HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1993-02-22
2-8-93/2-22-93
the east beach area, and suggested that a committee be formed to
review past studies and reports with regard to the issue of
parking, specifically in-lieu, and that the information be
brought up-to-date in order to determine what solutions that may
be possible. The City Manager responded that the Planning staff
has commenced an evaluation of available parking at various hours
of the day and evening in and around the Main street area, that I
the various past studies and inventories are being compiled, and -
suggested that the Council may wish to devote some time to meet
with the public prior to establishing a committee. Councilmember
Hastings indicated support for an evening meeting with all of the
past data made available to the public.
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, February 22nd at 6:00 p.m. to
meet in Closed Session.
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:02 p.m.
I
Approved: _~u_ /c;z;.",->~~ "
Mayor
Attest:
Seal Beach, California
February 22, 1993
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
adjourned session at 6:02 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the
meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Forsythe
Councilmembers Brown, Hastings, Laszlo
Absent:
Councilmember Doane
I
Councilman Doane arrived at 6:03 p.m.
Also present: Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk
2-22-93
I
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 pending litigation in the case of Mola versus City
of Seal Beach, threatened litigation, and personnel matters. By
unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at
6:03 p.m.
Councilman Doane arrived at 6:03 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 6:51 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling
the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had
discussed the matters previously identified and that no action
was taken.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to
adjourn the meeting at 6:52 p.m.
Clerk and ex-o
of Seal Beach
Approved:
d1U/~"'~~-<'
- Mayor ,
I Attest:
Seal Beach, California
February 22, 1993
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session
at 7:02 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
I
Also present: Mr. Bankston, city Manager
Mr. Barrow, city Attorney
Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development
Services
Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk
WAIVER OF FULL READING
Doane 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
2-22-93
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Mario
Voce, 730 Catalina Avenue, said it appears that the wetland ponds
on the Hellman property are going down rather than continuing to
flooding up even though there has been considerable rainfall thus
far, which makes pumping suspect, and requested that if such
activity is observed that it be reported to the State Fish and I
Game as it is a violation. There being no further comments,
Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed.
PRESENTATION - LOCAL ENERGY AWARD
Mayor Forsythe introduced Ms. Sally Rakow, Commissioner,
California Energy Commission. commissioner Rakow explained that
the California Energy Commission grants an Outstanding Energy
Achievement Award to local governments that have gone above the
norm in installing energy efficient measures in their buildings,
that the Commission encourages energy conservation which benefits
both the State and local economy through increased economic
productivity, reduced operational costs, and fewer environmental
impacts from pollution. The Commissioner stated Seal Beach has
been recognized for energy efficiency improvements to the city
Hall and the Marina Community Center, the antiquated City Hall
heating and air conditioning system replaced with a modern, high
efficiency HVAC system, and lighting efficiency was improved by
replacing incandescent bulbs with fluorescent fixtures and
concurrently replacing F-40 fluorescent lamps throughout the
building with F-34 fluorescent lamps, and the original
fluorescent fixtures at the Marina Center were removed and
replaced with fluorescent energy saving ballasts and lights, and
all 1500 watt fixtures at the tennis courts were replaced with
400 watt metal halide lights. She noted the projected annual
energy cost savings to be $8300 annually, as well as a positive I
example for local businesses and the community. commissioner
Rakow presented the award with congratulations to the Council,
city Manager, and City staff. Mayor Forsythe read the Awarding
Resolution in full and expressed appreciation for the
recognition.
COUNCIL ITEMS
APPOINTMENTS - ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE I MARINA PARK
IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE
Councilman Laszlo requested that the District Four appointments
to the Archaeological Advisory Committee and the Marina Park
Improvement Committee be held over.
APPOINTMENT - AREA AGENCY ON AGING - SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY
COUNCIL
Appointment of an alternate representative to the Senior Citizens
Advisory Council was held over and suggested that the local press
note the available position to the public.
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "E" thru "P"
Councilman Laszlo requested that Item "K" be removed from the
Consent Calendar. Hastings moved, second by Brown, to approve
the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except
Item "K", as presented.
E. Approved regular demands numbered 1256
through 1432 in the amount of $442,028.68
and payroll demands numbered 506 through
665 in the amount of $185,442.01 as
approved by the Finance committee, and
authorized warrants to be drawn on the
Treasury for same.
'I
I
I
I
AYES:
NOES:
F. Approved the minutes of the February 8,
1993 regular meeting.
G. Proclaimed the month of March, 1993 as
"Red Cross Month."
Denied the claims for damages of Bolynda
Schultz and Tamala Golden and referred
same to the City'S liability attorney
and adjuster.
I. Denied the claim for recovery of expenses
of Gisela M. Bentson.
H.
J. Adopted Resolution Number 4203 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH SUSTAINING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DETERMINATION REGARDING CUP 92-22,
DENYING AN APPEAL OF CONDITION 6, RELATING TO
LIGHTED WINDOW SIGNS, RELATIVE TO A REQUEST
TO ALLOW THE OFF-PREMISE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING
LIQUOR STORE LOCATED AT 322 MAIN STREET, SEAL
BEACH (NIP N' STUFF LIQUOR)." By unanimous
consent, full reading of Resolution Number
4203 was waived.
L. Received and filed the Monthly Investment
Report as of January 31, 1993.
M.
Approved a one year extension of the City/
County Fire Service Agreement for the term
commencing July 1, 1993 through June 30,
1994.
N. Received the review of the "Draft Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
Aqueous Ammonia storage Tank Installation at
the Southern California Edison Alamitos
Generating Station" and instructed staff to
forward suggested comments to the South
Coast Air Quality Management District.
o. Adopted Resolution Number 4205 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE STANDARD FORM AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
THE CITY AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR FEDERAL
FUNDING OF APPROVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROJECTS." By unanimous consent,
full reading of Resolution Number 4205 was
waived.
P.
Adopted Resolution Number 4206 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CODE WHICH INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE THE
STANDARD CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PREPARED
BY THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 3008" and
received and filed the Local Agency Biennial
Report. By unanimous consent, full reading
of Resolution Number 4206 was waived.
2-22-93
Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo
None Motion carried
2-22-93
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM "K" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4204 - APPLICATION SUBMITTAL -
TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT AND COORDINATION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT - SEAL BEACH I LOS ALAMITOS BOULEVARD
Noting that the project proposed is from Lampson Avenue to
Cerritos Avenue in Los Alamitos, Councilman Laszlo inquired I
whether the city of Seal Beach or the City of Los Alamitos would
be in control of the signal synchronization. The city Manager
responded that it would be both, however primarily it would be
the GMA #2 (Growth Management Area), this being a utilization of
Measure M funds that are allowed only for inter-jurisdictional
projects and in this case for an independent engineering study,
determination of the phasing for the project, then presented back
to the GMA for consideration prior to final funding approval. He
suggested that Councilman Doane, the GMA #2 representative, be
alerted to the engineering report as well as staff to ensure that
there be no funding approval until the timing cycle has been
reviewed by either the Councilor City staff. He clarified that
the proposed Resolution authorizes submittal of the project which
will then be reviewed and ranked by the Orange County Transit
Authority for the 1993/94 funding cycle, and the City would have
opportunity for input relative to specific timing, the Lampson
Avenue left turnpocket as an example, should funding be
considered for approval. Councilman Laszlo emphasized his
concern that the Lampson/Seal Beach Boulevard signal timing will
once again be bungled, objected to the signal being under the
control of the GMA rather than the city, similar to the lack of
control of the signal over the freeway bridge, suggested that the
synchronization stop at st. Cloud, and asked that this item be
held over until he is assured of City control. Councilman Doane
noted that GMA #2 ends at the freeway, the area southerly is I
within GMA #6, explained that the proposed project has nothing to
do with the freeway signal, and is meant to benefit Seal Beach
Boulevard. He noted that this is a countywide project, Seal
Beach Boulevard only one of several streets designated for such
improvement, and extended an invitation for Councilman Laszlo to
attend the next GMA #2 meeting to obtain additional information.
with regard to recourse of the City should this project
negatively impact the Lampson Avenue traffic flow, the City
Manager said he could not guarantee the GMA determination could
be overturned, they are required to conduct traffic counts and
studies and must fulfill their primary objective per Measure M
which is to move the largest volume of vehicles through the area
with the least constraint, as well as meet requirements of the
AQMD and other regulations of the Measure. He explained the
project would be a synchronization that would link all of the
signals, that city staff would not have present flexibility to
access one controller as that would affect the entire linkage,
and offered that if the signals are synchronized to the City
boundaries in either direction yet there is one signal that is
not part of that system, an impact on traffic would be realized.
The Manager confirmed that there is a maximum and minimum formula
for signal timing, explained that a computerized model is based
upon traffic counts to determine where within the minimum or
maximum time lapse a signal should be synchronized, the I
synchronization also affected by the amount of traffic at the
signal above or below a specific point. He noted concern that
Lampson Avenue could be more negatively impacted if the signals
up to that point are synchronized and it is not, and given the
traffic counts and the left turn pocket on Lampson, indicated the
importance of the Lampson signal being at least mid-range for
turning purposes. He suggested that should this submittal
receive approval, the concerns would be clearly set forth, and
existing data relative to accidents, the left turn, etc. could be
provided at the time of the study. It was the consensus of the
Council to hold this item over until later in the meeting to
ascertain the deadline for submittal of this application.
I
I
I
. \ .,
2-22-93
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
92-9 - G , M OIL COMPANY - 1300 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Mayor Forsythe declared the continued public hearing open to
consider the appeal of Planning Commission approval of
Conditional Use Permit 92-9, Condition #5, regarding prohibiting
filling of gasoline storage tanks between the hours of 2:00 a.m.
and 6:00 a.m. in conjunction with an existing service station at
1300 Pacific Coast Highway (G 'M Oil Company). The City Clerk
certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised
and mailed as required by law, and reported no communications
received either for or against this item. The Director of
Development Services presented the staff report, noted that
Planning Commission Condition #5 prohibited the delivery of fuel
to the station between 2:00 and 6:00 a.m., however did not limit
the twenty-four hour of operation of the station. He pointed out
that the property fronts Pacific Coast Highway, is zoned
commercial and designated as such in the General Plan, that the
Commission found the use compatible with the General Plan as well
as with the neighborhood, however a concern regarding noise from
this establishment had been expressed by a resident on the
northerly side of the Highway during a similar consideration for
the Shell station at Main/Pacific Coast Highway. The Director
estimated there to be four or five twenty-four hour stations in
the community, and conditions for those would be dependent upon
their particular situation, such as not being adjacent to
residential properties.
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. It was noted that the appellant, G , M
oil Company, was not present. Mr. Tom Charara, Main Street Cafe
and Grill, asked that each business be considered as unique unto
itself. Sol John, 13th Street, commented on the general practice
of night fuel deliveries. There being no further comments, Mayor
Forsythe declared the public hearing closed.
In response to inquiries of the Council, staff clarified that the
standard residential setback is three feet, that there have been
no complaints from adjacent residents, only that mentioned
previously and during consideration of another matter, explained
that the Planning Commission and City Council have the authority
to review and modify any condition upon receipt of complaints,
also the ability to grant approval for a specified period of time
to ascertain whether or not there are related problems. It was
noted that this twenty-four hour operation has existed at the
present location since 1969 without complaint.
Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to grant the appeal of G , M
Oil Company, eliminating Condition #5, allowing the continued
delivery of fuel during the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. for
a period of six months, subject to review at that time, and that
the applicant be required to monitor noise levels during that
period, at the applicant's expense.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo
None Motion carried
The City Attorney advised that a resolution will be prepared
reflecting the action of the Council for the next meeting.
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to
declare a recess at 7:49 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:02
p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order.
2-22-93
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-12 I VARIANCE
92-2 - ANDERSON STREET - OVEREEM
Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider the
appeal of Planning Commission approval of a car wash/quick lube
pursuant to Conditional Use Permit 92-12 and Variance 92-2,
Anderson Street. The City Clerk certified that notice of the
public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, I
and reported receipt of communications from Mr. Paul Horgan,
Huntington Beach, Henry and Sally viets, Surfs ide Colony, Mr. Bob
Montgomery, President of the Surfside Board of Directors, on
behalf of Surfs ide Colony homeowners, Gale Grubb, Seal Beach, and
T. Harper in support of the appeal and in opposition to the
proposed project, and a communication from Mr. George Armstrong
in support of CUP 92-12 and Variance 92-2, in opposition to the
appeal. Mayor Forsythe read in full the communication from
Surfs ide Colony, Ltd. for the record. The Director of
Development Services presented the staff report and actions of
the Planning Commission relating to the request to establish a
quick lUbe/car wash on the subject property and a variance to
allow a drive aisle of less than twenty-four feet in width for
vehicular access to the property. He noted that the subject
property is currently vacant, an irregular shaped parcel located
on Anderson Street southerly of Pacific Coast Highway between the
water tower and Surfs ide Colony, has twenty-five feet of access
to Anderson Street, parking spaces proposed to be nine feet in
width with sixteen feet of driveway providing one-way vehicular
access to the quick lube/car wash bays, then exiting onto Pacific
Coast Highway utilizing an easement that would be recorded across
the property to the north. The Director reported the appeal was
filed by Dr. Odell, resident of the water tower, requesting
denial of the project, citing concerns with regard to
compatibility of this land use with the land use of the I
surrounding area, adverse impacts from traffic, and claiming the
Planning commission failed to determine the appropriate parking
requirements for the use and development standards for the
property. He explained that the subject property is currently
zoned commercial as are other properties along Pacific Coast
Highway between Surfs ide and the Highway, Surfs ide is zoned for
residential purposes and the water tower is currently a
residential use although zoned commercial. He reported vehicles
were initially proposed to enter the site from Pacific Coast
Highway, exiting onto Anderson Street north with Highway access
for either north or southbound, however after due consideration
the Commission conditioned their approval by reversing the
traffic flow, limiting ingress exclusively from Anderson Street
and egress from the site onto Pacific Coast Highway. He noted
that a second story office area had been deleted from the project
entirely, the office and storage area relocated from the south
property line to adjacent to the car wash thus allowing an
additional parking space, the project now providing five off-
street parking spaces, two car wash bays and two quick lube bays.
The Director reviewed the issues that should be considered in
evaluating the CUP as well as the Variance, and made reference to
pages four through six of the staff report setting forth the
findings of the Planning Commission. To questions posed by
Council, the Director explained that the response to impacts on I
air quality had been 'maybe' inasmuch as there is no vehicular
traffic currently on the property and it was felt that the
project would not produce a sufficient number of vehicles to
cause a major impact on the air quality of the area: that the
request for signage along the Highway had been deleted, all
signage now proposed to be located on the subject property; that
requested traffic accident data had not been received by the
Planning Commission; that development standards of the Zoning
Code referenced in the staff report include setbacks, building
heights, number of parking spaces, percentage of landscaping,
etc. as opposed to other environmental considerations: that the
I
I
I
, .
'.
2-22-93
projected two hundred eighty-eight vehicle trips per day was
taken from a Trip Generation document prepared by the Institute
of Traffic Engineers, a nationally recognized document that
provides anticipated numbers of vehicle trips for different types
of land uses, also the adopted Growth Management Element which
sets forth certain levels of significance of traffic impacts on
the City's major streets, that established at three percent of
the traffic, and given the approximate thirty-five thousand
vehicles per day along Pacific Coast Highway, the projected two
hundred eighty-eight vehicles was less than the three percent
therefore did not exceed the significant criteria, and if it had
a detailed traffic study would have been required; that the
availability of statistics as to significant accidents in the
vicinity of the PCH/Anderson street intersection would have had
no bearing on the numbers projected nor would that data have
required a separate traffic analysis, however could be considered
in deliberations with regard to compatibility of the project with
the community and surrounding area. Councilmember Hastings
voiced her concerns relating to noise, traffic, air quality, and
impact on surrounding residences as a result of this proposed
project. The Director acknowledged that there has been
discussion of widening Pacific Coast Highway north of Warner as
part of the proposed Bolsa Chica project, that it is uncertain as
to where such widening would cease or that it would come into
Seal Beach, reported that the Planning Commission had likewise
considered the concerns expressed, and it is now within the
authority of the Council to determine if their decision is felt
to be appropriate.
Mayor Forsythe invited the appellant to address the Council. Dr.
Odell, One Anderson Street, mentioned that when this project was
originally proposed residents of the area did not attend the
Commission hearings as it was felt that given the nature of the
project it would be turned down, yet that was not the case. He
presented a petition signed by some one thousand three hundred
twenty persons from Seal Beach, Surfside, Sunset Beach,
Huntington Beach, and outside the immediate area in support of
the appeal. Dr. Odell said opposition to the project is
basically that the historical significance of the water tower is
being endangered where residents of Seal Beach and Sunset Beach
worked diligently from 1979 until 1982 to save the tower,
preserve the integrity of the site, and create a well known
landmark, and the builders of the tower, George Armstrong and
himself, were required to take extraordinary steps and adhere to
specific guidelines to preserve the integrity of the tower,
especially with respect to its superstructure. The appeal also
the result of concerns with traffic, violation of community
aesthetics in that the unsafe, unsightly, and offensive land use
would dramatically alter the landmark setting and destroy the
architectural composition of the tower as well as the entire
neighborhood and property values would undoubtedly be affected.
Dr. Odell expressed his view that a Jiffy Lube facility made no
sense in the area, that only the applicant and Mr. Armstrong
appear to be in favor of it, and read portions of a communication
in opposition to the proposed project. He concluded that the
issue is not only that no one wants a Jiffy Lube next to their
house, it is also the historical integrity of the water tower
house, and suggested that an appropriate residential or
commercial use would be more acceptable.
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. Virginia Strain, 16332 North Pacific
Avenue, Sunset Beach, noted her fifty year residence and
ownership of four contiguous residential properties immediately
across from the location of the proposed Jiffy Lube, and past
efforts to save the water tower. Ms. Strain stated her opinion
2-22-93
that the appeal should be upheld and the Jiffy Lube/car wash
project denied inasmuch as approval of the project was based on
poorly planned and incorrect zoning, the property should have
been rezoned at the time of approval of the water tower house,
flawed environmental data, irrelevant factors such as the price
paid for the property, the project should be denied also because
of potential danger to vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. I
Mr. Bill Padilla, Surfside, charged that this proposal is an
inappropriate land use, is adjacent to Surfside residential yards -
where some persons utilizing their patios will watch cars being
washed and oil being changed. He claimed that traffic congestion
is already hazardous, that persons exit Surfs ide via the east
gate onto Anderson, only feet away from the Jiffy Lube entrance
on Anderson, a significant number of cars at that location now as
well as on Pacific Avenue. He also expressed concern for the
safety of persons traveling the bicycle lane, impact from
lighting, and with the irrevocable easement through the property.
Mr. Padilla urged that the Council uphold the appeal and deny the
project. Mr. Hugh Cherry said he is a thirty-three year resident
and seventy year old bicyclist traveling approximately five
thousand miles a year, frequenting the area under discussion
often, and stated the right turn onto Anderson entertains between
five hundred to a thousand cyclists on a weekend, with the right
turn facilitating a reasonable compatibility between bicyclists
and motorists. He likened the intersection of Anderson and PCH
to a similar area in Newport that cost him a broken shoulder and
a bicycle, likewise a vehicle exiting a driveway took the life of
his son riding a bicycle in Phoenix. Mr. Cherry noted that
cycling is a growing sport, Pacific Coast Highway is an
international bikeway, and concluded that should the access from
this project onto Pacific Coast Highway be allowed it will create
a very dangerous situation. Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th I
street, offered that most traffic/ accident information relating
to the area of Anderson street/ Pacific Coast Highway is kept by
CalTrans and the Highway Patrol, and that he possessed
information regarding accidents in 1991 and 1992 where the County
was involved in investigations. Mr. Antos described the subject
area of PCH as a curved, lighted intersection, and adjacent to
the proposed exit from the subject property is a right turn area,
a bicycle lane, Anderson street also a coastal access route
accommodating numerous visitors to the area. If one intends to
travel towards the Seal Beach/Long Beach area persons have the
choice of crossing lanes of Highway traffic, or using the right
turn lane onto Anderson to its end, making an illegal "U" turn to
then use the left turn lane at the Highway, which he said
endangers vehicles and children exiting Surfs ide and places
commercial traffic in a residential neighborhood, as is Sunset
Beach, mentioned also the many people that park in the Sunset
Beach greenbelt and cross the street to access the beach. He
concluded that there is too much being proposed for this single
parcel of land, and that the use is incompatible with the area.
with regard to other uses of the property, he offered that
theoretically there could be a two story building, accessed from
Anderson, the number of parking spaces determined by the square
footage of the building, and possibly a large front setback to
accommodate the backing out of vehicles. Mr. Antos said during I
the summer months the level of service at the PCH/Anderson
intersection is "F". He noted that in response to a number of
requests from Sunset Beach the County sought ideas for traffic
improvements, the responses ranged from concern with parking in
areas with blindspots, overnight parking of campers and
recreational vehicles, slower and less traffic, additional bike
lanes, etc., and reported that EMA engineers are currently
working to develop some solutions to those problems. Mr. Henry
Seits, past member of the Surfs ide Board, said he believed the
lack of a representative on the Commission during consideration
of this project impacted the decision. In addition to concerns
I
I
I
2-22-93
with the bike lane and turns onto Anderson, he cited dangerous
conditions as a result of vehicles backing out from the Harbor
House restaurant onto PCH, a school bus stop, the Surfs ide gate
exiting onto Anderson, an often gridlocked situation on the
Sunset Beach greenbelt during summer months, and suggested that
this project and its traffic impact should be looked at during
the month of July. Ms. Connie Chaplan, A-8, reported her use of
the Anderson Street gate for entry and exit from Surfside, that
gate used by vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians, stated as
much caution needs to be exercised when crossing Anderson as when
crossing the Highway, and suggested that the complexity of the
entire area needs to be considered. Mr. Jim Lukash, C-17,
expressed his opinion that the project proposed is an
incompatible use. He described his observation of more than one
accident along the "s" curve of the Highway, noted the impact of
sunlight on westerly drivers, and offered that oil and water
drips from vehicles will result in vehicles out of control. Mr.
Lukash asked that the project be rejected. Sol John, 18th
Street, suggested that this type of discussion cease, rather that
the streets, pier and lights be repaired. Mr. Charlie Duset,
Anderson Street, said he agreed with all of the prior comments,
and should this project be approved he felt it necessary to
relocate in Sunset Beach simply because of the impact on
Anderson, also his preference would be to not have Sunset Beach
and an oil change mentioned together. Ms. Jane MCCloud, Balboa
Drive, reported that she recently observed two car washes and a
service station in Sunset Beach, a car wash in Seal Beach as
well, and said another such business is unnecessary. She too
noted that bicyclists traditionally turn right onto Anderson from
PCH, and the safety of that should be considered for the biking
community. Mr. Bruce Potter, B-66, also agreed with prior
comments, questioned if the three percent additional vehicular
trips applied to the Highway or just Anderson street, and stated
he did not want a quick lube/car wash business near his home.
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to
declare a recess at 9:12 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:24
p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order.
A resident of Sunset Beach referred to the pier as a local
landmark treated with discretion, stated the water tower is
considered to be a Sunset Beach landmark and he would hope it too
would be treated with discretion. Ms. Christine Parker said
while gathering petition signatures she found people dismayed at
a proposal to put this type of business in their residential
neighborhood, that the residents and resulting noise should be
given the greater consideration. Mr. Derek SUllivan, Long Beach
resident, said he is a frequent visitor to Sunset Beach, objected
to the proposed business, and urged continued consideration for
safety and the beauty of this area. Mr. Chris Brooks, San Pedro,
said he was a prior resident of the water tower, and on more than
one occasion had directed traffic following an accident until
emergency units arrived. He suggested a bicycle shop rather than
the business proposed. Mr. Jim Marbley, Heather Street, said he
once lived near a similar business, stated although they start
out clean they soon become dirty as a result of the constant use
of water and the dripping of oil, and indicated objection to such
an operation next to the water tower and residences. Mr. Paul
Hackert, Pacific Avenue, Sunset Beach, expressed appreciation for
the City's past support of the restoration of the water tower,
said the Jiffy Lube/car wash operation is totally incompatible
with the present use of the area, that protection of the public,
vehicle and pedestrian traffic, as well as the bus stop for
children is of prime importance. A Surfs ide resident indicated
his concern with traffic and safety, the school bus stop, and
summer visitors parking across the Highway and walking along
Anderson to the beach. He pointed out that Anderson is a small
2-22-93
street, many people park vertically, and to exit Anderson often
takes two to three traffic lights. He noted his concern as well
with the delivery and pick-up of oil, most likely to occur during
evening hours.
The applicant, Mr. Jeff Overeem, 5 Anderson Way, stated that the
owner of the water tower has opposed any use of this property, I
had objected to the thirty-five foot height of the proposed condo
project, has had water tower visitors sign a petition to block
his project, has been trying to purchase the property for several
years, has been unsuccessful in selling the tower, and will move
out of town if it is sold. He said the tower owner has had a
realtor contact him offering purchase of the property at a
reduced, under market value; stated that residential use of the
property is not consistent with the zoning: the proposed project
consists of lesser height and square footage than the condo
proposed; claimed the proposal is not an attempt to put as much
as possible on this lot; that a one-way drive aisle is common;
that Surfs ide will not be impacted by additional traffic as most
of those residents work during the day; and a wall will be
constructed adjacent to Surfside as a protection from noise. He
said he would be opposed to Surfs ide moving their main entrance
to Anderson street, as has been proposed, if this property is
developed for residential. Mr. Overeem questioned why the owner
of the water tower is objecting to his project, stated the
architecture will blend with the tower; will not impact its
historic integrity; will not impact the view; is compatible with
the surrounding uses; the vehicular trips will more likely be one
hundred eight rather than two hundred eighty-eight; exit from the
project will be the same as Noels Restaurant; a sign will be
installed advising of no left turns and cautioning bicycle riders
of the exit; a stall and a parking space provided for each bay; I
lighting will be confined to the property; and no objections from
like businesses in the area have been brought forward. He said
other uses mentioned for the property are not financially
feasible. To questions posed by the Council, Mr. Overeem
responded that the facility will likely be a Pennzoil operation;
the oil delivered in bulk form and the hours of delivery are to
be specified; operating hours will be from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00
p.m.; the business would work in cooperation with the detail shop
and provide car washing for that operation; and customers of
Jiffy Lube would be served on a first come, first served basis.
Dr. Odell stated that whether or not he moves from the tower
house or remains in the Seal Beach area the other persons
speaking will be impacted by the operation proposed, that he did
not choose to respond to other comments of Mr. Overeem, and noted
that signing the petition was not a condition of visiting the
water tower house. Dr. Odell confirmed that he owns the water
tower house, and that Mr. Armstrong is the owner of the
commercial property. There being no further comments, Mayor
Forsythe declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Doane relayed his experience in finding it difficult
to re-enter the Highway from the restaurant in the general area
of the subject property. He also reported visiting a number of
Jiffy Lube operations, finding that there was not a great deal of I
traffic nor did the facilities appear to be run down, also none
of them operated in conjunction with a car wash. He said it is
likely the traffic issue has been over-emphasized, yet
acknowledged that that could be dependent upon the time of year,
and noted the expressed concern with the issue of safety. He
questioned what type of business might be feasible for Mr.
Overeem. Councilman Laszlo recalled the background leading to
the saving and reconstruction of the water tower. He mentioned
also his observance of traffic and safety problems in the
immediate vicinity of the subject property. Mayor Forsythe
stated that her concerns too were with traffic safety,
I
I
I
. ,
2-22-93
specifically relating to exiting the property and exacerbating an
already existing problem. Councilmember Hastings mentioned her
concerns as well with traffic and having this type of business in
such close proximity to residences.
Hastings moved, second Laszlo, to sustain the appeal, reversing
the recommendation of the Planning Commission and denying the
requested car wash/quick lube.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo
None Motion carried
The City Attorney advised that a resolution would be prepared to
reflect the action of the Council for consideration at next
meeting.
It was suggested that the city and residents of the subject area
work with Mr. Overeem to develop a project that would be
acceptable to all.
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT - STANDARD CONDITIONS - ALCOHOL RELATED
LAND USES
The City Manager recalled that recent conditional use permit
considerations had prompted a move towards establishing standard
conditions for alcohol related land uses, that proposed to
commence through the adoption of a Council policy, and explained
that the standard conditions could be applicable to all cases yet
would not preclude the application of more specific conditions on
a case by case basis. He noted that this is merely a policy, is
not an ordinance or resolution, does not carry penalties, yet are
conditions that can be used by staff when reviewing projects, as
well as the Commission and Council. The Director of Development
Services confirmed the comments of the City Manager, explained
also that any new establishment that would be licensed by the
State for either on or off premise alcohol sales is required to
come to the City for a conditional use permit to be considered
under public hearing before the Planning Commission, the policy
merely provides the applicant, the Commission and staff standard
conditions that would be automatically imposed in almost every
case, yet allows the flexibility to apply additional conditions
in a specific case.
Doane moved, second by Brown, to adopt the City Council Policy
Statement establishing standard conditions for alcohol related
land uses. Councilmember Hastings spoke favorably of the policy
yet asked that the Conditions be amended to include provisions of
the Business and Professions Code, specifically Rule 61.3, Undue
Concentration, and Rule 61.4, Proximity to Residences. The city
Attorney said it was his understanding that the language would be
in addition to the proposed language of the Conditions to further
alert applicants of some of the Code requirements.
Councilmembers Doane and Brown accepted the amendment to the
motion.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo
None Motion carried
WORKSHOP - PARKING ISSUES
The city Manager advised that the report forthcoming from the
Planning Department relative to parking is sizeable, that he too
will be preparing a report of options for consideration, and
inquired as to whether the Council would choose to meet in
special session or workshop setting to discuss this issue. He
offered that the matter could be scheduled as a discussion item
at a regular meeting to define the problem with a subsequent
workshop if desired, an option also would be to distribute the
report when completed and then schedule a workshop thereafter.
2-22-93
Councilman Laszlo indicated he would not be available until the
end of March. The Manager noted that once the report is complete
it will be available from City Hall and at the libraries. It was
indicated that a date to consider the parking issue would be
discussed at the next meeting.
ITEM "K" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4204 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS - I
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
Councilman Laszlo suggested that the Measure M funds be used to
coordinate the signals from south of the freeway to Pacific Coast
Highway or that the project proposed be concluded at st. Cloud.
Drive rather than at Lampson Avenue, stating he did not want Seal
Beach Boulevard to become a super street. The City Manager
advised that the deadline for submittal of the application is the
date of the next Council meeting.
Councilman Laszlo moved to approve the application as presented
provided that the City of Seal Beach will have the priority to
change the signal timing at Lampson Avenue as deemed necessary,
or that the project be concluded at st. Cloud. Councilman Brown
seconded the motion to conclude the project at st. Cloud.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Forsythe, Laszlo
Hastings, Doane
Brown
Motion failed
Councilman Doane moved to adopt Resolution Number 4204 as
presented. Councilman Laszlo objected, stating this project will
affect the control of a key signal in that area. Councilmember
Hastings suggested the motion be amended to provide for a median
amount of time for the Lampson Avenue signal. Councilman Laszlo
again called for the project to conclude at st. Cloud. The I
Manager explained that traffic counts will be taken in
conjunction with the project modeling is done, at that time the -
City would have the ability to express its concerns relative to
retaining the left turn timing inasmuch as the City has its own
studies and documentation as to the wait time, and offered that
the application could request the right to submit such data at
the appropriate time for consideration. Councilman Doane amended
his motion to include the recommendation of the City Manager.
Mayor Forsythe seconded the motion.
Vote on motion as amended:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Brown, Doane, Forsythe
Laszlo
Hastings
Motion carried
COUNCIL CONCERNS
Councilman Doane said it had been reported to him that a blimp
has been observed flying low over Seal Beach displaying an
advertisement for a specific brand of alcoholic beverage, and in
jest, inquired if there is provision for a conditional use permit
for such advertising. Given the amount of time that has been
spent considering appeals of conditional use permits recently,
Councilman Brown suggested that possibly additional meetings I
should be scheduled to deal with other matters of city business.
Councilmember Hastings mentioned that something needs to be done
with regard to beach erosion as there was considerable sand loss
during the most recent storm. Councilmember Hastings offered
condolences to the family of Beverly Casares upon her passing and
the illness of Mr. Casares.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communications.
I
I
-I
2-22-93/3-8-93
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, March 8th at 6:00 p.m. to meet
in Closed Session. By unanimous consent, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:32 p.m.
Clerk and ex-o
of Seal Beach
Approved:
_ ~1~1tc!.< aZ:,,~~ ,..
ayor
Attest:
Seal Beach, California
March 8, 1993
The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
adjourned session at 6:00 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. 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 to
discuss Mola versus City of Seal Beach and personnel matters.
The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:02 p.m. by unanimous
consent. The Council reconvened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe
calling the meeting to order. The city Attorney reported the
Council had discussed the items previously identified and noted
that Judge Brickner, Orange County Superior Court has granted the
city's motions and it appears there will be no trial in the Mola
matter.
ADJOURNMENT
Brown moved, second by Hastings, to adjourn the meeting at 7:01
p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo
None Motion carried