marlin Avenue, spoke of enjoying the quiet atmosphere of Seal Beach and noted the eagerness of everyone to preserve Seal Beach. She recalled business investments that have failed in recent years at the Grill location, spoke in support of the investment and efforts of the present owners, of more Main Street businesses being open in the evenings, such as Seaside Grill, which affords a feeling of security for persons walking on or near the pier, and suggested that the focus be on the request for just one hour of extended operation. Mr. John Baker, businessman and thirty-two year resident, mentioned the required notification procedure to surrounding properties to initiate any change in 1-4-93 business operations, noted in this case the property owners within that area have not been heard from, and claimed that businesses on Main street have not impacted property values in Old Town. Mr. Baker requested that the applicant be treated fairly in his request for one hour of extended operation of his restaurant. Mr. John stamps, 610 Coastline Drive, spoke favorably of the Seaside Grill and their request for a one hour I extension of operations, stated the restaurant is frequented mostly by residents, friendly, nice people. Ms. Ellie Gimberly, resident since 1985, spoke in support of the operation of the Grill, a place where one would be comfortable taking their grandchildren, stated parking has always been available within a block of the location, the vicinity of the restaurant has been quiet, and suggested the additional one hour will not change that. Ms. Kim steele, Ocean Avenue, student, and employee of Seaside Grill, spoke of it as clean, friendly, and a wholesome atmosphere, stated the majority of customers are local residents who frequently walk to the restaurant, and visitors from other areas of the country have come to this establishment as opposed to those in other cities because of its atmosphere. Mr. Rich Doodash, affiliate of Farmers Insurance and insurance broker for the applicants, spoke in support of the owners of Seaside Grill and of their request, this considered to be a model restaurant. Ms. Barbara Babcock, 6th street, noted her employment as a Federal law enforcement officer, dealing with unsavory persons daily. She stated her choice of Seal Beach as a residence was based upon the low crime rate, a safe, secure community, where one knows their neighbors. She described the customers of Seaside Grill as persons of high character, morals, and ethics, and the variety of food as very good. She supported the one hour extension. Mr. Tom Charara, president, Seal Beach Business Association, Main Street business owner, stated his support for I the Seaside Grill. With regard to cumulative or negative impacts he claimed this is a case of reverse discrimination, and to limit the one hour requested could impact the life and livelihood of the restaurant owner. Mr. Charara said there is no conflict between the businesses and the residents, and reported the formation of a SBBA committee to discuss this and other Main Street issues. He said although there are certain isolated instances, the crime report is misleading in that when he reports a skateboarder on the pier or a peddler in the vicinity that then becomes a reported crime statistics. Mr. Charara spoke in favor of the City having a Code Enforcement Officer to enforce conditions of CUP's and other approvals, expressed his belief that everyone cares about Seal Beach, and stated the merchants as well as residents have an investment in the community. Mr. Ed simmons, resident since 1960, expressed his opinion that nothing in Seal Beach has changed, the people have changed, parking remains the same yet there are three parking lots that are virtually empty most of the time. He mentioned street repairs, flooding, etc., that should receive more attention than an extended hour of operation for a thriving business, cited the difficulty of local businesses surviving during winter months, and suggested that the kind of issues under consideration should be resolved by staff rather than at a meeting such as this. Mr. Ray Ochoa, 240-1/2 Main street, said he was recently retained to I represent the Seaside Grill, and requested the opportunity to review the proceedings that have taken place thus far. He noted that as a resident he was somewhat familiar with the issue, that he had not heard any new information presented at this meeting, that there had been a valid decision by the Planning Commission to approve the extra hour of operation for this business, and that is the issue that should be focused upon. Ms. Christine stangeland, 6th Street, lifelong resident, referred to her employment on Main street, service as a volunteer firefighter, expressed her affection for Seal Beach, support of the Seaside Grill, a family type restaurant within walking distance, and I I I 1-4-93 favored the one hour extension of that operation. Ms. cynthia Lidyoff, 405 Crystal Place, indicated her residency and employment in the community, and first of all scolded the City for not having resolved the in-lieu parking issue that has been the subject of discussion for years. She mentioned that once persons move to Seal Beach their attitude appears to be that they want to shut out the rest of the world and stop everyone else from getting what they now have, whether it be more homes, businesses, whatever, which is an infringement of the rights and privileges of others. Ms. Lidyoff suggested that the issues be looked at intelligently rather than emotionally given the varied opinions of the speakers, possibly a probationary period should be considered. She expressed her support for the request of the seaside Grill, asked that a decision not be made based upon the opinions of a few, and if that is not possible that the issue be taken to the people. She also voiced her support for the request of Papillon's. In response to comments that there are people who own local businesses that do not live here, Ms. Lidyoff said in those cases the owners would like to live in this community however can not afford to do so, and urged support for local businesses. Mr. Dave Wyneken, 143 - 11th street, stated his intent to speak in support of Papillons, however this request appeared to be of the same category. He mentioned his residency since 1988, having moved to Seal Beach for the same reasons voiced by others. He expressed his belief that the one hour extension for the Seaside Grill will change nothing, that his residence is within two blocks of the location and he has experienced none of the problems mentioned by other speakers, his parking problem the result of neighboring residents parking their extra cars on the street for periods of time. Mr. Wyneken suggested that the community pull together and work on other problems that need to be dealt with. Mr. Ron Molinari, 163 Electric Avenue, stated his support for the request of Seaside Grill. Mr. Jim Klisanin, 122 - 7th street, noted his residence in proximity to the subject property, and reported having none of the problems that others have stated. He mentioned being a thirty year resident, a concerned and involved citizen, spoke in support of the owners and their efforts to establish the Seaside Grill, and stated to not grant the request for a one hour extension would not be something that should be imposed on people coming into the community and investing. He noted that this business has a parking area, commercial building, and condominiums behind the location, and offered that although the acoustics within the building are not the best, once the rear doors to the parking area are closed there is no exterior noise. Mr. Klisanin spoke highly of the customers of the restaurant, and supported of the extra hour of operation. Mr. Doug Stewart, 1010 Marvista Avenue, said he felt the extra hour should be granted, the applicants epitomize working people, operate their business in a professional manner, as does the owners of Papillons. He offered his support for the success of this business, and agreed with the comment that businesses open in the evenings convey a feeling of security. Mr. Stewart expressed as disturbing the appearance of a special interest group advocating that alcohol, etc., is bad, a hidden agenda where the next request may be that the streets close at 10:00 p.m. He urged that the Council grant the requested one hour extension for Seaside Grill and the single entertainer for Papillons. Mr. Glenn Peasley, 120 College Park Drive, recalled that after several hearings the Planning Commission determined in favor of the additional hour of operation for the Seaside Grill, and suggested to not support the decision of the Council appointed Commission reflects on the judgment of the City Council. He questioned the reasoning of restricting one business to a 10:00 p.m. closing when other businesses in the same vicinity are allowed to operate until a later hour. 1-4-93 It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 9:34 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:52 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. Mayor Forsythe inquired if it was the intent of Mr. Ochoa, the attorney retained by the owners of Seaside Grill, to request a continuance of this item until the next meeting, and if so, would he be willing submit such request to the city Clerk in writing. Mr. Ochoa responded in the affirmative, and indicated the intent was to review the procedures thus far and allow the opportunity to prepare and submit written materials regarding this matter. The City Attorney clarified that an option of the Council would be to close the hearing to public comments, continue the hearing to receive comments regarding the negative declaration, comments from the legal counsel of the applicants, from the appellant, and continue the limited hearing until the following meeting, January 11th. The appellant, Mr. Gordon Shanks, 215 Surf Place, said although several persons spoke in support of this request he felt a number of problems are associated with this issue. He claimed that the applicants have had difficulty in abiding by the regulations of their original approval, condition ten imposed a permit term of twelve months after which time the Planning Commission was to review and extend the permit indefinitely provided that all conditions of approval were satisfied and no significant police or other problems had occurred, that the Planning Director had recommended against the original extension request for three hours, subsequently for one hour for the same reason, the twelve month period meant to allow the Police Department, City staff, and other interested parties to review the operation of the business. He noted the applicant was denied a three hour extension by the ABC, the request was then for one hour, and claimed that procedures have been violated. Mr. Shanks acknowledged that the restaurant is obviously doing well, there is no objection to that, however stated that the concern is that if allowed the one hour, is that going to be for the serving of food, or serving of beer and wine, and are they going to then seek additional hours. He also offered a scenario where the Seaside Grill is allowed the additional hour and then ceases to be in business, the next owner then requests to be open until midnight, which another similar business may also request, thus the domino effect and a need to maintain a limited control and non-expansion of alcohol businesses on Main Street. Mr. Shanks suggested that if their business is healthy and making a profit, . the applicant should be able to wait the twelve month review period pursuant to their original agreement. He concluded that the desire is that this business be maintained as a restaurant, one that all can be proud of, and not become a bar. Mr. Shanks urged support of the appeal. Brown moved, second by Doane, to close the public testimony portion of the hearing relating to Conditional Use Permit 92-2, that this matter be continued until the January 11th, 1993 meeting at which time comments of the applicant or his attorney and the appellant will be accepted as well as comments relating to the Negative Declaration. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried The City Attorney advised that Wednesday would be the deadline for submittal of documents by the attorney for the applicant. I I I I I I .1-4-93 PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-13 - ENTERTAINMENT - PAPILLON RESTAURANT Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit 92-13, a request for live entertainment in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 143 Main Street. The City Clerk certified that the notice of public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, that the notice of rescheduled hearing had been advertised as well, and reported receipt of two communications in support of the request, as well as a communication presented at the last meeting in opposition to the granting of permits for the sale of alcoholic beverages on Main street. The Director of Development Services reviewed the staff report and determination of the Planning commission. He noted that two separate appeals had been filed on this matter, that of Councilmember Hastings stating the belief that entertainment along Main street, as well as commercial properties directly adjacent to residential properties, could set a precedent and long-range policy of the City, and such decisions should be considered by the City Council, the major concerns expressed in the appeal of Ms. Reva Olson basically citing cumulative impacts and the lack of an adequate mechanism for enforcement. He reported that the staff has prepared an Initial study, proposed negative declaration, and has examined the potential cumulative impacts arising from the request. The Director reviewed the options of the Council upon concluding the public hearing to 1) approve the Negative Declaration and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission; 2) sustain the appeals, reversing the recommendation of the Commission; or 3) referral back to the Planning Commission upon the presentation of new information. Mayor Forsythe invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach, was duly sworn by the Clerk, and stated CUP 92-13 was approved by the Planning Commission without full consideration of all aspects of the application, her appeal based upon errors by the Commission in their approval. She read her written statement dated December 11, 1992 regarding the basis of her appeal which in part cited 1) the property as nonconforming due to substandard setbacks, loading zone, parking and landscaping; 2) an intensification of use of this nonconforming property in as much as the live entertainment is another use without provision for additional parking for the additional employee; 3) no means of determining the impact of customer generation associated with the live entertainment; 4) no CEQA analysis was completed on the parking impact from the additional employee or additional customer generation; 5) failure to consider the precedent setting aspects, whereby any other food service establishment may apply for a similar permit and expect same to be granted; 6) failure to consider the cumulative impacts of Planning Commission continual approvals of requests for intensification of nonconforming uses along Main Street without complete environmental review, the lack of requiring additional parking and the lack of an adopted in- lieu parking program or parking impact mitigation fee; 7) failure to consider parking impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods; 8) failure to provide any enforcement mechanism for violations of conditions or City requlations; and 9) that there is no adopted plan for Main Street, the problems need to be identified, subject to provisions of CEQA, the Coastal Act, and the General Plan. Ms. Olson requested that CUP 92-13 be denied, that an urgency ordinance be adopted placing a moratorium on the issuance of permits for intensification of uses on Main Street until parking, noise, and compatibility with residential use issues can be resolved, and that the staff and Planning Commission be directed to cease approving any application based upon nonexistent parking schemes, including but not limited to 1-4-93 in-lieu, parking impact mitigation, shared, leased, grandfathered parking, etc. Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th street, was duly sworn by the Clerk, said he had no problem with the subject restaurant or its owners, yet as stated in the past, an overall EIR should be prepared for the Main street business area and an assessment of the carrying capacity, said he felt he could show that all of the approvals that the city has granted for Main I street over several years are invalid based upon the General Plan and CEQA. He read an excerpt from California Land Use and Planning Law with regard to the correlation of an infrastructure plan of a circulation Element with the Land Use Element, the prerequisite of an adequate General Plan being an emphasis of the appellate courts in cases of land use approvals, CEQA also declaring that if a General Plan is determined to be inadequate an EIR prepared for a project is prepared in a vacuum, the checklist for a Circulation Element asking if that Element is lacking in fiscal responsibility and if it is in correlation with the Land Use Element. He quoted from the Keyser Marsten study of 1983 which cited that the beach parking lots could support parking for the 100 block and westerly portion of the 200 block of Main street, that two contiguous parcels in the 300 block could be acquired to provide parking for the east side of the study area, yet the City allowed a building to be constructed in the 300 block without adequate parking. He also quoted from the Linscott, Law and Greenspan study that parking development goes hand in hand with revitalization, the most cost effective long term strategy would be to deck the existing beach lots, eliminating the cost associated with property acquisition, however in 1983 dollars the cost of each structured space would be about $6,000 plus financing costs, thus the basis for evaluating the cost on an in-lieu parking space, and to tie revitalization, in-lieu and parking development programs together I the City could create a Parking Authority by means of the Parking Law of 1949, have the power to issue bonds to acquire and construct parking facilities, the parking revenue then used to repay the obligation incurred in doing so. Mr. Antos claimed that the city has done nothing, that the in-lieu program does not exist yet has been a means of granting variances without providing parking. He mentioned a statement in a 1985 Coastal Commission staff report that 'no in-lieu parking program had been approved by the City, that the cumulative effect of utilizing public parking spaces as a substitute for on-site parking deficiencies or as a basis of an in-lieu program would be to incrementally reduce the supply of public parking spaces near the beach thereby restricting public access, that the Commission has approved other in-lieu, shared-use parking programs in the past, in this situation the City is currently studying a parking management program however no in-lieu fee program has been approved to date, however areas of concern exist regarding the location and cost of in-lieu parking spaces which are yet to be determined, in-lieu parking fee programs that actually create new parking spaces are necessary to insure the availability of adequate public parking for beach use in the future, the city is currently working on a solution to the parking deficiency alonq Main street in anticipation of future recycling and intensification of use of commercial structures, parking was not I originally identified as a serious issue in the city's draft LCP because of the availability of parking in the beach lots as well as the existence of both vertical and lateral public access along Main street, the issue of access/parking has been identified as an area of potential conflict in the future, the extensive recycling of uses and intensification of development in the Old Town commercial district, along with the lack of adequate on-site parking has become an issue that will need to be addressed in the city's LCP.' Mr. Antos said in conclusion that to not provide new parking spaces is in violation of the Coastal Act, again claimed that all City approvals involving in-lieu parking are I I I 1-4-93 invalid, that in-lieu monies should not be collected since there is no valid program, the monies are not being used, and stated his opinion that until such time as parking and carrying capacity are dealt with the city can approve nothing for Main street as there is not a valid General Plan, specifically a Circulation Element. Although speaking favorably of the owners and the quality of food at Papillons, Ms. Juliana McCants, 1000 Electric Avenue, objected to this request in that allowing live entertainment will likely draw more clientele to the business, requiring more parking spaces, yet additional parking is not being provided, that in-lieu parking is an issue and city policies are not being met. As a former resident of Laquna Beach, Dr. David Rosenman, Seal Beach, said upon last check Laguna charges about $9,000 per parking space per year, that the $100 assessment per space in Seal Beach is a sham and the city is legally liable, and that negative declarations are not prepared after an appeal is filed, which would give the appearance to a court of law that something unusual has taken place. He indicated awareness of two or three applications in progress, one being the prior Green Pepper location which was exempted from environmental review yet it is not a grandfathered use, the ownership has changed, the business has not operated for more than twelve months, there is no parking, etc. Dr. Rosenman mentioned that when Johns Food King came before the Commission their request was held in abeyance due to a dispute as to whether Johns or Papillons controls the parking lot, and the bottom line is that an in-lieu parking program does not exist and must be resolved. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, mentioned that during summer months there is an attendant at that parking lot to ensure its use for Johns Market, and stated his objection to persons continually charging those who oppose something on Main street to be opposed to business. Mr. stark said there are responsibilities associated with requests such as those under consideration, made reference to specific past approvals that became nuisances from which lessons should have been learned, rights versus civil responsibilities, that businesses should not trample the rights of neighbors, suggesting that the number of alcohol establishments on Main Street should be limited, as should the hours and uses. A gentleman from the audience commended the citizens wanting to make everything just right in Seal Beach, stated that a harp or piano is synonymous with good dining and he did not believe that a single business should bear the blunt of everything that is perceived to be wrong in the community, and stated his support of the Papillon request. Ms. Chris Stangeland, 6th and Ocean, also spoke for the request, noted the parking area is shared by Johns and Papillons, and asked how it could be determined whether the single musical instrument is acceptable until the request is given a chance. Ms. Glynnis McCants, 1000 Electric Avenue, voiced support for the request for live entertainment by Papillons. Mr. Dave Wyneken, 11th street, spoke in favor of the requested entertainment and the opportunity for this restaurant to compete in the community. Sol John, 12th street, said that new businesses that come to town should be given a chance, an opportunity to make money, that there is need to fix the pier, the streets, the parking lots, and enhance the City's police protection. Ms. Barbara Tahvildari, Papillons owner/ applicant, said at the time their business was considered by the Coastal Commission in-lieu parking was not being recognized, and although the parking lot is shared with Johns Market it was necessary to obtain seven off-site spaces. She offered that there have been no problems relating to the restaurant that she was aware of, and said they are willing to abide by the conditions of approval. Ms. Tahvildari reiterated that the request is for one unamplified entertainer, providing an opportunity for residents to enjoy fine dining, again indicating their willingness to abide by all 1-4-93 conditions. Mr. John Baker, resident and businessman, questioned whether or not the councilmember appellant could take action on this matter. The city Attorney advised that it is not an uncommon practice in all cities for a councilmember to appeal or call for further review and they may vote provided that they listen to all testimony. Mr. Baker asked if noise generated from a piano in a private residence is going to be a future concern, I stated there would be adequate parking if the lots were made available in the evening hours, and spoke favorably of installing parking meters. Mr. Tom Charara, Main street Cafe and Grill, spoke in support of the Papillon single instrument request, even if for a trial period. Mr. Ron Sesler, Ocean Avenue, spoke in support of the request as an asset to the community, and questioned how a sole instrument could be a problem. Mr. Nader Tahvildari, Papillons owner/applicant, spoke in response to comments of others, he stated the parking lot has been shared between Papillons and Johns Market for many years, that the musician could likely be himself as he plays both piano and harp, that the requirements of the Coastal Commission had been satisfied and the approvals granted. with regard to an impact on the environment and from his profession as a chemical engineer, stated his belief that music would not affect the environment, and indicated his willingness to abide by the conditions of approval and the laws of the city. with regard to in-lieu parking, he stated the request is not for a new business license, that his is an existing business merely asking for a single musician, a single instrument as conditioned, and urged approval of his request. Ms. Reva Olson, appellant, was allowed a rebuttal statement, and offered her opinion that short term profit should not be considered above the public interest and certainly not disobeying the law, that the main issue to her was not the piano, hours, or alcohol, even though that is part of the I environmental impact, yet the environmental impact is the law, that she was merely asking that things be done right, and offered that the citizens have already been subjected to too much litigation. She said the issue of procedures have been mentioned in the past yet they continue unchanged, it is not just the . parking issue but doing things right and in compliance with law, and said she believed that the procedures being followed are not only detrimental to the residents but the applicants as well, that it would be less than honorable to subject the city to further litigation, therefore recommended that the appeal be honored. Councilman Laszlo suggested that a decision on this matter be postponed until the next meeting and possibly any legal issues raised could be discussed by the Council in Closed Session. The City Attorney confirmed that such discussion could occur as a matter of threatened litigation. Laszlo moved, second by Doane, to close the public hearing relating to the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit 92-13, that this matter be continued until the January 11, 1993 meeting at which time the public will be afforded the opportunity to comment on the Negative Declaration. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried I Councilman Laszlo inquired as to the status of an entertainment ordinance and what effect that could have on this issue. Councilmember Hastings noted her request for preparation of such ordinance as well as a policy governing the issuance of CUP's for entertainment permits. The city Manager responded that the regulation of entertainment is somewhat involved, that information has been obtained from several cities for comparison purposes, that a number of issues need to be taken into consideration, zoning and the application of the conditions as an I I I 1-4-93 example, as well as assurance that the document is defensible. He indicated an uncertainty as to a specific time frame for presentation of such ordinance to the Council for consideration. with regard to the potential of setting a precedent with regard to the appeal just heard, the City Attorney explained that at the next meeting the issue under consideration will deal exclusively with the Papillon Restaurant request, also that Papillons would be required to abide by whatever standards for entertainment the city may establish in the future. with regard to further applications for entertainment, he noted that an ordinance placing a moratorium on entertainment would require an affirmative vote of four members of the Council, however explained that mention of a previous moratorium on Main street would need to be researched to determine if it dealt with entertainment, which could affect similar enactment now, and suggested that other options, such as additional environmental analysis, could be a requirement. He recalled the Council action on December 14th adopting a resolution requiring an initial study for any proposal for intensification of use on Main street, providing for a subsequent determination to require either a negative declaration or environmental impact report, and noted that although a negative declaration addresses the same issues, an environmental impact report merely requires a more detailed analysis of specific issues. CITY MANAGER REPORTS The City Manager advised that reports being received from the National Weather Bureau now contain more detailed information than in the past, the most recent reporting two storms approaching the coast bringing intermittent heavy rain, winds and cold weather starting late this evening or early tomorrow, and expected to impact westerly facing beaches. He noted that sand bags are available at the Public Works Yard and at city Hall, that the First street beach area will remain open for access to sand, that there have been meetings and conversations with Orange County Search and Rescue, Orange County Fire relative to volunteer firefighters, and County Flood Control, that the Emergency Operations Center has been set up at the Police Station, all personnel leaves have been canceled, that a number of property owners have been provided instructions to assist in the diversion of rain water in certain areas, that all of the pumps and catch basins have been inspected, and there are individuals who will provide surveillance of streets in an effort to limit vehicle access in the event of flooding. The Manager' also reported there will be exceptionally high tides during the period of the approaching storms. COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilmember Hastings wished all a Happy New Year. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council to adjourn the meeting until Monday, January 11th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. The meeting was adjourned at 11:28 p.m. by consensus of the Council. 1-4-93/1-11-93 of the Approved: _~/hI ./ ~ ..:,tC'~. ayor I Attest: Seal Beach, California January 11, 1993 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:04 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers Brown, Doane, Hastings, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, city Manager Mr. Barrow, city Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk ,I CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the City Council would meet in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) to discuss threatened litigation. It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn to Closed Session at 6:05 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:04 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. The city Attorney reported the Council had discussed the matter previously announced, no action was taken, and that a confidential memorandum had been provided the Council during Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of adjourn the meeting the Chair, with at 7:04 p.m. "'" consent of the Council, to of the Approved: ~u.. ./~ArJ' - Ma I Attest: