Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1987-05-11 5-11-B7 Seal Beach, California May 11, 1987 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:04 p.m. with Mayor Clift calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Clift Councilmembers Hunt, Risner, Wilson I Absent: Councilman Grgas Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Chief Picascia, Police Department Captain Stearns, Police Department Captain Garrett, Police Department Mr. Hemphill, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mr. Osteen, Recreation Director Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Risner, 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: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I AGENDA AMENDED Clift moved, second by Risner, to amend the agenda to consider the Employee of the Year Award, Resolutions Numbered 3685, 3689, 3690, Ordinance Number 1243, and items on the Consent Calendar out of order. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR The Director of Public Works introduced Mr. Donald Hagen, selected as the Employee of the Year, representing the Public Works Department. Mayor Clift presented Mr. Hagen with a City plaque and conveyed congratulations on behalf of the City Council. Mr. Hagen accepted the plaque with appreciation. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3685 - NOTICE OF INTENT - AMENDING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT CONTRACT . Resolution Number 3685 was presented to Council entitled "A I RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3685 was waived.. The Assistant City Manager reported the proposed amendment is required by the Memorandum of Understanding with the Police Officers' Association, provides for one-year final compensation, and reported the resulting change in the benefit rate and-annual cost. 5-11-B7 Risner moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3685 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1243 - AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT - PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT CONTRACT Ordinance Number 1243 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1243 was waived. Risner moved, second by Hunt, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1243 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3689 - COMPLETION - PROJECT NUMBER 577 - AFRC BASEBALL DIAMOND Resolution Number 3689 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT i577, AFRC BASEBALL DIAMOND IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE WAKEFIELD COMPANY AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3689 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3689 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3690 - COMPLETION - PROJECT NUMBER 579 - SIDEWALK RECONSTRUCTION Resolution Number 3690 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT 1579, SIDEWALK RECONSTRUCTION CITY-WIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ARM AND HAMMER CONCRETE AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3690 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3690 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "0" THROUGH "X. Councilman Hunt requested item "Q" removed from the Consent Calendar. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item "Q", as presented. O. Approved regular demands numbered 64754 through 64919 in the amount of $564,983.00 and payroll demands numbered 25294 through 25461 in the amount of $183,251.90 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. 5-11-87 P. Received and filed a letter from the Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation regarding cable coverage of the City Council meetings. R. Directed that letters of opposition to Assembly Bill 768 (Floyd) relating to the issuance of concealed weapon permits, be forwarded to the City's State legislators and the members of the State Public Safety Committee. I S. Supported the recommendations of the Solid Waste Commission and the Orange County League of California Cities regarding the proposed transfer of over $11 million from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund to the County General Fund, and directed that the City's position be transmitted to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. T. Approved support of SB 32 (Ayala) - Delta Improvements, SB 1122 (Ayala) - Safe Drinking Water Standards, and AB 1710 (Costa) - Delta Improvements, and opposition to SB 269 (Kopp) - Toxic Chemicals/Discharges, AB 859 (Sher) - Safe Drinking Water Standards, and AB 1028 (Katz) - Toxic Chemicals/Discharges, and directed that the Council's position be forwarded to the appropriate representatives pursuant to the communication from the Orange County Water Board. U. Approved the plans and specifications for Water Main Replacement in Dolphin Avenue and Seventh Street Alleys, Project Number 581, and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids. I v. Approved specifications for a telemetering system for the Water Department, and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids. W. Approved the specifications for fourteen portable two-way radios for the Police Department, and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids. X. Denied the claim of Steven L. Bates for personal financial loss, and referred same to the City's liability adjuster. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "0" - REOUEST - RED CAR MUSEUM Councilman Hunt noted a request had been received to remove this item from the agenda. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to continue the request for the installation of a chain and post around the Red Car Museum until the next meeting. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried 5-11-87 AGENDA AMENDED Councilmember Risner moved to amend the agenda to consider Item "BB", hour of adjournment, out of order at this time. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Risner, Wilson Hunt Grgas Motion carried I COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNMENT TIME Councilmember Risner read her memorandum to the Mayor and Councilmembers requesting consideration of a 11:00 p.m. adjournment of this City Council meeting. Given the hour of adjournment of the April 27th meeting, she stated she felt it unwise for the Council to make important decisions at such a late hour. She suggested that items not having a mandatory need for an action may be delayed until a time certain or the next regular meeting. Councilman Hunt stated he felt this would establish an unwise precedent, and spoke for proceeding with agenda items without their delay. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to approve the 11:00 p.m. adjournment. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Risner, Wilson Clift, Hunt Grgas Motion failed I PIER RESTAURANT CONCEPT Pending the arrival of Councilman Grgas, Councilmember Risner requested that re-evaluation of the viability of the pier restaurant concept, particularly as it relates to agreements that have been entered into with the State, be a matter of discussion prior to considering the proposed pier lease. She read a communication from the State Wildlife Conservation Board dated May 7th expressing that Agency's concerns with the type of restaurant proposed on the pier and requesting that the Council delay any action on the . restaurant lease pending their review of the proposal as provided by the agreement with the City dated December, 1983. She stated she had also spoken with the Conservation Board by telephone at which time they had conveyed their concerns, and she noted the importance of obtaining input from the Coastal Conservancy as well. AGENDA AMENDED Risner moved, second by Hunt, to consider agenda items "C" and "D", proclamations, at this time. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Clift proclaimed the week of May 17th through May 23, 1987 as "Traffic Safety Week." Mayor Clift proclaimed "National Public Works Week" during the period of May 17 through May 23, 1987. AGENDA AMENDED Risner moved, second by Wilson, to consider agenda item "F", a public hearing relating to fences, walls, hedges and screen plantings. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried 5-11-87 ruBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 4-87 - FENCES. WALLS. HEDGES and SCREEN PLANTINGS Mayor Clift declared the public hearing open to consider zoning Text Amendment 4-87 to amend the zoning regulations for fences, walls, hedges and screen plantings. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law and reported no communications had been received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report and recommendations of the Planning Commission. The Director reported ZTA 4-87 proposes amendment to three specific circumstances: 1) allows placement of a fence on or near the side street side property line of corner lots, providing for greater privacy in the side area of the side yard, the Code presently requiring a fifteen foot setback~ 2) revises rear alley setbacks to five and one-half feet for lots that are greater than twenty-five feet in width, the Code presently requiring nine feet on a fifteen foot alley, twelve feet on a twelve foot alley and thirteen feet on an eleven foot alley, the proposed amendment providing more usable space in the rear of a lot~ and 3) would allow repair and upgrading of legal non-conforming fences until such time as the property is redeveloped, which is consistent with Section 28-2406 of the Code relating to reconstruction of non-conforming properties partially destroyed. In response to Councilman Hunt, the Director explained that the original recommendation to the Planning Commission was that a fence be allowed on the property line of corner lots, the Commission in turn recommended a distance of eight feet from the curb face. Mr. Hunt urged that Council give consideration to allowing the placement of fences on the side property line of corner lots, therefore allowing the greatest use of the property where the yards are quite small. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to continue the public hearing until the next meeting to allow for further study and public input. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried AGENDA AMENDED Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to consider agenda item "E", Variance 2-87, 222 Main Street, at' this time. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I I PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - VARIANCE 2-87 - HOWARD BRIEF - 222 MAIN STREET Mayor Clift declared the public hearing open to consider an appeal to the conditions imposed upon Variance 2-87. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported no communications had been received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, noting that the Planning Commission considered Variance 2-87 on March 18th and approved same I with the staff's recommendations, the Planning Commission concerned with the precedent setting nature of allowing a non-conforming structure to significantly increase the level of non-conformity, and although the staff and commission support the conversion of this residential/office use to total commerical use, it was felt that the request of the applicant was excessive. He noted that the Commission approval reduces the applicant's proposal by only 3.09 percent or one hundred sixty-three square feet. Mr. Knight advised that the applicant subsequently filed an appeal, 5-11-B7 I requesting that the Council overturn the Commission's decision and support his request for a two and one-half foot, rather than a nine foot, rear setback on the second floor, and covered parking on the first floor as per the applicant's submitted plans. Mr. Knight recommended that the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld. Mayor Clift 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. Mr. Howard Brief, owner of the 222 Main Street property, stated that he had filed a detailed explanation with his appeal as to why he believed the staff report and the Commission's decision to be incorrect. He stated he felt the proposed architecture of the structure that was proposed to the Commission was within the regulations required for this particular property. Mr. Brief noted that the reduction of one hundred sixty-three square feet was recommended to the second floor, his proposal was for a setback on the ground floor that exceeds twelve feet. Mr. Brief explained that the variance on the property in 1984 to allow expansion of the bedrooms of the existing structure required a setback of nine feet on the ground floor, which was accomplished by removing a fence from the rear of the property and converting the fenced yard to parking, and further, allowed adequate visibility to the alley. He stated that the Planning Department recommendation was for a nine foot setback to be consistent with the 1984 variance, however that variance had not applied to the second floor. Mr. Brief stated his request is that the second floor cantilever over the parking area resulting in covered parking, with a two and one-half foot setback off the alley, the ground level remaining unobstructed with a setback in excess of twelve feet. Mr. Brief confirmed that the front setback, tree, brick walkway, and planting will remain as it presently exists, the only addition being a stairway to the second floor with a small overhang at the entrance to the building. Mr. Brief again explained that his proposal is that the bedrooms would become open space, the deck would be removed, and the roof line extended to the back of the property with a two and one-half foot setback off of the'alley. Mr. Knight responded that the City established the nine foot setback in 1984, and whether or not it applied to the first or second floor, staff felt that the nine foot setback was an appropriate compliance to allow the applicant to gain additional square footage, that being the reason for the staff recommendation, also that it was felt inappropriate to cover the entire site either on the first or second level. He also responded that there would be no access difficulties for emergency vehicles, and explained that the staff's square footage calculations included the area of the garage. There being no further communications, Mayor Clift declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Hunt urged that the Council give consideration to approving the appeal, noting that although the property would continue to be non-conforming, as are several other properties in the immediate vicinity, there does not appear there would be any detrimental effect or disadvantage to the community, also that the reduction of square footage would pose a significant economic loss to the applicant over a period of years. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to approve the appeal of Variance 2-87. I I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried 5-1l-B7 The City Attorney stated that a revised Resolution would be prepared reflecting the Council's action. The Council, by unanimous consent, declared a recess at 8:04 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:28 p.m. with Mayor Clift calling the meeting to order. PIER RESTAURANT LEASE Mayor Clift stated that in view of the absence of Councilman I Grgas he felt it would not be appropriate to go forward with the public discussion of the pier restaurant lease at this time, however requested an update from the City Manager as to the status of negotiations. The City Manager stated that pursuant to the direction of the City Council on April 27th, negotiations have continued with H.E.G. Enterprises as to a specific list of concerns posed by the Council relative to the terms of the lease for the pier restaurant. He reported that a revised draft lease had been provided the Council reflecting changes through Friday of the previous week, and that further changes have been made since that time. Mr. Nelson reviewed in detail each of the specific lease revisions as set forth in his memorandum dated May 8, 1987. He further noted revisions that have since been agreed upon or as clarification to points set forth in his memorandum. He stated that the lease term will commence the date the tenant first opens the restaurant for busines, or six weeks after receipt of all approved permits from other governmental agencies, given their contractual interest in the pier, also that all reference to approval authority by the City Manager has been deleted and substituted with approval by the City, which could involve the City Council, Planning Commission, or any other City department that would be charged with such I approval. with regard to the storage and transport of products for the restaurant, he stated that it will be the responsibility of the tenant to require delivery of goods to the storage facility and to then transport those goods to the restaurant by means of a small vehicle, similar in size to a Cushman vehicle, or by the tram. He advised that the recitals of paragraph "A" of the lease reflects all agreements having an active interest in the pier. With regard to tenant improvements, Mr. Nelson reported the lease no longer reflects any reference to phases, that there will not be a second story addition, the facility to be the building as it presently exists; with the addition of outside seating, and that the proposal is now to provide the concession either within the existing building or with modifications of the existing building at the end of the pier. He noted that Exhibit "D" to the agreement specifies the seating to be approximately sixty-seven inside and twenty-four outside for dining, fifteen inside and twenty- two outside for cocktails, for a total seating of one hundred twenty-eight. Mr. Nelson added that Mr. Griffith is developing a revised luncheon menu with a broader selection of items and moderate price range. The City Manager pointed out that the City presently has other tenants of pier facilities, the sportfishing operation and off-shore oil firms utilizing