Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1985-01-14 12-10-84 / 12-24-84 / 1-14-85 I Approved: rp~- d ~.J' t ~ ''Y..... <- Mayo Attest: Notice of Cancelled Meeting NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the regular City Council meeting of Monday, December 24, 1984 is hereby cancelled pursuant to action taken by the Seal Beach City Council, The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held Monday, January 14, 1985. DATED this 17th day of December, 1984. I / Joan City , Yeo, CJ.ty Seal Beach Seal Beach, California January 14, 1985 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brownell Councilmembers Clift, Grgas, Wilson Absent: Councilmember Risner I Counci1member Risner arrived at the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Also present: Mr. Parker, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Hemphill, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk 1-14-85 WAIVER OF FULL READING Clift moved, second by Wilson, 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: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson None Risner Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL 6-84 - HENNESSEY'S At the request of the City Manager, Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to postpone the public hearing of A-6-84 until the arrival of Councilmember Risner. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson None Risner Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84-1004 - MOORE - 360 - 12th STREET - CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION Mayor Brownell declared the public hearing open to consider Tentative Parcel Map 84-1004 for the conversion of a duplex into a two-unit condominium located at 360 - 12th Street. The City Clerk certified that notice of public hearing had been published and mailed as required by law and that no communications had been received either for or against this matter. Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services, presented the staff report and recommendations of the Planning Commission, noting that the Planning Commission had added a Condition No.7 requiring "evidence of prior I notice to tenants per State law be provided before Council approval." Mayor Brownell 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. Charles Antos, 316 - 10th Street, representing the property owner Mr. John Moore, stated the information and conditions before the Council had been reviewed and that there were no objections to the recommendations. There were no other communications; Mayor Brownell declared the public hearing closed. RESOLTUION NUMBER 3439 - APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84-1004 - MOORE - 360 - 12th STREET - CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION Resolution Number 3439 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #84-1004." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3439 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3439 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson None Risner Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1173 - PARKING - PERMITS/AREAS/LOTS I Ordinance Number 1173 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 13, ARTICLE XII OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING PERMITS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1173 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Clift, to adopt Ordinance Number 1173 as presented. 1-14-85 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: . Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson None Risner Motion carried I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1174 - SUBDIVISION MAPS - TIME EXTENSION Ordinance Number 1174 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1174 was waived. The City Engineer explained that the proposed Code amendment provides for time extensions of tentative tract maps and would bring the City into compliance with State law. The City Attorney recommended that the proposed Ordinance be amended to read "...unless an extension is applied for by the applicant within said twenty-four (24) month period. The City Council may grant an extension for a period or periods not to exceed a total of three (3) years." Clift moved, second by Wilson, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1174 as amended, and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson None Risner Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3440 - AUTHORIZING DESTRUCTION - POLICE RECORDS Resolution Number 3440 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN POLICE RECORDS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3440 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3440 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson None Risner Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3441 - AUTHORIZING DESTRUCTION - PERSONNEL RECORDS Resolution Number 3441 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PERSONNEL RECORDS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3441 was waived. Clift moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3441 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson None Risner Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3442 - ORDERING CANVASS - SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - JANUARY 29, 1985 Resolution Number 3442 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE CANVASS OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1985, TO BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3442 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3442 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson None Risner Motion carried 1-14-85 . CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "H" THROUGH "U" Councilman Grgas request Items "R" and "T" removed from the Consent Calendar. Clift moved, second by Grgas, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items "R" and "T", as presented. I. Approved regular demands numbered 54619 through 54912 in the amount of $1,626,001.04; payroll demands numbered 11656 through 11815 in the amount of $130,215.74; payroll demands numbered 11816 through 11977 in the amount of $155,340.40, as approved by the Finance Committee and authorized warrants be drawn on the Treasury for same. I. H. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of December 10, 1984. J. Denied the claim on behalf of the estate of Kathy Weaver, deceased, and referred same to the City's insurance adjuster. K. Denied the claim on behalf of the estate of patricia Hulings, deceased, and referred same to the City's insurance adjuster. L. Denied the claim of Duane P. Druckrey and Beverly J. Druckrey and referred same to the City's insurance adjuster. M. Denied the claim of William L. Kincade and referred same to the City's insurance adjuster. N. Denied the claim of Ernest E. Chavez and referred same to the City's insurance adjuster. I" O. Denied the claim of Carol Kemble and referred same to the City's insurance adjuster. P. Denied the claim of Ramsey Slemmons and Barbara Slemmons and referred same to the City's insurance adjuster. Q. Approved continuation of Appeal 5-84 (Szczerban) until February 11, 1985. S. Authorized payment of unused vacation hours to the City Manager. U. Bids were received by the City Clerk until January 9, 1985 at 2:00 p.m. at which time they were publicly opened for one (1) 3/4-ton truck and two (2) I-ton trucks as follows: One Two 3/4-Ton I-Ton Truck Truck Total Glenn E. Thomas I Dodge $ 9,759.60 $ 9,729.23 ea. $29,218.06 Jerry Goodwin Dodge 10,478.10 10,047.74 ea. 30,573.58 Fairway Ford 10,574.56 10,249.14 ea. 31,072.84 1-14-85 Awarded the bid to Glenn E. Thomas Dodge as the lowest responsible bidder in the amount of $29,218.06 for one 3/4-ton truck and two I-ton trucks. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson None Risner Motion carried Items Removed From the Consent Calendar ITEM "R" - SEAL BEACH CABLE FOUNDATION FUNDING Assistant City Manager, Mr. Joseph, confirmed that there is presently $225,000 in the Cable Television Fund, and that it is recommended that those funds be transferred to the Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation for disbursement as the Foundation determines. Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to approve the appropriation of $225,000 to the Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson None Risner Motion carried I EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN The Assistant City Manager reported that a proposal has been received from NEA Services to update the City's Emergency Plan, as deemed necessary from the emergency preparedness seminar conducted by the California Specialized Training Institute, attended by Members of the Council and City staff. Mr. Joseph reported that General Neil E. Allgood would be the principal consultant on the project at a fee of $10,912.00, with said project to be completed in sixty-two days. He explained that General Allgood will be interviewing persons who would have some impact during an emergency situation, such as City staff, community leaders as well as businesses in the City, noting that General Allgood is familiar with the unique circumstances of Seal Beach since he is a Rossmoor resident. General Allgood explained that the Emergency Services Act requires that all jurisdictions prepare and maintain up-to-date emergency plans, with the responsibility of the local jurisdiction being to provide safety for its citizenry. Councilman Grgas suggested that since Emergency Plans are State mandated, the State should bear the cost of its preparation. Discussion continued. Clift moved, second by Wilson, to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, with NEA Services for the preparation of an Emergency Plan for the City of Seal Beach, and to appropriate $10,912.00 from unallocated reserves to account 2451 for the preparation of the Emergency Plan. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson None Risner Motion carried I FORTUNE TELLING The City Manager reported that the City Attorney has recommended that the City adopt an ordinance legalizing fortune telling due to a recent Federal Court decision relating to same. .He advised that an ordinance, including an appeals procedure, would be before the Council at the next regular meeting, as well as a survey conducted by the staff relating to fortune telling practices in other cities. Clift moved, second by Grgas, to receive and file the memorandum from the City Manager and continue this subject until the next meeting. 1-14-85 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson None Risner Motion carried Councilmember Risner arrived at 7:32 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL 6-84 - HENNESSEY'S TAVERN - MAIN STREET I Mayor Brownell declared the public hearing open to consider Appeal 6-84 to the Planning Commission's approval of Variance 14-84 in conjunction with a proposed restaurant at 138-1/2 and 140 Main Street. The City Clerk certified that notice of public hearing was published and mailed as required by law and that no communications had been received either for or against this matter. The Director of Development Services, Mr. Baucke, presented the staff report, explaining that the applicants of Appeal 6-84 are appealing the Planning Commission's approval of Variance 14-84 in conjunction with the proposed restaurant for less than required on- site parking, provision of off-street parking at a distance greater than 300 feet, and type, form, width and location of parking spaces, and reviewed in detail the background and procedures followed relating to approval of V-14-84. Mr. Baucke clarified that this Appeal is of a specific nature and limited in scope, quoted a statement in the appeal that "this appeal has nothing to do with a restaurant, service of alcoholic beverages or hours of operation"...also that "we have no wish to have this application disapproved, nor do we have any objection to the Planning Commission approving it, if they wish", noting that the Appeal is based on the premise that the City's Municipal Code procedures were not followed, errors and omissions in the I public hearing notice, the staff report and resolution of approval of the Variance. The Director reported that the staff would recommend denial of Appeal 6-84 and affirmation of the Planning Commission's unanimous approval of V-14-84 by Resolution Number 1351 for the following reasons: 1) that appropriate public hearing notice was given; and 2) that appropriate Municipal Code procedures were followed. Councilmember Risner inquired if the City Attorney had reviewed the Appeal and if so, his opinion as to whether or not proper procedures had been followed or exceeded, that all matters were legally and properly before the Planning Commission, and inquired if testimony should be limited to the items of the Appeal, not to the merits of the proposed restaurant. The City Attorney confirmed that the staff had requested review of the contents of the Appeal to determine whether or not there were any procedural irregularities as to how this matter was handled, and acknowledged that the notice of hearing and the resolution adopted by the Commission had been reviewed, concluding that the notice of hearing before the Planning Commission was proper. With regard to the Commission Resolution, he stated that changes were made to that document since the Resolution in its original form did not specifically address the issues that were being approved by the Commission concerning the different types of parking variances being I granted. He stated that before the final action by the Commission the Resolution was corrected and specifically provided for the type of parking variances that were being granted, clarifying that it is believed that the action of the Planning Commission was proper and procedurally correct. Additionally, he reported that when the hearing before the City Council was noticed information was included in the public hearing notice that set forth the specific provisions of the Code for parking requirements that were 1-14-85 I being deviated from, and if it were claimed that the original notice was deficient, which is not the legal opinion, it would have been corrected by the notice of this hearing and for that reason, it is not felt there is a procedural problem. Mr. Stepanicich stated that under the scope of this public hearing the Conditional Use Permit is not before the City Council as it was not appealed and the action of the Planning Commission is final, therefore discussion of the location of the restaurant, service and location of alcoholic beverages, and hours of operation would be out of order and should not be considered under this hearing. He stated further that the only issue being considered is the parking variance, the procedural aspects, and whether or not a parking variance should be granted in this particular case. The City Attorney reported that the resolution prepared for Council consideration contains the findings as required by law and is based upon the staff recommendation. In response to Council, the City Attorney further clarified that the original hearing notice set forth the issue of a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance for less than required parking on-site, and that during the course of that public hearing discussion by the Commission took place as to how the less than required on-site parking was going to be provided for, again stating that that hearing notice was deemed to have been adequate. At the request of Councilman Grgas, Mr. Baucke read the eleven conditions of Planning Commission approval of the parking variance. With regard to the landscape condition, Mr. Baucke explained that the plans for the site show a large courtyard in the middle of the area located at 138-1/2 Main and additional landscaping would be provided in the design of the structure by using planter boxes, which would meet the ten percent landscape requirement. I I Mayor Brownell invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this matter to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Charles Antos, 316 - 10th Street, appellant, was duly sworn by the City Clerk as requested by Mr. Antos. Mr. Antos stated he had two pieces of written material to be submitted to the Council, the first being a list of individuals who indicated a desire to participate in the filing of the Appeal which had previously been provided to the City Clerk however was not found in the Council packet, the second being a prepared statement which Mr. Antos read in full relating to this Appeal. Mr. Antos directed his app'ea1 to procedures, the approval process, and actions after granting the approval, to which he cited the requested approvals as being less than required parking, tandem parking, spaces of less than required length and width, more than twenty-five percent compact parking, parking on adjacent property, parking more than three hundred feet from the building, removal of residential parking from the property, computation of spaces, parking credit through "grandfathering", structural alterations to a non-conforming building, no loading zone, less than required landscaping, granting a variance on a separate lot without advertising or addressing that action in a resolution, parking requirement for adjacent property (136 Main), changing from in-lieu parking to rental spaces, and failure to comply with CEQA relating to parking and traffic. Mr. Antos also charged that a building permit was issued for the property without a California Coastal Permit, that the City Attorney added items to the Commission Resolution after the Appeal was filed that were not discussed by the commission, and that the Resolution prepared by the City Attorney failed to cover all major issues raised 1-14-85 with this application and appeal thereof. Mr. Antos continued, giving his historical perspective of this matter, concluding that he had "no objection to the City approving this application as long as proper procedures are followed", and stated he would differ with the City Attorney's opinion that discussion at this hearing is limited to the parking variance. The City Attorney responded that Mr. Antos could address other issues briefly if he felt they existed, however I the issue under consideration was parking. Mr. Antos referred to the location of the subject properties as described in Section 1 of the proposed resolution and stated that with the Planning Commission allowing parking to be provided at 136 Main Street, this matter should be readvertised to address all properties, 136, 138 and 140 Main Street. The City Manager stated that no building permit has been issued for the subject properties, and inquired as to where Mr. Antos obtained information that a permit had been issued. Mr. James Gilkerson, 1011 Electric Avenue, was duly sworn by the City Clerk as he requested, and read a prepared statement regarding information and regulations submitted to the Planning Commission by the staff, parking as it relates to adjacent properties located at 136 and 136-1/2 Main Street, submittal of a sketch instead of a dimensional plan, substandard and tandem parking, Muncipal Code Section 28-2400 relating to nonconforming use, Code Sections 28-2502(2) and (3) relating to granting of variances, and referred to findings prepared by the staff relating to parking. Mr. Gilkerson objected to granting of the parking variance by providing six spaces at the 136 and 136-1/2 Main Street locations, expressed his feeling that this is the first large attempt to change downtown and suggested that parking issues be cleared up now, prior to submittal of similar variance requests. I with regard to Section 28-2400, the City Attorney advised that that Section had been reviewed by him as to whether or not this Section was being violated, explaining that what is being dealt with is not a nonconforming use, which is what that provision is based upon, which is not the issue in this case. With respect to other issues raised by Mr. Antos as to loading zones and landscaping, Mr. Stepanicich stated that the request was for a parking variance, which was the issue addressed by the Planning Commission and now by the City Council, stating that he had not reviewed whether or not there was a need for other variances in this case, noting that the staff has concluded that there is no need for additional variances, however if there were, they would require review before the Commission. Mr. Gilkerson asked if 136 and 136-1/2 are a conforming building and lot. The City Attorney responded that the building itself is nonconforming, however the use is a conforming use in a commercial zone. In response to Mr. Gilkerson's comment as to changing downtown, the City Manager cited examples of the precedent for this variance historically: 1) the Grace Brethren Church was granted CUP-19-78 and parking exemption by using the City Employees Eighth Street parking lot and parking was not required on-site; 2) Walt's Wharf contracted for twenty I additional spaces from the Employees Eighth Street parking lot as a condition of CUP-7-81; and 3) the Sunflower Restaurant contracted for 13 additional spaces from the Tenth Street parking lot in January, 1982 in order to allow expansion of the restaurant. Councilmember Risner referred to the Parking Assessment District that was established in approximately 1965 that applied to owners of businesses in the 100 block on Main Street. She noted that the City installed parking meters in that area and the revenue 1-14-85 I derived assisted the City in purchasing the parking lot in the 100 block, then expressed her feeling that some credit should be allowed for businesses in the 100 block for participation in the parking district and for spaces available in the municipal lot. Councilman Grgas inquired as to the meaning of "grandfathering" and to its legality. Mr. Baucke responded that "grandfathering" is a common law concept based on properties that were developed before cities had Municipal Codes and parking requirements. He stated that basically, if a property was created prior to that time the property would have a legal right to an equivalent number of parking spaces that you would presently have had to provide pursuant to the Code. The City Attorney stated he was not ~amiliar with the term, however to the extent that there is an existing use, in existance prior to the Code requirements for parking, then the use would be allowed to continue with less than required parking. Mr. Antos again addressed the Council, stating that during the presentation to the Planning Commission for consideration of the variance, it was indicated that because this building exists it has an automatic credit for a certain number of parking spaces that they did not have to provide, acknowledging the number of spaces referred to was 12. Council asked Mr. Antos if this has not been the policy over the past ten years and whether or not credit was previously given to Main Street businesses for parking. Mr. Antos responded in the negative, stating that if a building was in the 100 block or the wrap-around onto Ocean Avenue, was commercial and had been part of the Parking District, the matter was brought to the Commission for hearing and in some instances credit was given for participation in the District. Mr. Antos stated he felt the Planning Commission should deal with the issue of "grandfathering" and parking as a whole before further approvals are given, particularly parking spaces made available at 136 and 136-1/2 Main. Members of the Council expressed their feeling that Main Street businesses should receive some credit for Main Street and municipal lot parking, also citing Condition Number 9 that requires a covenant be recorded on the title of the properties for six tandem parking spaces for the restaurant. Discussion continued. The City Attorney clarified that the variance is for 138 and 140 Main Street, that deviation from the Code only pertains to that property, not to 136 and 136- 1/2, only to the benefit of the properties located at 138 and 140. He stated he did not feel it would be proper to grant a variance for 136 and 136-1/2, because the variance is only being granted for the proposed restaurant. It was clarified that should there be a change of use in the future at 136 and 136-1/2 Main, an application would have to be made at that time for variance from the parking requirements, the Commission or Council having control over such variance. Councilman Grgas inquired if any precedent has been set by "grandfathering" in the past. The Mayor, with consent of the Council, declared a brief recess at 8:33 p.m; Council reconvened at 8:43 p.m. with the Mayor calling the meeting to order. I I with regard to "grandfathering", Mrs. Risner asked if some procedure could be developed giving credit for some of the existing Main Street spaces to the business community, whether it be through a Code amendment or City pOlicy. The City Manager stated that according to the City'S consultant, there was deemed to be adequate parking on the three blocks of Main Street with the exception of one 1-14-85 to two days a year and the fact that customers and visitors prefer to park in the 100 block rather than walk to a destination. He stated that the existing Code requires a variance procedure until such time as a long term solution is formulated, which could be an in-lieu parking fee, validated merchant program operating out of the beach parking lots, or a parking garage, all of which are being looked into by the Planning staff, subsequently to be considered by the Planning Commission and the Council. He stated further that cleaning of the areas behind local businesses for additional parking is also being pursued. Mr. Parker concluded that in the interim business continues, therefore the question becomes how the parking situation is handled pending a long term solution, and noting that a precedent was set as early as 1978 to contract for parking spaces in order to meet the requirements. With regard to specific examples which have set a City policy for parking requirements, the Director of Development Services referred to a February 6, 1980 report as one instance regarding approval of Conditional Use Permit 1-80 for the expansion of the Old Town Wine and Spirits to allow wine tasting classes and seminars, which allowed "19 parking spaces under a grandfathered clause", with additional reference to "grandfathering". In response to Council, the City Attorney stated that in terms of whether or not the Commission or the Council can grant this type of variance, it would be their opinion that they may, noting that the most significant issue is that of the concept of "grandfathering". He observed that although there is no parking provision of the Code dealing with "grandfathering" it has been a policy of the City, therefore a court, in interpreting a Code or Zoning Ordinance, would look at the manner in which the City has applied this particular Code in the past. He advised that this action would appear to be consistent with past practices of the City. Mr. Stepanicich again clarified that their office had revised the language of the Resolution to accurately reflect what had taken place at the Planning Commission hearing at which three types of parking variances were granted, therefore the Resolution was changed to make it clear that that was the action the Commission had taken. Mr. Robert Cook, 441 Central Avenue, expressed his concern that proper procedures were followed regarding the variance in question, Code provisions enforced, and stated his feeling that other variances were required and should have been considered by the Commission. Mr. Brent Matthews, 218 - 8th Street, read a prepared statement setting forth eight points of his concern regarding parking, hours of operation, number of liquor licenses, necessity of an E.I.R., leasing of parking spaces, referred to business standards established by Long Beach for Belmont Shore and Second Street areas, suggested recommendations be made to the ABC relating to control of alcoholic beverage licenses, and that private security be required. Councilmember Risner asked about policies established in Long Beach; Mr. Matthews responded that he had been advised there are regulating policies in Long Beach, however was not prepared to discuss same. With regard to a question posed by Councilman Grgas regarding a recent trial court decision concerning operating hours of a liquor establishment, the City Attorney explained that the City of Long Beach has an ordinance requiring a CUP for the sale of alcoholic beverages with one requirement being that the hours of operation be limited. He reported that a trial court in Long Beach did strike that requirement down as being in violation of State law, the trial court ruling, which was the Los Angeles County Superior Court, was that a City may not regulate the hours I I I 1-14-85 I of operation of liquor establishments since that falls under State regulations, noting that that decision is not directly applicable to the City of Seal Beach. He explained further that the Long Beach decision dealt directly with hours of operation of liquor stores, that there are other decisions that allow a City to regulate the hours of regular businesses, and that it would seem that if a City were dealing with something beyond just the regulation of liquor, as with the hours of operation of a restaurant business, more than likely a City could impose that type of condition. Mr. Joseph Riba1, 1215 Seal Way, stated the Appeal was directed toward procedures and raised issues that need to be addressed, stating that it is important for people to b~ knowledgable of what the City is doing or planning to do, suggesting that public notices be more specific and all encompasing, citing the leasing of parking spaces, reference to the non-existant in-lieu parking program as set forth in the Planning Commission Resolution, and recommended that the parking problem be resolved before new demands are created. He questioned whether this applicant is going to provide real parking or just on paper, stating he felt off-site parking does not resolve the problem. Mr. Riba1 expressed his concern with the burden placed on residential property owners and residential streets when a new business comes to Main Street, and referred to the Revitalization Study that recommended that a lot on Main Street and an adjacent building be secured at some time for parking use. Mr. Ribal asked that the Council refer the parking issue back to the Planning Commission to develop an equitable solution for residential and business properties, and that the applicant reapply at such time as a parking plan is approved. Reva TurChin, 1625 Seal way, read a letter from Charles E. Greenberg of Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown and Baerwitz, who were consulted as to whether or not, in their opinion, an EIR was required for the Hennessey's Tavern. Mrs. Turchin acknowledged that she had paid for preparation of the opinion. The City Attorney stated that in terms of the aspect of this letter that deals with whether or not the use would have significant environmental effect, the letter is not relevant to this hearing and should not be considered by the Council, however suggested that the portion of the letter that should be considered is the environmental impact of the variance application under consideration. Mr. Stepanicich explained that the California Environmental Quality Act sets forth a three step process of 1) whether or not the project is categorically exempt; 2) whether or not a negative declaration is appropriate; and 3) if there are some potentially significant environmental effects, then an EIR is required, noting that the subject letter suggests that an EIR is required in this case. He stated however, that based upon the evidence received this evening, it does not appear that there has been any substantial evidence submitted to the Council that the parking variance itself would create substantial environmental impact. He explained again that the thrust of the Appeal is based upon the procedural aspects of this particular case rather than evidence pertaining to adverse impacts of allowing off-site parking, therefore based upon the record, it would not seem that the Council would be required to ask for the preparation of an EIR prior to granting the parking variance. Mr. Stepanicich reported that the staff had reviewed the material initially, felt that the categorical exemption was appropriate for the reason that there would not be any reduction in the required parking that would otherwise be required even if it could be provided on-site, and for that reason came I I 1-14-85 to the conclusion that the categorical exemption dealing with minor alterations would be appropriate. Mr. Gary Merrick, 216-1/2 - lOth Street, spoke in support of the Appeal, stated he has been an independant planning consultant for approximately one and one-half years, previously a professional planner, was familiar with planning procedures and practices, and expressed his feeling that there were many errors and omissions in this particular case which I he deemed to be dangerous to the community as well as to the applicant. In response to a question by the City Manager, Mr. Merrick stated'he had worked as a planner in the City of Downey for seven years, has done contract work since that time, and is not affiliated with Mr. Antos. Mr. Merrick added that on the way to this meeting he observed men working at the subject location, that a wall was being removed, although it was just stated no building permit has been issued. Mr. Grgas asked if the approval process and/or the request for variance would have significant loopholes to make it subject to legal challenge. The City Attorney stated that in terms of granting the variance, it appears that the staff and the City has followed City Code requirements, and that the resolution before the Council which follows staff recommendation would be a valid resolution, the one question that could be raised would be compliance under CEQA. He stated that he did not believe there to be an EIR requirement in this case, whether or not the City should have had a negative declaration or categorical exemption would be a difficult question in light of the fact that the courts have been very conservative in some respects to its interpretation of categorical exemptions, however cautioned that in some instances the courts have set cases aside that have relied on a categorical I exemption. He explained that in such instance the court would refer the matter back to the City for further review and preparation of a negative declaration, a time frame that could be up to six months, and also reviewed the time frame if the Council referred this matter back to the commission. The City Manager interjected that should the Council determine to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission for preparation of a negative declaration rather than the categorical exemption, the delay would be approximately two months, and based upon discussions with Mr. Hennessey it has been indicated further delay would not be acceptable. Mr. Riba1 asked if Condition 1 of the Resolution is binding unto the applicant, whether he would be obligated to cover the eighteen rented spaces into whatever the City may require him to pay for in-lieu parking, stating that the initial projected cost per space, as prepared by staff, would discourage businesses from establishing in the downtown area. Mr. Stepanicich responded that at the present time there is no parking agreement prepared or entered into, that an agreement would be prepared only if the Council were to approve the variance. He explained that in return for the variance there would be an agreement recorded against the property that would not only apply against Hennessey's but future owners of that property, in essence, parking spaces would be provided I in the City parking lot until there was an established parking program, and that there would be no participation in that program until such time as participation would be required by the City Code. He explained further that any in-lieu parking program would be established by ordinance, subject to environmental review and public hearing, however in the interim the parking obligations of the applicant would be satisfied by providing eighteen spaces in the City lot in addition to the six adjacent to the subject 1-14-85 I business. He added that this type of agreement is common to cities and enforceable. Discussion followed regarding the initial projected cost per space of an in-lieu program, as well as other options that may be available at a lesser cost. In response to Mr. Robert Cook, Mr. Stepanicich reported that the Planning Commission granted three variances, all parking variances: 1) to allow the applicant to provide less than required on-site parking; 2) to provide off-street parking at a distance greater than 300 feet from the subject property; and 3) to provide a type, form, width and location of on-site parking, which was the tandem parking, all of those variances coming within the scope of the public hearing notice for the requested variance from less than the required number of on-site parking spaces. He explained that whether or not there was a need for a variance for a loading area or landscaping, those issues were not before the Commission for a decision and no opinion has been given as to whether or not these were required, the fact being that that was not within the scope of the application made by Hennessey's. Mr. Stepanicich acknowledged that loading zones, intensification of use and landscaping were discussed at the Commission hearing, stated however, that if there were a need for variance in those matters the Commission was not in a position to grant same at that time, noting that it was staff's determination that there was no need for additional variances. Mr. Brian Kyle, 242 - 6th Street, and the property owner, reviewed the background of this matter, stating the project came about as a result of the Task Force, of which he was a member, and that he had worked with the City on the use of this particular building, which previously housed Group W. He stated he had worked in cooperation with the Revitalization Committee to obtain a tenant that would provide suitable use and mix for Main Street instead of an office building housing two hundred employees. He reported that after talking to many restauranteurs who indicated a desire to come into this area, he came upon Hennessey's, did an investigation of their background, reputation and experience, all of which was positive. Mr. Kyle reported that this project was presented to the Planning Commission on December 5th and after more than four hours of public hearing was held over, after which the Council requested that the Task Force reconvene to discuss and review their recommendations and goals. He reported that the Task Force concluded that this was the type of project they were in support of, and subsequently the matter was again considered by the Commission. Mr. Kyle reported the Planning Commission had asked if he would demolish an existing building to provide parking, to which he stated he had agreed. Mr. Kyle stated that the process has been long, a financial drain, waiting for the Task Force, Revitalization recommendations, the City process, and requested City Council denial of the Appeal. Mr. Kyle reported he had walked the neighborhood, 8th Street to loth Street, he went door- to-door, talked to the residents, asked if they would mind Hennessey's, requested signatures, and stated that more than eighty percent of those he spoke with were enthusiastic about the project, and were glad to see something come into the Old Town area. Mr. Kyle stated he felt that everything had been brought before the Revitalization Task Force and they supported the idea, the Planning Commission reviewed the project extensively and approved it, and again requested that the Appeal be denied. Mr. Paul Hennessey referred to the discussion again taking place relating to parking, noting that persons who addressed the Council spoke for more notices. He stated this issue has been I I 1-14-85 considered for a number of months and expressed his doubt that there is a person in Seal Beach that does not know a restaurant has been proposed and approved for the downtown area, that it has been the subject of local news articles as well as reported in other papers, was considered under fifteen hours of public testimony and at each of those meetings it appeared to be the same people arguing their points, and expressed his feeling that he did not know I who would be reached by additional notices. Mr. Hennessey stated that all beach t9wns have parking problems and expressed his feeling that Seal Beach is meeting those problems to the best of their ability. Mr. Hennessey responded to a question that had been posed by a member of the audience as to whether he would abide by any parking requirements imposed by the City in the future, to which he acknowledged that he would. He reported that a number of people, including many downtown merchants, came to past meetings supporting the project, they did not seem concerned that their customers would not find parking, they felt the project would attract customers to the area, also that parking at night would not be a problem. Mr. Hennessey acknowledged that patrons would probably park in the the Bank of America or Johns Food King lots at night, also that he has agreed with Johns that customers would not park in their lot during the day. Mr. Hennessey stated that the alleged construction at the site and issuance of a building permit was an annoyance to him since he has requested a permit to do minor work at the location on several occasions, all of which has been refused by City staff. He acknowledged that he does have people at the location building table tops, removing carpeting and tiles, stating that no walls have been removed as alleged, however confirmed that he has had a crew hired for the past two weeks merely I doing clean up work, pending the outcome of this hearing. Mr. Hennessey acknowledged that the project is becoming a financial burden due to the many postponements, requested that the Appeal be denied, and stated that if that is not the case, he would be seeking another location. with regard to whether or not Coastal Commission approval is required in this case, the City Attorney offered to investigate that question the following morning, also stating that should the Council approve the variance, he would recommend that no building permits be issued until Coastal Commission requirements are clear or ~atisfied. Mayor Brownell declared the public hearing closed. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3438 - DENYING APPEAL 6-84 - APPROVING VARIANCE 14-84 - HENNESSEY'S Councilman Grgas stated he wished to make a statement regarding an incident of rumor where a person or persons contacted the Los Angeles Times alleging that the City Council had been entertained by applicants of this project, which he stated was untrue. Additionally, Mr. Grgas stated he found it interesting that individuals were not objecting to this project but to the procedures. The City Attorney again responded that correct procedures were followed with granting the subject parking variances, that the only issue I not entirely clear would be whether or not a negative declaration should have been prepared rather than the categorical exemption, which is a question of interpretation. He clarified again that the staff felt that since the required number of parking spaces were being provided, that the project would fall within the intent of the exemption provision, further, that the staff also dealt with the construction of parking spaces which, under State 1-14-85 I guidelines, is likewise categorically exempt. Mr. Stepanicich pointed out that from the discussion at this meeting, and as the City Manager had pointed out, in terms of actual review there is very little difference, that the difference would occur if an EIR were required. In response to Mr. Grgas, Mr. Kyle reported he presented a petition to the Planning Commission of more than two hundred signatures supporting Hennessey's. Counci1member Risner expressed some concern with the question of a negative declaration versus a categorical exemption, stated she would accept the opinion of the City Attorney that proper procedures were followed, therefore there is no basis for this Appeal. She stated she felt the staff should commence developing a downtown parking plan, expressing her feeling that a multi-story structure in the 8th Street lot would be unacceptable, and suggested that the purchase of land, through an assessment district or parking district, in the vicinity of Main Street be looked into. Mrs. Risner stated she felt Hennessey's would be of benefit to the downtown area. Discussion continued. I By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3438 was waived. Risner moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 3438 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING APPEAL NO. 6- 84 AND APPROVING A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 138-1/2 - 140 MAIN STREET." The City Attorney confi.rmed that the approved Conditional Use Permit is for a period of six months, thereafter subject to Planning Commission review and extension if all conditions of approval have been satisfied, noting that the variance also requires compliance with the terms of the CUP. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Grgas moved, second by Clift, to refund the appeal application fee to the applicants. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The Mayor, with consent of the Council, declared a recess at 10:15 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:24 p.m. with the Mayor calling the meeting to order. The City Manager requested Council authorization to execute an agreement, to be prepared by the City Attorney, with Hennessey's Tavern for eighteen parking spaces in the 10th Street parking lot at a cost of $50 per year per space, the agreement to also include a cost of living increase clause. Council discussed the annual charge per space. Risner moved, second by Clift, to authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement at a cost of $100 per year per space, subject to agreement of Mr. Hennessey. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Brownell declared oral communications open. Mr. Charles Antos, 316 - 10th Street, thanked the Council for hearing the Hennessey Appeal which, he stated, was based upon principle and asked that the City not refund the appeal fee, stated he hoped points raised would be taken into consideration in future actions. He stated he did not 1-14-85 know, in denying the appeal what position the City has put itself in, stating he felt there would be some risk if someone were to file a legal action based upon the Appeal process. The City Manager commented that he felt Mr. Antos was appropriate in making the appeal, however, he asked that the record reflect that the staff believes that all procedures were properly followed, that he would not want a feeling to remain that anything was overlooked, whether I it be a technicality or whatever, stating that there is a difference of opinion, which is respected, again stating that it is felt that all procedures were in accordance with the laws of the State and of the City. Mitzi Morton suggested that there be a City pOlicy whereby tape recordings of meetings be retained'for at least four months. Councilman Grgas announced that the President of the League of California Cities has appointed him to a Special President's Task Force on Economic Development, that he is one of fifteen persons throughout the State appointed to the Task Force, which will be dealing with issues of economic development in California. Mayor Brownell expressed his gratitude to the Council and City staff for the floral bouquet which he and his wife received as congratulations on their marriage. In response to Council, the City Manager reported that he had again communicated with the State Lands staff regarding cleanup of their site at First Street and Pacific Coast Highway, that they agreed to its cleanup, however nothing has yet been done. There were no other oral communications; Mayor Brownell declared oral communications closed. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney reported a recent State law change imposing more requirements on closed sessions, and stated that 1) I that the Closed Session is being held in part pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) of the Government Code pertaining to litigation that has been filed against the City, Cocca versus Crowley, Case Number 43 1588 in the Orange County Superior Court, secondly the Council is going into Closed Session pursuant to Section 54956.9(b) (1) of the Government Code to discuss potential litigation since a point has been reached where, in their legal opinion, there is significant exposure to litigation. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 10:27 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:53 p.m. with the Mayor calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported that the City Council had discussed pending and potential litigation as previously outlined, for informational purposes. ADJOURNMENT Grgas moved, 10:54 p.m. AYES: NOES: second by Risner, to adjourn the meeting at Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried of the I Attest: Approved: