1985 AUG 20 CC MIN1 661 6
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 20, 1985
CALL To ORDER was made by Mayor Armstrong at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday,
August 20, 1985.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Councilman Carl Jacobson.
INVOCATION was given by Jim Riggs, Chaplain, E1 Segundo Masonic Lodge
X1507.
PRESENTATION
1. Mayor Armstrong presented a Proclamation to Ms. Louise Eckersley, City
Treasurer, in recognition of August 25 -31, 1985 as Municipal Treasurer's
Week.
ROLL CALL was taken by City Clerk Hart:
Councilman Jacobson - present
Councilman Schuldt - absent
Councilman Siadek - present
Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos - present
Mayor Armstrong - present
COUNCIL MINUTES
1. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of July 16, 1985.
2. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of August 6, 1985.
It was the consensus of Council that the Minutes be held over until the
next Regular City Council Meeting.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. Public Hearing: On the appeal of Prudential Insurance Company of America
from the July 11, 1985 decision of the City Planning Commission, denying
Proposed Subdivision No. 85 -4 and Proposed Variance No. 85 -1 to create
three parcels and provide setback variances for a proposed restaurant on
one of the parcels. The Project location is 100, 200, and 222 North
Sepulveda Boulevard in the C -3 Zone.
Mayor Armstrong announced that this was the time and place heretofore
fixed for the hearing on the Proposed Subdivison No. 85 -4 and Proposed
Variance No. 85 -1 of Prudential Insurance Company to create three parcels
and provide setback variances for a proposed restaurant on one of the
parcels.
Mayor Armstrong asked the City Clerk if the proper notice had been given.
City Clerk Hart stated that proper notice was published. Mayor Armstrong
stated that those files would be part of the hearing.
City Clerk Hart acknowledged the receipt of one letter from Mr. Kristin E.
Keaton, Investment Manager, Real Estate Operations, of Prudential Insurance
Company of America requesting continuance and rescheduling of proposed
hearing.
Discussion then ensued regarding time limit to hear the matter and time
limit on subdivisions.
City Attorney Dolley stated that when the applicant requests
for continuance, the time limit is then waived.
Councilman Jacobson MOVED, Mayor Armstrong SECONDED, that the hearing
remain open and be continued to October 1, 1985. Motion carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Jacobson and Mayor Armstrong
Noes: Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos
Absent: Councilman Schuldt
Abstain: Councilman Siadek
At 7:18 P.M., Councilman Siadek left the Chamber, due to possible conflict
of interest and stated that Mr. David Hopper, General Manager of the hotel
was in the audience to answer any questions.
2. Public Hearing: On the appeal of Rev. Ed Erdely from the July 11, 1985
decision (Resolution No. 2112) of the City Planning Commission to allow
the elimination of Condition No. 7 of Conditional Use Permit No. 83 -10
(Resolution No. 2048). Elimination of Condition No. 7 allows
entertainment and dancing in conjunction with the operation of a
restaurant, cocktail lounge, and banquet facilities at an existing hotel
located at 1440 E. Imperial Avenue (Highway) in the C -2 Zone.
Mayor Armstrong announced that this was the time and place heretofore
fixed for the hearing on the proposed elimination of Condition No. 7 of
Conditional Use Permit No. 83 -10 to allow entertainment and dancing in
conjunction with the operation of a restaurant, cocktail lounge, and
banquet facilities at an existing hotel located at 1440 E. Imperial Avenue
(Highway) in the C -2 Zone.
Mayor Armstrong asked the City Clerk if the proper notice had been given.
City Clerk Hart stated that proper notice was published. Mayor Armstrong
stated that those files would be part of the hearing.
City Clerk Hart acknowledged that no written communication was received.
Ms. Lynn Harris, Director of Planning, presented the report of the
Planning Commission in regards to Conditional Use Permit No. 83-10.
Mayor Armstrong invited public input.
Jim Riggs, 415 E. Pine, E1 Segundo, indicated his favor of the amended
CUP.
Sue Dawson, 832 Main, E1 Segundo, also stated being in favor of the
amended CUP.
Rev. Ed Erdely, 209 W. Acacia, E1 Segundo, This appeal is based on
several factors, some of which have been brought before this body
previously. I would like to incorporate my letter to the Planning
Commission date, June 27, 1985 as part of the record of this appeal.
Previous testimony presented to both the Planning Commission and the City
Council has cited the fact that the Hometel project has inadequate parking
from the dates the plans were approved. As a result of this, neighbors and
taxpayers were put to additional expense to correct a problem that should
have been eliminated in the Environmental Impact Study. As some of you may
recall, City Councilmembers responded to a personal appeal and the project
was exempted. At the last City Council meeting, Councilman Siadek proposed
that the adjacent property owners be charged for parking permits which
residents claimed were made necessary because workers at the hotel were
parking on residential streets. Already existing problems can be
compounded if this Conditional Use Permit is granted because it will permit
an extended use of the facility, over and above, that granted by approval
of a Conditional Use Permit for a liquor license. The existing 364 parking
spaces are barely adequate for the 250 employees and the 351 units of the
hotel. If you doubt that, just drive by the complex and
-2-
Council Minutes
August 20, 1985
A66-11
�6�ti
count the number of cars parked on the street. When I last appealed
extended use of this facility, the Planning Director implied that the
appeal was directed at some areas other than that the Planning Commission
was able to address - such as parking. Before we sing that song again, I
intend to prove to you that the determination of an unspecified use, adding
usage to a non - conforming building, and clarification of ambiguity is the
responsibility of the Planning Commission - no one else. Traffic is one of
the probable facts listed on the application before you (that's question
5a). I would point out to Council, Section 205010 of the Zoning Code
specifically authorizes the Planning Commission, not the Planning Director,
not the Director of Building and Safety, to clarify ambiguity. Under
Section 2070 of the Zoning Code, as this establishes, no additional use may
be estalished for a non - conforming building. This is a n6n- conforming
building it is my contention that opening up to uses in excess of the uses
requested in the Conditional Use Permit 83 -10, constitutes an additional
use. In the application filed by Liquid Enterprises, CUP 83 -10, you will
note that the entire area of the service of alcoholic beverages consists of
approximately 4,000 square feet, which limits it to one bar and lounge
area. The request for an amendment only asked for relief for that area.
However, you will find staff greatly expanded that area in the report
presented to the Planning Commission and included banquet rooms under
Section 205450 - unspecified use. The Planning Commission, and only the
Planning Commission, is charged with determining the parking required for
an unspecified use. I asked the Planning Commission to perform their
function required of them by law and they ignored that request. I now ask
the City Council how many parking spaces are required for a laundry /maid's
lounge? How many spaces for conference rooms in a hotel? How many spaces
are required for a hotel lobby? How many spaces are required for a kitchen
in a restaurant? How many for offices in a hotel? How many spaces for a
meeting room? And how many spaces for a banquet room? Or does the parking
required vary with the amount of clout the applicant has with the
Department of Building and Safety? In inter - departmental correspondence
dated June 27, 1985, from Lynn Harris to the Planning Commission, in the
third paragraph under request, I quote, "this request would the amend the
condition to allow entertainment in the cocktail lounge and entertainment
in the banquet facilities in conjunction with short -term leasing
activities." Ladies and gentlemen, there are no banquet facilities in this
complex. I refer you to your own staff reports - Parking Evaluation
Requirements for the Hometel Project by Mac Dalgleish. You will note there
is no parking required for banquet rooms so therefore, no banquet rooms can
exist. There are" meeting" rooms noted. "Meeting rooms" are not defined in
your code but parking requirements were applied by the Building Department
and not the Planning Commission. The "meeting rooms" now seem to have
evolved into banquet rooms which are not covered by the previous parking
codes. Banquet rooms are in the current parking code with substantially
higher parking requirements than meeting rooms noted in Mac Dalgleish's
report. If there are no" banquet rooms" in this facility, how can the
Planning Commission issue a valid entertainment permit for one. The
application approved by the Planning Commmission is requesting
entertainment to amend a banquet to add a banquet room that does not have a
permit to serve alcohol. The applicant only requested condition 7 on the
original CUP be modified, he did not ask that the area be expanded beyond
4,000 square feet and he did not disclose that these meeting rooms would
turn into banquet rooms. I strongly suggest that you get a legal opinion
on this matter and address the questions I have put before you. Legal
questions directed to the City Attorney by the Planning Commission as to
whether the parking was grandf athered, remains unanswered in the Planning
Commission minutes. If we can't get an answer to these questions, we will
have to assume the code varies according to the applicant and that staff is
authorized to invent new titles and new parking requirements for
establishments serving food and beverages.