pier docking facilities, and explained that I the staff had initiated a proposal to automate the beach parking system based upon the off-shore oil operation and their request for access to parking and the pier on a twenty-four hour basis, and in turn the City is requiring the restaurant tenant to reimburse the City for the purchase and installation of the system up to $14,250, estimated as one-half of the cost, however it is not necessary that the City proceed with such installation. He reported that Mr. Griffith has agreed that if making parking available to restaurant patrons results in a decrease in revenue to the 5-11-B7 I City, the tenant will reimburse the City for such loss, the City presently trying to formulate a method in order to identify and prove any such loss. Mr. Nelson stated that he had been informed by an insurance broker that there is a special insurance available for alcohol related services, however not usually issued to restaurants, that it is more common to issue a broad form liability policy which includes specifics of that operation. He reported that the broker had advised him that the insurance coverage so stated in the lease is adequate, one million dollar combined single limit, and property coverage of not less than $100,000 per occurrence, noting also that annually the broker would review the coverage and not more frequently than three years determine if the amount of coverage is adequate, and if not the City may then require the coverage to be increased. The City Manager requested that the Council determine the degree of satisfaction with the terms of the lease and the conditions as presently drafted. Mr. Nelson stated that the problem that he has recently found is that there is no longer a negotiation between representatives of the City and the tenant given the degree of behind the scene discussion by the Council, public and the press. He requested that the Council give further direction to staff if the draft terms of the lease are determined to be satisfactory, and that a final offer be made to the prospective tenant for acceptance or rejection, and likewise if the terms are not satisfactory that the Council so indicate. With regard to concerns expressed regarding participation by other agencies, Mr. Nelson clarified that Section IV-D of the lease provides that tenant improvements to the premises are conditioned upon the tenant obtaining the necessary approvals from all governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the premises. He reported discussions with Fish and Game personnel this date and that it was indicated that they felt they should have been involved in this matter, also that the City should move slowly on approval of the agreement. He reported further that one member of their staff stated that it was felt that the provision of Section IV-D took into consideration their interests and did not exclude them totally from the negotiations. Mr. Nelson also reported discussion with the Coastal Conservancy, that agency having indicated they would be forwarding a letter to the City addressing the capacity of the restaurant and low and moderate costs pursuant to their agreement with the City. He advised that Mr. Griffith had been made aware of the aforementioned discussions and that it has been agreed that if the Council were to take an action at this meeting, that action should be conditioned upon receipt of the approvals from those interested agencies. councilmember Risner requested that this item be held over until the following Monday evening when Councilman Grgas would be in attendance to allow for further clarification of the lease revisions set forth in the staff report and discussion of any other changes. Councilman Hunt suggested that if the Council has additional positive recommendations or changes, that they should be solidified, presented to the City Manager for discussion with Mr. Griffith, and if that can not be accomplished at this meeting, that the Council meet once again for the sole purpose of reviewing and taking action on each concern individually, and possibly establish a degree of importance to each item for negotiation purposes. Discussion continued regarding a date for the next meeting. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to suspend discussion regarding the proposed pier restaurant lease until Monday, May 18th. Discussion continued. Mrs. Risner stated she would also like to receive additional public input. I I 5-ll-B7 Clift moved, second by Wilson, to allow Mr. Griffith the opportunity to address the Council at this time. Upon the advice of the City Attorney, the motion was withdrawn pending a vote on the motion on the floor. Vote on the motion to continue discussion of this matter until May 18th: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Risner Clift, Hunt, Wilson Grgas Motion failed I Members of the Council indicated their vote on this motion was with the understanding that the motion may again be made subsequent to hearing from Mr. Griffith. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to allow Mr. Griffith to address the Council at this time. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Wilson None Risner Grgas Motion carried Mr. Griffith acknowledged the sentiment and emotion expressed by the public over the past weeks with regard to the pier restaurant, as well as a great deal of misinformation. He stated that when he responded to the Request for Qualifications, he did so with the idea of having an opportunity to place a business within the City's building on the pier pursuant to the guidelines set forth in the RFQ, and it was felt their proposal would be a positive element for the community and meet the desires of the City. He stated it was never the intent to alienate the public I from presenting their views, and that the lease, as it is presently revised, is reflective of the concerns exprssed by the Council, the staff, and public, these changes having greatly modified their original proposal. Mr. Griffith stated it was felt that by opening the facility with Phase I it would give the opportunity for people to recognize that their concerns and objections were unfounded and then perhaps at a later date the modifications that were proposed could be considered. He noted that the original draft of the lease was consistent with his proposal, meeting the criteria that had been established by the City, that proposal evaluated and the staff directed to negotiate with H.E.G. As a result of the public input, Mr. Griffith stated there is now an opportunity to take the City's facility and make it into an operation that he felt would be appropriate for a fishing pier. He advised that every effort was made to address and satisfy each of the concerns that had been set forth by the Council, the staff, and public, and should the Council determine to meet again and take action on those items individually, as well as new concerns, without the opportunity for him to respond or give input, he stated he felt that would be inappropriate and not in good faith. He- requested that if there is additional concerns to be brought forth, that they be referred to the staff to be dealt with through the negotiation process where there would be an I opportunity to consider and respond to each item. He noted that he was one of seven proposals for operation of the pier restaurant submitted to the City, and should he not be accepted as the tenant of this restaurant, the City will have to commence the entire negotiation process once again with another potential operator, and cautioned that any experienced restauranteur will request the same considerations that he has requested. Mr. Griffith noted that thoughout this process there have been a number of 5-ll-B7 I misrepresentations of their proposal, their company, and rumors which he felt were unfair. In particular he referred to comments made regarding the Newport Beach operation, and stated that there is a lease between that city, H.E.G. Enterprises, and the present concessionaires, and once their company has secured all of the permits required for that facility, H.E.G. will take over that facility from the present concessionaires and become the operator. He explained that the present operators are ill and at their request, H.E.G. is operating their business for them, under their lease, until such time as all requirements are met and H.E.G. assumes that operation. He noted that the photographs that had been shown of the Newport facility is not representative of what their operation will be, stating that it is hoped that the new facility will be completed within six months. Mr. Griffith stated that everything that had been planned for the Seal Beach pier restaurant was well defined in their proposal to the City, that their proposal has been straight forward, and that they have tried to do everything possible to demonstrate their sincerity in meeting the wishes of the City. Risner moved, second by Hunt, to continue discussion of the pier restaurant lease until Monday, May 18th. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I Mayor Clift reported receipt of a message from Councilman Grgas expressing his apology for being unavoidably detained, and requesting that the pier lease discussion be continued, or should the Council choose to take an action, asked that his opposition to the lease as proposed be reflected. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3686 - CITY OF FULLERTON - 100th ANNIVERSARY Resolution Number 3686 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMEMORATING THE CITY OF FULLERTON ON THE OCCASION OF THE 100th ANNIVERSARY OF ITS FOUNDING." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3686 was waived. Risner moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3686 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3687 - SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 639 - COASTAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM FUNDING Resolution Number 3687 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH IN SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL 639 (KILLEA)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3687 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3687 as presented. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3688 - SUPPORTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER POLICY Resolution Number 3688 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~TER POLICY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3688 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3688 as presented. 5-11-B7 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1244 - PARKS and RECREATION COMMISSION - POWERS. DUTIES and RESPONSIBILITIES Ordinance Number 1244 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 16, SECTION 16-4(b) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY I OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO THE POWERS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1244 was waived. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1244 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR DINNER Wilson moved, second by Clift, to authorize the expenditure of up to $1500 for the City sponsored Employee of the Year Dinner, May 19, 1987. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER PROPERTY Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to continue consideration of the interim use of the Department of Water and Power property until the meeting of May 26th, as requested by the DWP Advisory Committee. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas I Motion carried ZOETER UPDATE The City Manager advised that other than the two developers that have been participating in discussions regarding the Zoeter School property now questioning whether they wish to continue, there were no further developments to report at this time. REPORT - ASSEMBLY BILL 2926 Mayor Clift reported that the 1986 State Legislature adopted AB 2926 which authorized school districts to levy a fee for construction of residential, commercial and industrial development projects. He advised that the City of Seal Beach, lying within the boundaries of the Los Alamitos School District, is now subject to the $1.50 per square foot fee approved by the District for all covered or enclosed habitable area of residential development, and $.25 for all covered or enclosed area of new commercial or industrial construction. Mayor Clift advised that to implement this fee the City staff, after consultation with the City Attorney, applied the State law explicitly and determined that projects which create habitable space and are exempt from the fee are ministerial projects, requiring no discretionary action on the part of the City and are in full compliance with Code proviSions, noting that if a project requires any review by the Planning Commission or the City Council it would not be considered ministerial and payment of the development fee would be required. Mayor Clift reported that the Los Alamitos School District disagreed with the City's interpretation of this law, and discussions I 5-11-87 I ensued between the District, City staff and legal counsel. He also reported that the City of Los Alamitos did not interpret the State law as Seal Beach had, however did join with Seal Beach in the concern over the impact of these fees on senior housing and room additions in particular, that would not create an increase of the number of students that might attend the school district, and that further meetings have been held between elected officials, members of the city staffs and represenatives of the School District in an attempt to resolve this issue. Mayor Clift acknowledged that the School District is facing severe fiscal problems in their attempt to continue the high level of education expected, and that the District has few revenue options therefore is looking to the development fee for partial relief of the deferred maintenance needs of the District, however stated that the cities are concerned with the impact of the development fee as to it's fairness and the potential, with regard to improvement of existing residences, of the number of instances where people may avoid obtaining a building permit due to the added development fee, which could increase a project cost up to thirty percent. Mr. Clift reported that there are presently four Senate bills and twenty Assembly bills being considered to address the numerous problems created by the adoption of AB 2926. The Mayor reported that the School District has agreed to create a trust fund to account for the fees received, and if legislation is approved that is retroactive for those funds collected, refunds or other appropriate actions will then be taken, and that in the interim the City will refer all permit applications, whether they be ministerial or discretionary projects, to the School District for determination of the appropriate fee. Mayor Clift stated that although the meetings between the District and the cities did not result in agreement, they did provide a better understanding between all parties and a commitment to work together and maintain open communication pending resolution of this issue. I COMMUNICATION - CHILD CARE SERVICES Councilman Hunt acknowledged the communication received from Ginger Howard requesting that the Council postpone acting on any lease with Under the Rainbow childcare until alternative proposals are heard, and asked if the requested postponement and possibly public input would be in order. The City Manager stated that this item has been postponed for some time, and reported that negotiations have resulted in substantial agreement with Fun and Sun, with only a few unresolved issues with Under the Rainbow. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to receive and file the communication from Ms. Howard. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I AGENDA AMENDED By unanimous consent, the agenda was amended to include an additional item as requested by the City Attorney. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to approve issuance of subpeonas in the McManigal personnel hearing scheduled for May 21, 1987 before the Civil Service Board, based upon the determination that the need to take action on this matter arose subsequent to the agenda being posted. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried 5-11-B7 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Risner asked that her requests for consideration of Council meeting adjournment time and the re-evaluation of viability of the pier restaurant concept be placed on the next agenda, also reported complaints received regarding the condition of the alleys in the Bridgeport area. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Clift declared Oral Communications open. Mr. John I Schaefer, 137-1/2 DOlphin, extended appreciation for the effort that has been directed to the lease of the pier restaurant, suggested that appointment of a citizens committee to review the lease provisions may be a consideration, and asked that representatives of the interested State agencies be present at the next meeting. Mrs. Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th Street, inquired as to who catered a breakfast that was held at the pier restaurant in January. The Mayor responded that approximately November of last year this City was requested to host the quarterly Second Supervisorial District breakfast, and on January 9th approximately sixty persons attended that breakfast, most of whom were representatives of Second District cities. He noted that after considerable thought the pier restaurant was chosen as the site of the breakfast if catering could be provided, and when initial contracts for catering services were not successful, Mr. Griffith, who at that time was interested in applying for a proposal for the restaurant, indicated his desire to provide the food service. Mr. Clift added that it was understood that anyone providing this service would be compensated for same. In response to Mrs. Morton, the Assistant City Manager advised that most requests for pier restaurant qualifications went out about the end of November, a tour of the facility conducted in I December, with the proposals due to be returned by the latter part of January. Mr. Joseph advised that when terms were not agreed upon for service of the breakfast by a local eatery that had been contacted, the breakfast had been casually mentioned to Mr. Griffith, and upon further discussion and determination that he was qualified to provide this service, Mr. Griffith had agreed to do so. Mrs. Morton expressed her displeasure with the process of the negotiations, and objected to critical remarks directed toward persons who have expressed their views on this matter. Mrs. Morton also objected to the use of City Hall facilities by Mr. Griffith to discuss and promote his restaurant proposal. The City Manager responded that the Council had directed the staff to meet with Mr. Griffith, also that Mr.Griffith meet with members of the community and organizations, therefore City facilities were used in the normal conduct of City business. Wendy Rothman, 300 Ocean Avenue, inquired as to the City Attorney's opinion regarding the propriety of allowing one of the prospective bidders to cater the breakfast before the bidding process was completed. The City Attorney advised that this matter was brought to their attention after it had occurred, and responded that there was no legal violation of the law since there was payment for the services provided. He further advised that this particular case was not a formal bidding I process where there are strict procedural requirements, that those requirements do not apply to the informal process of requesting proposals. Mrs. Rothman expressed her feeling that allowing Mr. Griffith to cater the breakfast was unfair to other prospective operators, that it should have been serviced by a neutral party, and further that the Council must have been aware that Mr. Griffith was an interested party at that time even though he had not formally submitted his proposal. The City Manager noted as a point of clarification that Ruby's had submitted free meal coupons with their proposal. 5-11-87 I In response to Mr. Bob Heenan, 1320 Crestview Avenue, the City Manager reviewed the proposed hours of operation of the restaurant, midnight being the closing hour, the last call for cocktails being 11:30 p.m. and the patrons requested to leave by 11:50 p.m., and confirmed that the lease terms on other restaurants had been reviewed, noting that the San Clemente lease is for ten years with three ten year options, explaining that each lease is specific to that particular operation. With regard to operational hours of the concession stand, Mr. Nelson explained that the 9:00 a.m. opening during June, July and August, and the 11:00 a.m. opening the remainder of the year was based upon pier usage as observed by the Lifeguard Department, and noted that an earlier opening is possible if the need is shown. Mrs. Beverly Casares, Marvista Avenue, referred to a recent news article relating to the pier restaurant, which also contained photographs of the Newport Beach pier restaurant and its unkept premises, also Mr. Griffith's statement that they use their in-house maintenance for all of their operations, conflicting comments regarding the lease date of that facility, and requested that the Council look very closely at the degree of maintenance that would be provided to the Seal Beach restaurant. Mr. Jim Gilkerson, 1011 Electric Avenue, also referred to the news article, and conflicting comments regarding the Newport and Oceanside facilities of H.E.G. Mr. Griffith stated that due to the atmosphere of the meeting where the Newport operation was being criticized he felt that it was not the appropriate time to respond to the comments made, and assured the Council that the pictures of that facility are not representative of their operation. He advised that H.E.G. does have a signed lease with Newport, the only reason that building is as it appears at the present time is that they are awaiting all of the necessary permits, that the plans for that location are extensive and will consist of a total new structure, in conformance with Code requirements. With regard to maintenance, he stated they are maintaining the structure as it presently exists, which is in a badly deteriorated state, and had it been known that they would be operating the business for any period of time on behalf of the present leaseholders, an arrangement would have been made to at least make some improvements. Noting that a rundown facility often takes on the impression of not being clean, advised that the Newport operation is clean in regard to it's sanitary nature, although the building will have to be rebuilt to maintain it properly. He also suggested that anyone would be welcome to contact the City of San Clemente regarding the maintenance of that facility. Mr. Griffith reiterated that a lease has been negotiated with the City of Newport Beach, made out in the name of the present leaseholder and H.E.G. Enterprises, explaining that the present operators are ill and H.E.G. has been operating their restaurant on an interim basis until they retire, the building will then be demolished and rebuilt, which can not be accomplished until all required permits have been obtained. He noted also that the lease of the present operator expires on July 1st, and should the necessary permits not be obtained there would not be a new facility on the Newport pier, and again stated that what exists now on the pier is not the type of operation that H.E.G. runs. He confirmed also that the San Clemente facility has been an operating restaurant since 1982. Mrs. Carla Watson, 1635 Catalina Avenue, expressed her concern with Mr. Griffith's reference to the atmosphere of a previous meeting and spoke in support of the manner in which persons had addressed their views on this matter. Councilmember Wilson recalled that there were persons in the I I 5-11-87 audience at the previous meeting who indicated they had intended to speak in support of the restaurant proposed however had been warned they should not do so, and specifically noted one incidence of vandalism. Mrs~ Wilson read a letter in support of the restaurant as proposed, however the author unacknowledged. Mr. Bob Rentz, College Park West resident, spoke in support of the proposed restaurant, and stated he felt a good restaurant, run properly, would be an asset to the City, the entire community. Christopher Marra, 1009-1/2 Seal Way, spoke in I favor of holding this matter over for further discussion, also stated that photographs of the San Clemente operation, not presented to the Council, showed the unkept condition of that facility. Mr. Marra stated his objection to properties in the City being purchased by a local developer who in turn is cutting down trees on those properties and in the parkways, rather than removing and saving the trees, and asked that the Council take some action to not allow more trees to be lost. Mr. Steve Woodward, 4th Street, also objected to the destruction of trees in his neighborhood by the same developer, as well as this persons practice of buying and demolishing affordable housing in the community, stating this also impacts the parking problem. Mr. Harold Rothman, 300 Ocean Avenue, stated that through his investigation he determined that $1.25 to $2.00 per square foot is the customary rental cost of properties similar to the pier restaurant, and questioned the lease of 3300 square feet of fully fixturized restaurant space to H.E.G. for $2000 per month. He stated that as a restauranteur he would suggest further consideration of the minimum rent, the term of the lease, stating five to ten years rather than twenty- five would be a more realistic term, include a cost of living escalator, and a termination clause should the percentage not be met. He added that if the tenant were to I make a greater investment, then a longer lease term could be considered, also reported that the national average for common area is $.25 a foot, which should also be a consideration. Mr. Lee Moore, 1251 Marlin Avenue, spoke for retaining Seal Beach's unique, small town atmosphere. He objected to the lack of reaction by members of the Council to the public, also to the negotiation of the lease by staff and the City Attorney, and to the terms of the original drafted lease. Councilmember Risner informed Mr. Moore that the City Attorney did not negotiate the lease, that their firm took the negotiated terms and reviewed them for legality. MS. Francis Johnson, 125 Coastline Drive, objected to being required to identify herself after an unsigned letter was read by a member of the Council. She spoke against liquor being sold on the pier outside of the building, asked if the walking area at the end of the pier would be encroached upon, and further expressed her concern with trees, particularly those in Gum Grove Park with markings on them. The Council confirmed that alcohol would be served outside of the restaurant, however within a glass enclosed patio, also that the walkway and fishing area would remain open. The City Manager explained that two persons have been retained to inventory the Gum Grove Park trees, one retained by Mola Development, the other by the City, and that the assessment of the trees will be included in the I draft EIR for the Hellman development which will be available in the near future. Ms. Ginger Howard, 301 - 8th Street, spoke regarding her communication to the City Manager regarding alternative childcare opportunities at the Zoeter facilities, and asked if a response would be forthcoming to her proposal. The City Manager again reviewed the status of negotiations with the Sun and Fun and the Under The Rainbow childcare ~-~x-87 I operations, and stated his understanding of the discussions relating to acquisition of the Zoeter site was that it was the intent to continue the existing childcare operations, noting that he had not received a direction contrary to that. Members of the Council explained to Ms. Howard that negotiations are taking place with the existing operators based upon strong public support of those operations during the Zoeter discussions, also advised that a response to her inquiry would be forthcoming from the City Manager. Councilmember Risner requested to be excused from the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Mr. Ronald Kredell, 1615 Seal Way, stated he felt public opinion showed that people do not want Mr. Griffith as the operator of the pier restaurant, nor do they want liquor at the restaurant, citing potential liability of those who consume alcohol, stated that the atmosphere of the community should be considered over revenue, and questioned what an automated parking lot is. The City Manager responded and described two different types of automated systems that may be considered. The City Attorney pointed out that although the City could be named in a lawsuit, the lease does contain an indemnification provision making the restaurant liable. Discussion continued. There being no other communications, MaY9r Clift declared Oral Communications closed. I CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney stated the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel matters. By unanimous consent of those present, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 11:27 p.m. and reconvened at 11:50 p.m. with Mayor Clift calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Councill had met in Closed Session to discuss personnel matters and gave direction to the staff regarding personnel Memorandums of Understanding. ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, May 18th at 7:00 p.m. for continued discussion of the pier restaurant lease. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Wilson None Grgas, Risner Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 11:51 p.m. by unanimous consent of those Council members present. I Approved: Attest: