Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1993-01-11 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: I I I 1-11-9'3 Seal Beach, California January 11, 1993' The city council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:05 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 Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Hastings moved, second by Brown, to waive the 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. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Walt Miller, 231 Seal Beach Boulevard, made reference to the City Ordinance adopted approximately a year ago allowing for parking credits in conjunction with the development of properties along Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr. Miller conveyed his experiences with the Coastal Commission over the past year with regard to obtaining approval for improvements to his property, and whereas to date the Commission has opted to not recognize the City Ordinance. Being scheduled to appear before the Commission on Wednesday this week, Mr. Miller inquired if the City still wishes to pursue recognition of the provisions of the Ordinance, and predicted that if the Ordinance is negated and conditions are imposed no one in that area will be able to build. The Mayor recalled that the city had forwarded correspondence to the Coastal Commission in support of Mr. Miller's project, and suqqested that possibly someone on staff could attend the hearing or another statement could be prepared for presentation. The City Manager indicated his belief that a staff person would be attending the hearing, confirmed that correspondence had previously been forwarded, that additional comments are intended to be submitted, specifically with regard to that city Ordinance. There were brief comments relating to the Commission not taking into consideration the beachfront parking lots with regard to Mr. Miller's Coastal application. Dr. David Rosenman, 8th Street, called attention to a Village of Laquna Beach versus Board of Supervisors case, litigation in which he was personally involved, the thrust of that appeal was that in matters relating to the consideration of environmental impact reports, master plans, land use plans, etc., governing bodies need to have adequate detail available to allow a thorough review by a jUdicial court at a subsequent point in time, and if the adequacy of documentation is lacking courts have held that to be an invalid proceeding. with regard to the appeals before the Council, he claimed that there had been inadequate environmental review by the Planning commission and that there should be further direction provided to City staff. Mr. John Nakagawa, 312 - 12th Street, suggested as a 1-11-93 beginning for a new year that attention be paid to an environmental assessment and updated plan for Main street, review of the Housing Element, in-lieu parking, noise and enforcement problems. Ms. Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th street, recalled that the city Manager in 1987 recommended that the in-lieu parking program be addressed, it was postponed until budget considerations, and there was no further follow up. She suggested there is an urgency to address that issue. Ms. Jenna Wyley, lOth Street, expressed her belief that there is a need to monitor alcohol and parking conditions, spoke for the installation of parking meters as a means of revenue which in turn could be used for enforcement and clean up programs, a suggestion also that the one hour parking restriction be extended during the week which could possibly help residents and businesses alike. She concluded that the closing of alcohol establishments is not the solution, it is revenue for enforcement, etc., and suggested that some creative ideas be considered rather than a continuing controversy. Mr. Tom Charara, Seal Beach Business Association, recognized the difficult decisions under consideration, and indicated his desire to utilize the energies being expended for the benefit of this city. Mr. Bill Orszewsky, Riversea Road, offered his opinion that at issue is basically the roll that Main street plays in the overall community, balanced as to the impact on residents. with regard to the appeals under consideration he said he did not feel it necessary to extend the service of alcohol for an hour to realize a profit, that there are an adequate number of places to drink after 10;00 p.m., yet spoke favorably of acoustical entertainment. He suggested that businesses in the community should have the widest possible discretion to offer the services of their choice, yet be required to monitor their customers, and that policy should be established to grant city staff the ability to review and approve routinely acoustical entertainment. He predicted on-going conflict with regard to parking between residents and the business community, and if that issue is to be addressed it must be done fundamentally. Mr. Orszewsky again mentioned his intent to seek the Council seat should his current representative choose not to do so. Mr. Bill Ayres, Seal Beach, said the impact on residents has already occurred as a result of businesses on Main street, properties are not selling, and took exception to statements that there in an apathy on the part of some to frequent Main street businesses, suggesting rather that is the result of the recession. Mr. Ayres spoke for some type of environmental impact study of Main street. Ms. Juliana McCants, Electric Avenue, indicated her belief that the issue is more than additional alcohol service, hours of operation or entertainment, suggested that the process be slowed and before further requests are granted that the overall statistics be taken into consideration. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. PRESENTATION Ms. Daisy Funk, co-chairman of the Save Our Pier Group, reported $8500 collected to date from persons within and outside Seal Beach to the pier plaque fund in the categories of $100 or more, $500 or more, and in memorium, that donations have been kept in that order and messages of appreciation have been forwarded as the monies have been received. She noted also that the Bank of America has provided an account free of charge for the collection of the donations. Ms. Funk asked that the Council approve the recommendation of the City Manager with regard to donation categories to be considered later on this agenda, and requested that at the appropriate time the new plaques be placed immediately across from the existing plaques in recognition of the pier donations after the 1983 storms. Ms. Funk requested that the Save our pier Group be scheduled on the agenda for the first meeting in February for donation of the funds to the city. I I I I I I 1-11';'9.3 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS APPOINTMENTS - ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Councilmembers Laszlo and Doane requested that the District Four and District Five appointments be held over. PLANNING COMMISSION - DISTRICT ONE Councilmember Hastings requested Council approval to declare the District One position on the Planning Commission to be vacant, the current member having left the City, and so moved. Councilman Doane seconded the motion. The City Attorney confirmed that the Council has the discretion to remove a board or commission member with three affirmative votes. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried The city Clerk noted that the vacancy would be posted for the required ten day period and that an appointment could be made at the next meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "D" thru "K" Mayor Forsythe asked that Item "I" be removed from the Consent Calendar for a point of clarification. Laszlo moved, second by Doane, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item "I", as presented. Approved reqular demands numbered 90075 through 90233 in the amount of $1.058,737.42 payroll demands of December 18, 1992 numbered 52913 through 53065 in the amount of $218,525.08, and payroll demands numbered 1 through 155 in the amount of $183,434.77 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. E. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of December 14, 1992. D. F. Adopted Ordinance Number 1363 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE RECOVERY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES, AND AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1363 was waived. G. Confirmed the action of the Director of Emergency Services pursuant to Section 6.5 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach in having declared a local emergency caused by storm weather conditions commencing on or about the sixth day of January, 1993. Approved the plans and specifications and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids for repair of the fire damaged portion of the Municipal pier and rebuilding of the Lifeguard Zero Tower Project. H. J. Received and filed the Monthly Investment Report for the period ending November 30, 1992. K. Approved the extension of lease between the city of Seal Beach and Under The Rainbow for the period commencing January 1, 1993 until December 31, 1995. 