The parking standards applied to the Hometel are not those required by the
City code. Your staff claimed that the permit was issued 12/28/81 and
those plans are locked away in a City safe - they are not permitted to be
examined as part of evidence of the public hearing. I submit that the
plans approved 12/28/81 were merely the foundation structure and that the
superstructure plans submitted 10/26/83
-3-
Council Minutes
August 20, 1985
and approved in November 1983 should have had the parking requirements
estalished 9/23/82 applied. The question was raised whether the applicant
acquired vested rights on parking the day the plans were submitted in 1981
or were the parking requirements in effect in October 1983 when the
superstructure was submitted, remains to be answered. I refer you to the
Planning Commission minutes, page 6, paragraph 2. Everytime the question
of legal parking spaces is brought up, the staff passes the buck. To
quote from a staff report to the Planning Commission on 6/27," the site
does provide the parking required for the square footage developed on the
code requirements at the time of the building permit in 1984 ". To quote
from a memo issued 10/83 by Mac Dalgleish," the building permit was issued
12/28/81" - on page 2 Mac Dalgleish claims" the Director of Planning is of
the opinion that it was not necessary for us to require additional parking
for hotel office space ". By code, and by any other standards, the Director
of Planning does not and should not have the authority to grant a variance
on a parking standard. In the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
of June 27, Planning Director Harris stated that the parking requirements
of the overall project had been reviewed by the Director of Building and
Safety and found to be adequate. All of these claims are carefully
worded. The Planning Director says the Building Director approved the
parking and the Building Director says the Planning Director approved the
parking. Who approved the banquet rooms? Your code charges the Planning
Commission with that responsibility and the Planning Commission has failed
to meet that responsibility.
I would like to address the validity of the actual application put before
the Planning Commission. The application which is associated with this
appeal - an amendment to CUP 83 -10, is signed by Jack Siadek as owner of
Hometels Incorporated. The application states that the applicant is not
the owner - a written statement from the owner must be included stating
they are aware of the application. No such was included in the facts
considered by the Commission. For the zoning code provides in Section
207060 that an application may be filed by a lessee with consent of the
owner but that the application must set forth fully the grounds for and
facts deemed justified by the granting of such permits. The amended to CUP
83 -10 lists Jack Siadek as the owner of Hometels Incorporated, however, CUP
83 -10 lists Liquid Enterprises as the occupant and the owner as
Simon /Wooley Land Partnership. The owners of Liquid Enterprises are listed
with the Alcoholic Beverage Control as Robert Wooley, Steven Overson,
Douglas Ralph, Michael Greenwald and Claudia Trophiler. Do you have before
you a written statement from the owner of this property or is Councilman
Siadek the owner of Hometel, and allowing these other people to operate the
alcoholic beverage concession? We have called the ABC to verify the
ownership and the owners filed with the ABC are those just named. In
addition, Mr. Zatoga of the ABC told us that Councilman Siadek is not even
authorized to manage the facility. Sections 23951, 23953 of the Business
and Professional Code and 23355 were given as references stating that the
applicant must name anyone who has an interest in alcoholic beverage
facility and that application must be signd by those persons. According to
the ABC at most, Councilman Siadek would be allowed to procure
entertainment for the facility. If he is not the owner, the application
presented to the Planning Commission is invalid and therefore, null and
void. Comparing the 2 applications, one for the original use permit and
the second requesting an amendment, there seems to be a difference in the
requirements and information the applicants must submit. Mr. Wooley's
application clearly stated that alcoholic beverages will be served in
conjunction with food and at an owner- sponsored cocktail hour. Guests only
will be allowed to consume beverages, no neighborhood walk -in traffic,
hotel guests only will be served in the area proposed for use limited to
4,000 square feet. Even with these restrictions, question 5 on the
application, cites as probable fact that there would be minimal traffic,
minimal noise generated by a restricted alcoholic beverage license. On Mr.
Siadek's application although is not defined, the request is to allow
entertainment, banquets, dances with attended increase in parking for
serving non- residents and walk -in traffic. His request states that there
will be no increase in traffic and no increase in noise. In other words,
by allowing the facility to serve banquets, weddings, and dances in an
-4-
Council Minutes
August 20, 1985
,6f19
area encompassing approximately 20,000 square feet will create less
traffic, less parking and less noise than if it would if the use were
limited to guests of the hotel only. Has the Planning Commission
determined that the guests patronizing an establishment owned by a City
Councilman will be quieter, cause less traffic than in an establishment
owned by Liquid Enterprises? I would like you to call your attention to
Chapter 7, Article 1, Section 87100 of the State Code: Public Officials
State and Local. No public official at any level of the state or local
government shall make, participate in, making or in any way attempt to use
his official position to influence a government decision in which he knows
or has reason to know he has a financial interest. This is further
clarified in a California Administrative Code, Section 87702 71, Points 1, 2
and 3 which deal with oral or written communications. If Councilman Siadek
in any way approached staff and used his official position in any way to
influence the recommendation, it would be foolish. Staff and Planning
Commission would be reluctant to admit it, even if they had an approach to
attempt to influence their decision. But I ask you, why would Councilman
Siadek sign the application as owner of Hometel if he didn't think his name
on the application didn't have some influence? Is he the owner? Why are
probable facts different on his application than they were on Mr. Wooley's
application with reference to parking and noise? Why when asked by this
proposed applicant will not this have a deterimental affect to adjacent
property, his answer - not applicable. In this instance, written evidence
that the applicant approached the Planning Commission and indicated his
desire to have his application approved is contained in the staff report to
the Commission. This is futher reported in the minutes of the meeting on
page 1 of the memo from the Planning Director to the Planning Commission.
In paragraph under request, the second sentence states - the current
owner /operator of the restaurant, lounge, banquet room wishes to provide
entertainment in conjunction with these operations. The official minutes
of the meeting on page 5, paragraph 4, contain the same statement. The
alleged current owner /operator identified himself in the application placed
before the Commission to add emphasis to the fact that he - the applicant
- was a City Councilman and one of the people responsible for the
appointment of Planning Commissioners - he was present in the audience.
How many other Planning Commission meetings has he attended in his official
capacity? He may not have addressed the Commission orally but his request
was forwarded to the Commission in the staff report and I ask you to
determine if this constitutes official use of his position to influence a
government decision in which he knows he has a financial interest.
In summary, I believe the application submitted to the Planning Commission
is invalid. By your own code, Councilman Siadek is not authorized to
submit this application. 2.)The Planning Commission was derlict in its
duty by not evaluating the parking requirements. An assessment of traffic
is part of the application submitted to them. They have expanded the use
of banquet rooms serving the general public and parking has not been
provided for that use. 3.) Before the uses in this project are expanded
further, I ask the City Council to appoint an independent committee of
building professionals and I will sit down with them and go over the total
parking requirements for this facility. We cannot do as we have done in
previous appeals - ask the Building Department to evaluate its own
calculations. In fairness to the community, we should not continue to
pass the buck from the Building Department to the Planning Department. I
believe minutes and staff reports provide evidence that Councilman Siadek
used his official position to influence the decision of the Planning
Commission and that actions should be referred to the District Attorney
for evaluation. I believe there will be a conflict in asking the City
Attorney for an evaluation on this issue. And I ask you take the 40 days
allowed by Section 2074140 to forward these to the proper authorities to
determine all probable facts. If the authorities determine all the
actions in the case were proper and within the written restrictions
imposed by your zoning codes and state laws, I will agree to withdraw my
appeal.
-5-
Council Minutes
August 20, 1985
Council discussion ensued regarding time allowed to consider the
allegations made, as well as the time to examine the written statement of
Rev. Erdely.
Council discussed with City Attorney the proper procedures regarding
entertainment and parking.
City Manager Romaniello stated that since this was the first time Council,
the City Attorney and City Manager had heard the full statement from Rev.
Erdely, he felt it would be best for Council to continue this matter until
such time as staff could go through Rev. Erderly's comments and respond to
Council. At that time Council could then decide on how best to pursue this
matter.
City Attorney Dolley agreed with City Manager Romaniello and indicated
that a continuance for 30 days would be appropriate as well as referral on
some of the other matters stated. City Attorney Dolley also stated that
he recalled issues of the grandfathering but that there were some issues
he had not heard and would like the time to research further.
At the suggestion of City Attorney Dolley, the public hearing will remain
open until further notice.
Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos MOVED, Councilman Jacobson SECONDED, that the
public hearing be continued. Motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Jacobson, Synadinos and Mayor Armstrong
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmembers Schuldt
Not Present and Not Voting: Councilman Siadek
With the consensus of Council, this matter was continued for 30 days.
Brief discussion regarding how this would affect present operations was
addressed by City Attorney Dolley, who indicated that the present dining
room operations and liquor license would not be affected.
At 7:53 P.M. Councilman Siadek returned to the Chambers.
Council recessed at 7:54 P.M.
Council reconvened at 8:00 P.M. with the following Councilmembers being
present:
Councilman Jacobson - present
Councilman Schuldt - absent
Councilman Siadek - present
Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos - present
Mayor Armstrong - present
-6-
Council Minutes
August 20, 1985
X1 c.1tr'....r
X f -1 f-) ?'?-
3. Hearing: Abatement of Weeds, Rubbish, Refuse and Dirt - (18 Properties in
the City).
Mayor Armstrong announced that this was the time and place heretofore
fixed for the hearing on the proposed abatement of weeds, rubbish, refuse
and dirt (18 properties in the City).
Mayor Armstrong asked the City Clerk if the proper notice had been given.
City Clerk Hart stated that the proper notice was published. Mayor
Armstrong stated that those files would be part of the hearing.
City Clerk Hart acknowledged there was no written communication received.
Director of Public Works Bill Glickman stated that each owner was properly
notified of properties to be cleaned.
Brief discussion ensued regarding notification and the City's
responsibility in this matter.
Councilman Siadek MOVED, Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos SECONDED to close the
public hearing, Motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Jacobson, Siadek, Synadinos and
Mayor Armstrong
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Schuldt
Councilman Jacobson MOVED, Mayor Armstrong SECONDED, to approve and
authorize to proceed with the Weed Abatement Procedure. Motion carried by
the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Jacobson, Siadek, Synadinos, and
Mayor Armstrong
Noes: None
i
Absent: Councilman Schuldt
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Mayor Armstrong announced the Noise Abatement Committee meeting on Monday,
August 26, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. in the West Conference Room of City Hall.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN
Dennis Martin, 722 Indiana Court, E1 Segundo, regarding the business license
tax increase, received and filed.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL
Dr. William Clark, Holly & Indiana, E1 Segundo, addressed regarding not
spending the City's reserves on industry.
Dave Jones, 438 Maryland, E1 Segundo, indicated the comments Councilwoman
Synadinos made in the E1 Segundo Herald regarding the dismissal of Mac
Dalgleish. It was indicated that the Councilwoman was misquoted.
Morris Fisk, 1425 E. Sycamore, E1 Segundo, stated that he supported the Council
and City Manager.
Jim McGoldrick, 640 California, E1 Segundo, indicated that the City Manager
should be allowed to do his job and that includes hiring and firing
personnel.
-7-
Council Minutes
August 20, 1985