1-11-93 AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "I" - CITY COUNCIL POLICY - HAZARDOUS WASTE and SUBSTANCES SITES LIST I Mayor Forsythe inquired as to the reason McGaugh School was included on this listing. Staff indicated uncertainty, however advised it had been included on a list from the State, provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, possibly the result of the storage of certain cleaners, types of paint or pool chemicals. Staff offered to obtain further information for Mayor Forsythe. Brown moved, second by Laszlo, to approve the City Council Policy regarding Hazardous Waste and Substances sites List as presented. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried CONTINUED HEARING - APPEAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-2 - 101 MAIN STREET - SEASIDE GRILL It was noted that the public testimony portion of this hearing had been closed however with the intent to allow comments by the applicant or his attorney and the appellant, as well as comments relating to the negative declaration. Mr. Rey Ochoa, attorney for the applicant, indicated he had reviewed the prior proceedings and comments relating to the request of Seaside Grill and reviewed his memorandum that had been provided the Council. Mr. Ochoa stated in part that the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control had originally permitted the Seaside Grill to serve alcohol until 11:00 p.m., has no objection to the requested hour extension; that the Police Department indicated no objection to the extension nor did they foresee any problem with respect to crime control; that the appellants have erroneously relied upon the referenced Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz letter of 1985 which was specific to CEQA review of traffic and noise relating to a Conditional Use Permit for Hennessey's, which he said is not applicable in the case of this request nor to the underlying rationale and basic policy thrust of the Act to prevent significant effects of a detrimental value on the environment; that the Grill has twenty-four parking spaces, is deficient five spaces, and claimed it is unlikely that the twenty-four spaces are filled between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m.; that this establishment is not one that attracts young people and an undesirable element; that the visit of Ms. Morton to the Grill was an intentional entrapment to which the response of ABC was that they considered the matter de minimis; that comments have been made that the extra one hour would only produce a $.77 income to the city, to which he claimed that hour allows the owners an opportunity to make a profit, meet their overhead, and stay in business; and that no new evidence has come to the forefront that could or would change the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Ochoa concluded that the Commission made a valid determination, and requested that the Council sustain that decision, approve the Negative Declaration, and grant the modification of hours. Dr. David Rosenman, 8th Street, pointed out that if the Negative Declaration is determined to be deficient the Council has the option of not approving the document and referring same back to the staff and Commission. His specific concerns with the Environmental Assessment were cited to be that there is no approved Land Use Element; that the responses to Section 13 (a) and (b), Transportation/Circulation, should be 'yes' rather than 'maybe' as there is no approved in-lieu parking program; that Section 14, Public Services, should be reflective of a May, 1991 communication from the Police Chief expressing concern with I I I I I 1-11-93 . regard to over-concentration and there was no discussion of multiple episodes at the hearings therefore claimed the document to be misleading and in error. Dr. Rosenman clarified that he was representing his views, not those of Seal Beach Citizens united as reported in the press. Mr. Mark Hotchkiss, Seal Beach, noted that the Environmental Quality Control Board did not review the environmental assessment, and indicated that his comments were directed to both the Seaside Grill and Papillion negative declarations. The City Attorney confirmed that the comments of Mr. Hotchkiss would be included under both items. Mr. Hotchkiss commenced his comments to the negative declarations with Section 6 (a), Noise, took exception to the statement throughout the document that 'with the imposition of conditions as set forth by the Planning Commission, this impact is considered insignificant, and no new information regarding this issue has been brought forward,' and expressed his belief that the findings of the Commission are not legal or are compromised due to cumulative impacts. He continued with reference to Section 8, Land Use, stating the response should be 'maybe' if not a 'yes' since incompatibilities of land use are being debated and no cumulative findings are discussed; Section 13, Transportation/ Circulation, should be considered 'maybe' at least in the cumulative sense in most responses; Section 14, Public Services, specifically (d), made reference to the May, 1991 communication from Police Chief Stearns, yet noted there had been no concern with the extension of hours. Mr. Hotchkiss stated his opinion that the real issue lies with the cumulative impacts, Section 21, relating to traffic, parking, crime, and noise, and quoted several excerpts from the Mandatory Findings of Significance. He cited a statement that 'limited data available suggests that traffic levels have fallen or remain constant,' that based upon a 1985 citywide traffic count taken in the summer month of July and a 1989 count taken in the pre-summer month of May, to which he contended that the seasonal increase of the impact of traffic would far outweigh any increases that would occur on an annual basis of 1985 to 1989, therefore claimed the comparisons hold no validity for the conclusion. In response to the statement that 'the proposed expansion of hours, as conditioned by the Planning commission will occur at night, and thus any increase in the demand for parking at night will not conflict with daytime demands,' Mr. Hotchkiss said the document does not reflect the fact that residents also need to park, that need increasing at night whereas commercial parking decreases, the document assuming that commercial parking has no impact on residential parking, yet a prior speaker indicated having no problem parking, she simply parks a couple of blocks away on a residential street, which he said clearly shows there is impact on residential parking and any claim that there is adequate parking can not be justified. Mr. Hotchkiss referred to the 1985 and 1992 comparison of restaurant operations on Main Street showing an increase of restaurants from nineteen to twenty, those having alcohol remain at sixteen locations, and although there was no intensification of that use during the seven year period he did not believe it could be concluded that will not be so in the future. He also said he did not believe that a conclusion could be made with regard to the impact of late night noise since there is no direct data available and there is insufficient traffic data to reflect night time activity. He added his belief that land use should also be considered as one of these issues. Mr. Hotchkiss said he felt the negative declarations were deficient in that the document acknowledges that the data does not exist to fully assess traffic, does not include residents when considering parking, the documents indicate that intensification in the future will not have an adverse impact based upon data from 1985 and 1992, the impacts from noise and land use incompatibilties are assessed on traffic data that does not exist, and the proposed mitigation measures do not address the identified impacts in the initial 1-11-93 study. He mentioned the 'determination' that there will not be a significant effect on the environment as a result of the mitigation measures, which he noted were the hours of operation, hours that alcohol may be served, and indemnification of the city by the applicant, that the conditions of approval do not address the issues that were brought up in the negative declaration, and the mitigation measures do not address the concerns uncovered by I the initial study. Mr. Hotchkiss said from his research he did not see how the negative declaration could be approved. Mr. Jim saint, Island View Drive, inquired if there have been problems associated with this restaurant in the past, and if not, said he could not understand the reasoning for the environmental assessment. The appellant, Mr. Gordon Shanks, 215 Surf Place, acknowledged that the issue is confusing unless one is familiar with the pattern of what has taken place and the time frame thereof. He explained that the original application to open was filed in May, requested the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to midnight Friday and Saturday, the Planning commission approved the Sunday through Thursday hours however restricted Friday and Saturday to 11:00 p.m. He noted several comments to the effect that there is an inconsistency of hours for the service of alcohol on Main Street, to which he noted that the other six delicatessen/ restaurant operations are consistent in closing at 10:00 p.m., and offered his opinion that there is no need for a delicatessen/restaurant to stay open that late except for the purpose of beer and wine sales. Mr. Shanks reported application was made in september for a 1:00 a.m. closing, the ABC determined to not consider that request until expiration of the twelve month review period, and instead of allowing the city the full review period of the original I approval, application was made for the additional one hour five days per week. He questioned what effect this approval would have on the other six deli/restaurants, some of which directly abut residential properties, the likelihood of this becoming a beer bar, a nuisance, and/or hangout, and if granted the additional hour now, asked what request can be anticipated in May, the end of the twelve month review period. Mr. Shanks requested that the appeal be granted. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing closed. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:18 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:35. p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. The Mayor requested staff responses to certain public comments. with regard to the negative declaration, the Director of Development Services stated from the comments made to the negative declaration there was no presentation of factual evidence to refute any of the information that is currently in the negative declaration. He quoted directly from the California Environmental Quality Act that 'negative declarations must be prepared when an agency determines, after concluding an initial study, that the project does not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and such a determination can be made I only if there is no substantial evidence before the agency, in contrast an EIR is required whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair arqument that significant impacts may occur.' He noted that there have been a number of cases that discuss the issue of fair argument under CEQA law, the most recent being Perley versus the County of Calaveras, in that case there was a California Appeals Court decision that held that the fears and desires of project opponents do not qualify as a fair argument, stating that 'speculation is not evidence, speculative possibilities are not substantial evidence of environmental impact,' and in the case of Board of Supervisors of Sacramento I I I 1-11-93 County versus Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission, a 1991 California Appeals Court decision cited that 'mere concern on subjective speculation having no objective basis is not evidence.' The Director said the opinion of staff is that the presentations to the Council did not provide fair argument and specific information that there are significant impacts that would be generated by the proposed project under consideration. The Director confirmed that the city does have a Land Use Element, felt to be an adequate, valid Element of the General Plan, that the staff report discusses the fact that Land Use Elements traditionally do not go into the level of detail of providing clear quidance as to how to deal with an issue of this type, rather they address the general land use development pattern of a community, whether it be commercial, residential or industrial, the type of development to be allowed in those zones as far as the number of units per acre for residential, the size of structures for commercial, etc., and does not address specifics such as operating hours, accessory uses, etc. He said it is felt the project under consideration is in conformance with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. He mentioned that the record from the Planning Commission indicates that the Police Department had no concern regarding the extension of hours as recommended by the Planning Commission. with regard to a statement that the Planning Commission did not consider the impacts of the project whether or not a mitigated negative declaration or the categorical exemption would be appropriate, he said there were two pages of such discussion in the Commission minutes of November 4th, also a memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney provided to the Commission at that meeting with extensive discussion of the difference between a categorical exemption and an initial study and preparation of a negative declaration, and upon the Commission receiving all testimony their determination was that the categorical exemption was an appropriate level of environmental review, that an initial study and further analysis was not required, the Commission then approved the project under that criteria. He noted that as part of both the Seaside Grill and Papillon issues the Commission made a request of Council to consider an interim ordinance to not allow other intensification of uses on Main Street until such time as an overall environmental review could be done, which was presented to the Council in December with a direction to staff to prepare initial studies for these two projects, and the Council adopted a Resolution indicating that for any further projects the applicants would be required to commence the initial study process themselves. The Director explained that the negative declarations for these two projects were prepared by staff pursuant to direction of the Council, the documents were circulated pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and now before the Council for independent review. He made reference to comments claiming the lack of consideration of cumulative impacts with regard to noise, land use, transportation, and police protection, and explained that those comments related to the initial study and that the issues of cumulative impacts were discussed later in the document commencing with Section 21. He pointed out that for the project under consideration there is no requirement under the City'S ordinances that additional parking be provided merely because the business may be open longer than it was initially operating, that parking requirements are based upon the size and use of the building and not based upon the hours of operation. The Director clarified that in most cases consideration of environmental issues is in conjunction with the Planning Commission hearing on a project, however in the case of large projects that have communitywide impact the hearings are often held separately before the Environmental Quality Control Board and the Commission. with regard to alleged inadequacies of the mitigation measures proposed by the Commission as conditions of approval, the Director made reference to the Planning 1-11-93 Commission determination that there were no significant impacts, their approval of the categorical exemption, the conditions were based on that level of review and the determination was that those conditions were adequate to protect the community. He pointed out that the same conditions are now before the Council incorporated with a heightened level of environmental review, that it is felt there are no significant environmental impacts I created by the additional one hour of operation, that the mitigation measures and conditions of approval are also felt to be adequate to respond to the areas of concern that were identified in the initial study, as well as the major concerns of noise with the late evening use of the property. The Director indicated that should the Council choose to certify the negative declaration for the project, a resolution would be prepared for consideration at the next meeting, as well as a mitigation monitoring program setting forth how the conditions would be monitored and evaluated by the City. The Director again reviewed the options available for consideration by the Council. Councilman Doane moved to approve the Negative Declaration and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, granting the modification of hours of operation. Councilman Brown seconded the motion. Councilman Doane made comparison of the Seaside Grill to the prior eating establishment at this location, praised the food, the clientele, and the atmosphere of the Grill, stated he did not feel the one hour extension increases alcohol, and noted the failure of a number of Main street businesses during recent years. Councilman Doane mentioned a recent communication relating to potential loss of revenues again this year as a result of State budget actions, thus the need to join together as I a community to support business, that being the only viable way for the City to increase revenue that is not a tax or fee paid by the people. He expressed his opinion that there is no reason to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. Councilman Brown said although he agreed with many of Mr. Doane's comments, he felt this request should have been postponed until conclusion of the agreed upon twelve month review period of the original permit. Councilman Laszlo expressed his belief that the people in the Old Town area have concerns with traffic, trash, and the sale and use of alcohol, yet at the same time businesses are requesting the extension of operation hours. He noted there are fifteen establishments within a three block area that dispense beer and wine on-site, three Off-site establishments, seven of the fifteen close by 11:00 p.m., and stated his feeling that the additional hour requested by Seaside Grill will be largely for alcohol consumption, and the majority of concern lies with continued requests for extension of hours for alcohol. He offered that the City is not anti-business as claimed, that the City assists businesses as best they can, the cost of business licenses are reasonable, businesses had once been allowed the use of in-lieu parking, shared parking, the closure of Main street for special events, etc., all in a spirit of cooperation with the business community. Councilman Laszlo stated his intent to support the request of the citizens and the appeal in this case. I Councilmember Hastings said she hoped that the issues under consideration would not become a controversy between businesses and residents, that businesses should have the right to submit their requests, people should feel welcome to present their views, after which the Council has the opportunity to weigh the testimony and make a decision, and in this case the issue is what is desired for the future of this city. Councilmember Hastings urged that the accusations directed to opposing viewpoints be put aside. Mayor Forsythe acknowledged that the issue of one hour is insignificant in itself, pointed out that there is a consistency on Main Street of the Type 41 licenses, food establishments with I I I 1-11-93 beer and wine like that of Seaside Grill, however noted that should just one hour be requested by the other Type 41 licensed establishments the result could be an extra thirty-five hours per week. She offered that when looking at Main Street from a marketing concept there needs to be an even distribution of the types of establishments, which is basically what now exists, rather than an over-concentration of one type of business. She mentioned that the opinion of many persons she has spoken with is that they do not want the cosmetics of Main Street to change. with regard to the accusations that the City does not support Main Street businesses, Mayor Forsythe cited as an example the relocation of a Main Street business to a mall or shopping center where in addition to a square foot charge the business will be required to pay a common use fee, a fee which landlords use to pay for improvements, parking, lighting, tree trimming, security, etc., yet in this community the city pays those costs. She noted also that the sales tax revenue from all Main Street businesses equals a 1.4 percent contribution to the total budget, therefore in essence the residents are subsidizing the Main Street businesses. Vote on the motion to sustain the determination of the Planning Commission: AYES: NOES: Doane Brown, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Motion failed Brown moved, second by Hastings, to grant the appeal of Gordon Shanks, et. al. reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and denying the requested modification of hours. AYES: NOES: Brown, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Doane Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING/APPEAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-13 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - PAPILLON RESTAURANT - 143 MAIN STREET - LIVE ENTERTAINMENT Mayor Forsythe invited members of the public wishing to speak to the Negative Declaration relating to Conditional Use Permit 92- 13, Papillon's Restaurant, to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. The following comments of Mr. Mark Hotchkiss are included as stated under the public hearing relating to Conditional Use Permit 92-2, as requested by the speaker and as directed by the City Attorney. Mr. Mark Hotchkiss, Seal Beach, noted that the Environmental Quality Control Board did not review the environmental assessment, and indicated that his comments were directed to both the Seaside Grill and Papillion negative declarations. Mr. Hotchkiss commenced his comments to the negative declarations with Section 6 (a), Noise, took exception to the statement throughout the document that 'with the imposition of conditions as set forth by the Planning Commission, this impact is considered insignificant, and no new information regarding this issue has been brought forward,' and expressed his belief that the findings of the Commission are not legal or are compromised due to cumulative impacts. He continued with reference to Section 8, Land Use, stating the response should be 'maybe' if not a 'yes' since incompatibilities of land use are being debated and no cumulative findings are discussed; Section 13, Transportation/ CirCUlation, should be considered 'maybe' at least in the cumulative sense in most responses; Section 14, Public Services, specifically (d), made reference to the May, 1991 communication from Police Chief Stearns, yet noted there had been no concern with the extension of hours. Mr. Hotchkiss stated his opinion that the real issue lies with the cumulative impacts, Section 21, relating to traffic, parking, crime, and noise, and quoted several excerpts 1-11-93 from the Mandatory Findings of Significance. He cited a statement that 'limited data available suggests that traffic levels have fallen or remain constant,' that based upon a 1985 citywide traffic count taken in the summer month of July and a 1989 count taken in the pre-summer month of May, to which he contended that the seasonal increase of the impact of traffic would far outweigh any increases that would occur on an annual I basis of 1985 to 1989, therefore claimed the comparisons hold no validity for the conclusion. In response to the statement that 'the proposed expansion of hours, as conditioned by the Planning Commission will occur at night, and thus any increase in the demand for parking at night will not conflict with daytime demands,' Mr. Hotchkiss said the document does not reflect the fact that residents also need to park, that need increasing at night whereas commercial parking decreases, the document assuming that commercial parking has no impact on residential parking, yet a prior speaker indicated having no problem parking, she simply parks a couple of blocks away on a residential street, which he said clearly shows there is impact on residential parking and any claim that there is adequate parking can not be justified. Mr. Hotchkiss referred to the 1985 and 1992 comparison of restaurant operations on Main street showing an increase of restaurants from nineteen to twenty, those having alcohol remain at sixteen locations, and although there was no intensification of that use during the seven year period he did not believe it could be concluded that will not be so in the future. He also said he did not believe that a conclusion could be made with regard to the impact of late night noise since there is no direct data available and there is insufficient traffic data to reflect night time activity. He added his belief that land use should also be considered as one of these issues. Mr. Hotchkiss said he felt the negative declarations were deficient in that the document I acknowledges that the data does not exist to fully assess traffic, does not include residents when considering parking, the documents indicate that intensification in the future will not have an adverse impact based upon data from 1985 and 1992, the impacts from noise and land use incompatibilities is assessed on traffic data that does not exist, and the proposed mitigation measures do not address the identified impacts in the initial study. He mentioned the 'determination' that there will not be a significant effect on the environment as a result of the mitigation measures, which he noted were the hours of operation, hours that alcohol may be served, and indemnification of the City by the applicant, that the conditions of approval do not address the issues that were brought up in the negative declaration, and the mitigation measures do not address the concerns uncovered by the initial study. Mr. Hotchkiss said from his research he did not see how the negative declaration could be approved. Dr. David Rosenman concurred with previous comments relating to in-lieu parking, referred to his written request of the City for documents showing adoption of the in-lieu program, which he claimed is non-existent, that communication also speaking to the Circulation Element, however said as yet he has received no response, and claimed the negative declaration to be inadequate. With regard to Section 17 of the declaration, Human Health, he I claimed the response should be 'maybe' since there is a health impact from the service of alcohol, noise and stress; Section 6, Noise, he stated that given the absence of current noise studies for this or any other project to allow a determination of impacts, the negative declaration is therefore lacking. Mr. Mark Hotchkiss, Seal Beach, offered his opinion that the problem with the negative declarations is not that they do not necessarily apply to the issues under consideration, but what is missing is a full environmental review. He suggested that the documents not be approved in order to allow a full environmental review of the entire situation on Main Street so that businesses in the future I I I 1-11-93 will not have to go through this process, what would be allowed would be clearly set forth, in that way projects such as Seaside Grill and Papillon's, if considered reasonable, could appear before the Planning Commission, be granted ministerially, which is then not subject to CEQA review, if the environmental data is available. He noted also that where there is not data supporting an effect on the environment and also no data contending that there is no effect, the courts have ruled that such matters should be determined on the side of preserving the environment. Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th street, in reference to Section 13, Transportation, stated that the negative declaration does not take into account the cumulative actions the city has taken over several years with regard to in-lieu parking, approximately one hundred fifty spaces that he said are non-existent. In-lieu parking is allowed only if there is a parking authority, and if there is no authority that must be addressed when variances are issued, and that was not addressed in the negative declaration. with regard to Public Services Section 14-f, other Governmental Services, he indicated he might agree with the response if it were 'facilities,' however being 'services' he likely would not inasmuch as the City basically has no n~ght or weekend enforcement, and questioned what is to be done in the event of a problem during those periods. Mr. Antos concluded that had the City dealt with the issue of capacity, parking, and residential impacts previously these items would likely not be on appeal, and that more appeals can be anticipated until those issues are resolved. Ms. Juliana McCants, 1000 Electric Avenue, cited the scenario of drawing more customers, those persons seeking parking, which in turn has an impact on adjacent neighborhoods. She voiced objection to the negative declaration documents. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach, was duly sworn by the Clerk as requested. with regard to CUP 92-13, Ms. Olson said she did not understand why the negative declaration was being considered, inquired if the Planning Commission had considered it before approving the entertainment permit, and suggested things are being done backwards. She also indicated her copy of the negative declaration was different from those of others. Ms. Olson said . the negative declaration does not adequately cover the issue of cumulative impact, intensification of uses on Main Street all based on phantom non-existent parking, referred to as in-lieu, claimed that there has been a creeping effect, that she did not understand how it could not be considered cumulative, that there are one hundred fifty in-lieu spaces therefore something must have happened to create that. with regard to the precedent setting aspects of approving one entertainment permit, she said others will follow as has been seen with the extension of hours based upon one application. Ms. Olson stated she has been checking City documents and if the in-lieu parking program is legal she would like to know what makes it legal. She recalled being advised in 1985 by a land use attorney that Guidelines Section 15300.2(b) makes clear that all exemptions are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time are significant. She asked if a study is needed to see that that has already happened, that there should have been a study before even starting, that there had been communication that what happened in that particular 1985 issue was retail converting to restaurant, there are some persons in the community that feel the subject location was retail as well, and in researching City documents it is stated that the subject property contained an existing retail store and delicatessen with currently valid alcoholic beverage licenses for on-sale beer and wine and for an off-sale beer and wine retail outlet approved in 1980, and claimed there have been several intensifications on this one property even since then, that she found also only a third of the parking lot is for this particular business. Ms. Olson said there is much documentation to justify the cumulative effect, a report of June 30, 1989 on 1-11-93 the subject property that stated 'the cumulative impacts of this program have adversely impacted public access parking, as many in-lieu parking spaces have been allotted to commercial uses without one replacement space being created for the public as a result of a parking project financed by these funds,' the Coastal Commission advised us. She stated there had been concern of people in 1985 with the in-lieu parking program, concern that I there would be an intensification of use with the granting of in- lieu parking to one business, yet legal counsel advised that any in-lieu parking program would be established by ordinance, subject to environmental review and public hearing. She questioned the existence of that ordinance, said there was no public hearing yet the people have been impacted without going through the democratic process. Again with regard to the review of documents, Ms. Olson said she had found new information, that the City has justified the in-lieu parking with Government Code Section 65906.5, and upon requesting that Section from her attorney Section 65906.6 was looked at as well and determined that a conditional use permit should not be under consideration, rather a variance. She offered that 65906.5 allows that 'variances from parking requirement conditions, not withstanding Section 65906, a variance may be granted from the parking requirements of a zoning ordinance in order that some or all of their required parking spaces be located outside, including locations in other local jurisdictions, or that in-lieu fees or facilities be provided instead of the required parking places if both the following conditions are met,' and charged that the City's quote did not include the conditions. Ms. Olson said the question of her attorney was how does one know if it has not been studied, and again there should have been an environmental impact report. She said the argument she has gotten with regard to in- lieu parking is that this is what was proposed with a I revitalization study in the early 1980's, and at that time citizens became aware of revitalization/redevelopment on Main Street because of hearing terms like recycle, commercial properties for parking, prices of $6,000 per space, and being realistic and giving fair market value for a parking lot today it would probably be about $70,000 per space. She voiced concern that persons who signed the in-lieu parking agreements may have signed a blank check. Ms. Olson said the residents thought the (1985) project was trashed, the people did not want redevelopment and did not want to pay for parking for businesses which would have been a parking district and an assessment. Also in checking documents she advised the Council to read information that was given the Coastal Commission, since she has heard that either the people have been deceived or the Coastal Commission is being misled, and read a quote from a March 13, 1985 letter to the Commission, City of Seal Beach application 5-85-39, 'the application before you today is the direct result of our central business district revitalization process now entering its third year. starting with a team of consultants to study traffic, parking, marketing, architecture and planning, and business practices, their findings were then given to two task forces made up of Main Street merchants, property owners, and residents from throughout the City. These task forces in turn drew their own conclusions which were recommended to and subsequently and I unanimously adopted by both the Planning Commission and the City Council.' Ms. Olson said if that happened she would like to know when it happened, and stated she felt a lot of people would be very surprised. Ms. Olson acknowledged being under oath, that everything she said was from City documents, she was not certain if she had gotten the right information, therefore at this point requested that if the City has an in-lieu parking program adopted under the Parking Law of 1949, or anything else, that it be produced to her now. As the appellant in this case, Ms. Olson said she felt the in-lieu does relate to the negative declaration. She claimed to have written to the city Attorney I I I 1-11-93 approximately two weeks ago, stated she had not received a response or copy of any law. The city Attorney responded that he had not received the letter, and suggested that another copy be sent. Ms. Olson said the letter requested the law that gives the right to in-lieu parking. It was the recommendation of the City Attorney, with consensus of the Council, that general staff responses to comments relating to the negative declarations, as first presented under consideration of Conditional Use Permit 92-2, be incorporated as applicable under this item as well. The Director of Development Services stated from the comments made to the negative declaration there was no presentation of factual evidence to refute any of the information that is currently in the negative declaration. He quoted directly from the California Environmental Quality Act that 'negative declarations must be prepared when an agency determines, after concluding an initial study, that the project does not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and such a determination can be made only if there is no substantial evidence before the agency, in contrast an EIR is required whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that significant impacts may occur.' He noted that there have been a number of cases that discuss the issue of fair argument under CEQA law, the most recent being Perley versus the County of Calaveras, in that case there was a California Appeals Court decision that held that the fears and desires of project opponents do not qualify as a fair argument, stating that 'speculation is not evidence, speculative possibilities are not substantial evidence of environmental impact,' and in the case of Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County versus Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission, a 1991 California Appeals Court decision cited that 'mere concern on subjective speculation having no objective basis is not evidence.' The Director said the opinion of staff is that the presentations to the Council did not provide fair argument and specific information that there are significant impacts that would be generated by the proposed project under consideration. The Director confirmed that the City does have a Land Use Element, felt to be an adequate, valid Element of the General Plan, that the staff report discusses the fact that Land Use Elements traditionally do not go into the level of detail of providing clear guidance as to how to deal with an issue of this type, rather they address the general land use development pattern of a community, whether it be commercial, residential or industrial, the type of development to be allowed in those zones as far as the number of units per acre for residential, the size of structures for commercial, etc., and does not address specifics such as operating hours, accessory uses, etc. He said it is felt the project under consideration is in conformance with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. He mentioned that the record from the Planning Commission indicates that the Police Department had no concern regarding the extension of hours as recommended by the Planning Commission. with regard to a statement that the Planning Commission did not consider the impacts of the project whether or not a mitigated negative declaration or the categorical exemption would be appropriate, he said there were two pages of such discussion in the Commission minutes of November 4th, also a memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney provided to the Commission at that meeting with extensive discussion of the difference between a categorical exemption and an initial study and preparation of a negative declaration, and upon the Commission receiving all testimony their determination was that the categorical exemption was an appropriate level of environmental review, that an initial study and further analysis was not required, the Commission then approved the project under that criteria. He noted that as part of both the Seaside Grill and Papillon issues the Commission made a request of Council to consider an interim ordinance to not 1-11-93 allow other intensification of uses on Main street until such time as an overall environmental review could be done, which was presented to the Council in December with a direction to staff to prepare initial studies for these two projects, and the Council adopted a Resolution indicating that for any further projects the applicants would be required to commence the initial study process themselves. The Director explained that the negative I declarations for these two projects were prepared by staff pursuant to direction of the Council, the documents were circulated pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and now before the Council for independent review. He made reference to comments claiming the lack of consideration of cumulative impacts with regard to noise, land use, transportation, and police protection, and explained that those comments related to the initial study and that the issues of cumulative impacts were discussed later in the document commencing with section 21. He pointed out that for the project under consideration there is no requirement under the City's ordinances that additional parking be provided merely because the business may have entertainment, that parking requirements are based upon the size and use of the building. The Director clarified that in most cases consideration of environmental issues is in conjunction with the Planning commission hearing on a project, however in the case of large projects that have communitywide impact the hearings are often held separately before the Environmental Quality Control Board and the Commission. with regard to alleged inadequacies of the mitigation measures proposed by the Commission as conditions of approval, the Director made reference to the Planning Commission determination that there were no significant impacts, their approval of the categorical exemption, the conditions were based on that level of review and the determination was that those conditions were adequate to protect the community. He I pointed out that the same conditions are now before the Council incorporated with a heightened level of environmental review, that it is felt there are no significant environmental impacts created by this application, that the mitigation measures and conditions of approval are also felt to be adequate to respond to the areas of concern that were identified in the initial study, as well as the major concerns of noise with the late evening use of the property. The Director indicated that should the Council choose to certify the negative declaration for the project, a resolution would be prepared for consideration at the next meeting, as well as a mitigation monitoring program setting forth how the conditions would be monitored and evaluated by the City. The Director again reviewed the options available for consideration by the Council. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 9:42 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:00 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. APPEAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-4 - CONVENIENCE STORE - OAKWOOD APARTMENTS Council indicated their desire to hold this item over until the next meeting. Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit 92-4, a request for an off-sale beer and wine license in conjunction with a recently approved convenience store within a residential complex, Oakwood Apartments. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported receipt of a communication from D. A. Davis in support of the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial. It was the unanimous consensus of the Council, with consent of the applicant, to continue the hearing until the January 25th reqular meeting. I I I I 1-11-93 CONTINUED DISCUSSION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-13 - PAPILLON RESTAURANT Mayor Forsythe advised that the public hearing on this item was closed, however the Council, by consensus, allowed comments from the applicant. Mr. Nader Tahvildari was duly sworn by the Clerk as requested. Mr. Tahvildari said to allow him a single non- amplified instrument will enhance his dining atmosphere, which he felt will be an asset to Seal Beach and the residents. He mentioned the continued reference to in-lieu parking, stated having entertainment does not intensify his business nor does it increase the parking required. He explained that the manner in which his dining room is arranged, based on approval of the city and Fire Department, the maximum capacity of the restaurant is one hundred fifteen however he presently has seating capacity for a total of ninety, that based on the number of parking spaces that are provided, which he felt is adequate for the size of the building, was approved by the Coastal Commission where he was required to provide a certain number of parking spaces on-site and off-site, therefore he did not believe there is a problem with his parking. Mr. Tahvildari said he too is a concerned citizen, concerned with the environment and the residents, that he has been a businessperson in Seal Beach for ten years, many people know him and the manner in which he conducts his business, and have been supportive of his request for entertainment. He said his request should not be compared to a past problem involving entertainment, reiterated that his request is for a single instrument, a change from box music to live music. with regard to those who have voiced their concern with parking, Mr. Tahvildari made specific mention of non-conforming properties owned by Mr. Stark that have two spaces rather than the required six and eight spaces, properties of Ms. Olson as well having two spaces where four are required, another requiring eight spaces yet there are only four. He said if he is required to pay for in-lieu parking then those persons should be required to pay as well. He recalled a recent evening at approximately 9:00 p.m. where his bar area was full, the restaurant was half full, yet four or five empty parking spaces remained in his lot, stating that the majority of his customers walk to the restaurant. Mr. Tahvildari again stated his feeling that the requested entertainment will be good for the City and asked that it be approved. Councilmember Hastings mentioned the lack of notarization of Mr. Tahvildari's acceptance of conditions for CUP 2-89, a requirement of that approval, thus suggested he may have been operating illegally since the time of approval, and that he should submit a new, notarized application to the City. The Director of Development Services said he believed the reference made was to CUP 2-89, however the required signature document was for CUP 92-13, that the Commission required that the signature either be notarized or that it be signed by the applicant in the presence of the Planning Commission, and in this case Mr. Tahvildari signed the acceptance of conditions form prior to the Planning Commission voting on the ReSOlution, at that point in time the Commission had not allowed the applicant to sign the document in the presence of staff with a verification as to who was signing the document. Councilmember Hastings indicated it was distressing to see a non-concern or above the law attitude portrayed, again questioning if this business has been operating illegally given the lack of notarization of the acceptance of conditions. With the consensus of the Council to allow the appellant the opportunity to rebut comments made, Ms. Reva Olson stated that every property she owns is legal non-conforming, built according to Code at the time, and she bought them as such. Councilman Brown moved to approve the Negative Declaration and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission to grant the live entertainment, and deny the appeals. Councilman Doane seconded the motion. 1-11-93 Councilman Brown agreed that Seal Beach is a nice place to live, has an ambiance, that the piped music at Papillon's is pleasing, and he could support a single non-amplified instrument which will likely be an enhancement to the city. He said although he had given the comments with regard to transportation, parking, etc., due consideration, those are separate concerns that need to be addressed, but not in conjunction with this application. He I noted his understanding of Councilmember Hastings initial concern that the Planning Commission should likely not have the authority to make a decision such as allowing entertainment. Councilman Doane agreed, also stated his understanding of the concerns expressed, many of which stemmed from a prior problem associated with entertainment, yet given the conditions applied by the Planning commission there is the ability to monitor this CUP for compliance. He said he could see no reason to reverse the unanimous decision of the Commission. Councilman Laszlo acknowledged the concerns expressed as a result of past experiences, noted there are very few Main Street establishments large enough to accommodate entertainment, and said he would hope that extended hours will not be another request if the Commission recommendation is upheld. Although noting uncertainty as to why in-lieu parking became an issue with regard to this request, Mayor Forsythe acknowledged that it has been a problem and does need to be addressed by the city. She offered that parking requirements do not apply in this case as there is no request for an increase of square footage, stated the conditions applied by the Planning Commission are tight, mentioned that non-amplified music is traditionally lower than box music, the conditions require the doors to remain closed, the CUP is non-transferrable, no singing or dancing is allowed, the City has the right of revocation at any time should there be a violation, and noted that in the event of an evening disturbance it is customary to 1- call the Police Department. Mayor Forsythe inquired if the applicant had any objection to signing the acceptance of conditions and notarization of same, and noted a concern received from Johns Food King Market as to the distribution of parking spaces in the shared lot. Mr. Tahvildari responded that the acceptance has been signed and notarized. with regard to the Johns Food King communication, the Director stated that the lot parking is shared between the market and the Papillon Restaurant, the lease agreement provided the city shows one-third the responsibility of the restaurant, two-thirds the responsibility of the market, that the restaurant variances approved in 1984 and 1989 show only six of the parking lot spaces going towards the required parking for the prior establishment and then to Papillons, other parking provided off-site as required by the Coastal Commission, that the establishment does have in-lieu parking, additionally four spaces have been grandfathered as a result of the building having been constructed many years ago. The Director clarified that Johns Market has submitted application for a CUP because they currently have an Off-premise beer and wine license, consideration and approval of which is pending, that initially there was concern by the Commission as to how these two uses share the parking in the lot, that it is understood that the spaces are not restricted for the specific use and the parking is available for either use. Councilmember I Hastings again asked that Mr. Tahvildari provide a new signed and notarized acceptance of conditions of CUP 2-89 for the City's records. Councilmember Hastings said she had appealed this item because she felt the City Council is the proper body to make policy and that the granting of entertainment is within the purview of the Council. She read from the Municipal Code the definition of Entertainment Cafe, under which she said this request would fall if granted. In reference to the language of the Code she cited the need for an entertainment ordinance and a policy statement establishing criteria for the issuance of CUP's,runiformity and elimination of any grant of special privilege. I I I 1-11-93 She expressed a desire that this request not be granted until an entertainment ordinance and CUP standards are in place, and in her view to grant the request would constitute a special privilege at this time. with regard to the negative declaration she made reference to section 10-b, that it is likely an emergency response or evacuation plan could be inhibited by increased vehicular movement and customer patronage; that the response to section 12, Housing, should be 'yes', the impact the result of lack of on-street parking, exiting at late hours, noise, etc.; Section 13-a, Transportation/Circulation, being a substantiation of her comments to Section 12; Section 14-b, Public Services, Police protection, asked if the City could afford to provide special services to this business exclusively; Section 21-c, Mandatory Findings of Significance, cumulative impacts, the response and the explanation of same creating a dichotomy, and stated the response should be 'yes.' She read Section 28-2504 of the Code regarding the purpose of a conditional use permit 'to insure the proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding uses and not detrimental to the neighborhood,' to which she said if it were Main Street proper it would be compatible but in speaking of the area in general it would be an incompatible use. In reference to Section 28-2505 she questioned if Mr. Tahvildari in his application for a CUP set forth fully the grounds for and the facts deemed to justify the granting of the variance or conditional use permit. Councilmember Hastings said she was elected to serve residents first, yet represents the business district too, that she is pleased to have the businesses that exist on Main Street, that they give the Street its unique character and flavor. She stated her feeling that this impact will be detrimental to the neighborhood as a result of the competition for residential parking with the restaurants, that the intensification of use is known, and the piano bar will increase patronage, bring more automobiles, and the need for parking spaces. She concluded by reemphasizing her request for an entertainment ordinance and criteria, inasmuch as she had foreseen this issue forthcoming. Mayor Forsythe explained that this establishment will not be setting a precedent as it is one hundred fifty feet from the surrounding residences, thus another business in closer proximity to residential properties would not be allowed the same consideration. Vote on the motion to approve the Negative Declaration and to sustain the decision of the Planning Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Brown, Doane, Forsythe Hastings Laszlo Motion carried The city Attorney advised that a Resolution reflecting the action of the Council would be prepared for the next meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - REFUSE COLLECTION RATES I RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM It was the consensus of the Council to table this item as requested by staff, to be renoticed for a later meeting. PIER PLAOUES The City Manager reported that shortly after the pier fire the City began receiving donations for its repair and inquiries as to whether there would be plaques or some type of recognition of the donors. He noted there have been nearly $25,000 in contributions directly to the City thus far, explained that in order to be a tax deductible contribution it must be made payable to the City of Seal Beach, and local groups expressing interest in assisting with the solicitation of funds were advised of that process. The Manager recommended consideration of establishing donation 1-11-93 categories of 'in memorium', $100 or more, and $500 or more, and noted he would request direction from the Council at a later date with regard to placement of the plaques. It was the consensus of the Council to establish donation categories as recommended by the City Manager. PROPOSED COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT - STANDARD PROVISIONS FOR 1- ALCOHOL RELATED LAND USES The City Manager noted that staff is requesting additional comments from the city Attorney's office relating to this item, and recommended that it be held over to a later meeting. It was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over. COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilman Brown inquired as to status of the City as a result of the most recent storm. The City Manager reported all went well, the Public Works Department did a commendable job, the storm warning information from the National Weather Bureau allowed time for preparation, Orange County Search and Rescue committed up to forty people with four-wheel drive vehicles if needed, the volunteer firemen were on call, there were pumps available as was certain heavy equipment from the County. He encouraged residents having sand bags to keep them or call the City to arrange for pickUp, and cautioned that they should not be disposed of in the gutters or down the storm drains. Mayor Forsythe extended appreciation to Mr. Bankston for his round-the-clock efforts during the recent storm. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Mitzi Morton, 13th Street, said she wished to compliment City staff, whereas she received a call from Public Works employees at 3:30 1- a.m. on the night of the storm advising that the water line at her apartments had broken, the crews were there, helped turn off the water, and later assisted in getting equipment to cut through the cement to reach the pipe. She requested the names of those employees so that a note of thanks could be forwarded to them. Mr. Orszewsky, 85 Riversea Road, said he had read a news article relating to the Trailer Park, and he was not aware of a proposed tenant buyout. He said in his new position as press agent for a member of the legislature he has become aware of the bleak projection of the upcoming state budget and impact on Orange County cities, and suggested that this city is not in a financial position now or in the future to have any financial role in the Trailer Park. Mr. Orszewsky spoke of the conflict in Bosnia, suggested that the White House be contacted and urged to arque for the lifting of the embargo by the United Nations so that the people can arm themselves and the carnage can be met equally. Dr. David Rosenman claimed that a different procedure was followed with regard to the second negative declaration, that staff was not requested to comment on questions raised, also asked if there is an in-lieu document, if so, that it be made available, if not, that that be acknowledged. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION I 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 25th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. By unanimous consent of the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m. I I I 1-11-93/1-25-93 C C of the lerk and ex-o of Seal Beach Approved: _~u~ ~tlZA"';_/-:' Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California January 25, 1993 The City Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:01 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL (,lIT.T. Present: Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers Brown, Doane, Hastings, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the city Council would meet in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) and (b) to discuss an action of O'Keefe versus city of Seal Beach, and two other matters of significant exposure to litigation. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:03 p.m. The Council reconvened at 6:48 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items previously announced, gave direction with respect to the O'Keefe case, and no other action was taken. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 6:49 p.m. erk and ex-off of Seal Beach Approved: ~'t~ /%~ ..;#-J/h - Mayor Attest: