Loading...
1985 OCT 01 CC MINXl)633 AINUTES OF THE KEGULAR MEETING OF THE LL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 1, 1985 CALL TO ORDER was made by Mayor Armstrong at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, October 1, 1985, in the Council Chambers of the El Segundo City Hall. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Mayor Armstrong. INVOCATION was given by Police Chief J. Clark Devilbiss. PRESENTATIONS 1. Mayor Armstrong recognized and thanked Al Pitzer for serving on the Planning Commission. Mr. Pitzer is leaving the City for another job. 2. Mayor Armstrong recognized Jack McElroy as Employee of the Month. 3. Councilman Jacobson presented the Proclamation declaring October 6 -12, 1985 as Fire Prevention week to Firefighter Dave Semnacher. 4. Councilman Siadek presented the Proclamation to Police Officer Carolyn Jackson in recognition of October as Crime Prevention Month. ZOLL CALL was taken by City Clerk Hart: Councilman Jacobson - present Councilman Schuldt - present Councilman Siadek - present :Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos - present Mayor Armstrong - present AlNUTES 1. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 17, 1985 approved as written. 2. Minutes Action Follow -Up of Open Items as of September 25, 1985 received and filed. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS 1. PUBLIC HEARING - continued from August 20, 1985 the appeal of Prudential 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. City Manager Romaniello gave a background update indicating that if the tentative map was approved it would create a new developable lot. Mayor Armstrong opened the public hearing. H.C.Connor, Vice - President -Real Estate Development, Prudential, 2049 Century Park East, Los Angeles, indicated that the history of the project started in June of 1979. At that time the C -3 zoning allowed buildings on the site with an area 10 times the size of the site. Prudential then planned the site on a 3 point, 4 times the size of the site. In 1982 when E1 Segundo passed the moratorium and revised the zoning to be constructing building only 2 times the size of the site. Prudential's plans at the time included the restaurant site to be free standing and to include subterranean parking. When the permit process was started they were informed that the restaurant would be permitted under the new ordinance, however, Prudential felt that had vest rights and appeal on that basis. % 6F.1 the natter was referred to the City Attorney and based on his rindin -s .,,at Prudentiai aid not Nave vested rights, the issue was then dismissed. Prudential then applied to aivide the lot into parcels and received approval for Lnat division. she request would have made a three -way split, allowing them to build the restaurant is full compliance with density and eight requirements of the City Zoning Code on the third lot createa. This approacn makes the most sense since it benefits the project, the City, and the residents. tr. Connor stated that Prudential would assist in mitigating traffic in the area and in addition the pedestrian overpass would assist in this measure. r. Connor also introduced the proposal of a revised Condition i;9 stating: a guarantee of revenue to the City of $25,000 per year from the restaurant. 'he revised condition would stipulate that the $25,000 would be guaranteed for five years from the date of opening; $40,000 would be provided for the remodeling of Joslyn Center at Kecreation Park, and Prudential's participation in the Sewer Assessment District - helping to relieve capacity problems at Hyperion and to reduce future sewer costs to E1 Segundo. Councilman Siadek ILWED, Councilman Jacobson SECONDED, that the public tearing be closed. notion carried by unanimous voice vote. Council discussion ensued regarding additional income for the City (sales tax revenue) and setbacks that are required. City _tanager Komaniello commented that if Prudential met the minimum standards of the subdivision requirements (it can be subdivided and still meet the minimum standards) the property could be sold. Council discussion ensued on variances that are being requested. City :Tanager P,omaniello indicated that because of the construction that has already occurred, to utilize it (without going in and tearing it out) the building would have to be relocated on the property. Jim UeCarli, Good lick Comoanv, Leasing Agent, 1123 S. La Cienega, Los Angeles, stated that the way the foundation is constructed, makes it very impractical to shift the building forward, and this shift forward would *_hen interfere with the pedestrian bridge. H.C. Connor, Nice - Presiaent, rudential, also indicated that to move the restaurant forward would not be economically feasible. Council discussion continued on variances and conditions. It ,pas discussed .whether or not convenants could be enforced on this property. City Attorney Dolley indicated that such an enforcement would be prohibited by the State i,tap Act. Council discussion ensued regarding parking (valet parking) and traffic. Kristine Keaton, Investment Manager, Prudential, said that the valet parking would move cars to the underground parking and that there would still be "self- park" under the restaurant. .is. Keaton further stated that cars would not block the fire lane but that this was a matter still being developed. Larry Sheldon, Fire Chief, reponded that at the present time this was an issue still be resolved between the Fire Department and Prudential. -2- Council Minutes October 1, 1985 Councilman Siadek MOVED, Councilman Schuldt SECONDED, that the project be approved with the revised Condition i�9 as submitted by Mr. Connor. Council discussion ensued regarding the conditions and changes that needed to be considered. :liter lengthy discussion: Councilman Siadek amended his motion: Staff was directed to prepare a resolution for approval with all conditions to satisfy all Council concerns and all conditions proposed by Prudential. Councilman Schuldt SECONDED. i:otion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Schuldt, Siadek and Mayor Armstrong Noes: Councilman Jacobson and ?Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos. Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos stated that she voted against the Project because she felt it did not meet the State requirements on variances. Council recessed at 3:44 P.M. Council reconvened at 8:51 P.M. Roll call was taken by City Clerk Hart: Councilman Jacobson - present Councilman Schuldt - present Councilman Siadek - present :Mayor Pro Ten Synadinos - present Mayor Armstrong - present 2. PUBLIC HEARING - continued from August 20, 1985 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 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. At 8:53 P.M. Councilman Siadek left the bench due to conflict of interest and was seated in the audience. Mayor Armstrong announced that this was the time and place heretofore fixed for the hearing on the appeal of Rev. Ed Erdely 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 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 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 receipt of written communication: Sandra LeRoy, 603 W. Maple Ave., E1 Segundo, indicated favoring entertainment at the hotel. Ruth B. Parks, 1405 E. Walnut Ave., E1 Segundo, also favored entertainment at the hotel. Petition from 145 residents favoring entertainment at the hotel. Danny Favero, Vice - President, Los Angeles Interline Club, P.O. Box 90939, Los Angeles, thanked the hotel for the cooperation and assistance in the party they held. Marlene Hoy Flower, 6960 Texhoma Ave., Van Nuys, thanked the staff for the entertainment provided at her party. -3- Council Minutes October 1, 1985 t'3F.-45 Julie A. Gallina, Assistant to Ar. ::iorklund, ',ockwell International, _230 �. ::.perial ilizhway, it Jz<<unao, tnanrcea the Starr for their assistance. - :'.arvhlla Shoupe, Aministrative Assistant to General Manager, Ametek Aicroelectronics, oO5 S. Douglas, L1 Segundo, stated the possibility of cnanging Corporate meetings to tiie Lmbassy Suites. Jack L. Lytle, region Operations .`tanager, Tennant Company, 1080 Kraemer Place, Anaheim, indicated that the hotel would again be used for future Meeting. Council recessed at 8:56 P.A. to the i4ayor's Office to discuss the following matters: Government Code 5495b.9(b) Council reconvened at 9:24 P.M. !:oil cail :aas taken by City Clerk Hart: Councilman Jacobson Councilman Schuldt Councilman Siadek Aayor ?ro 'lem Synadinos iayor Armstrong Significant Exposure to Litigations - present - present - not participating - present - present .favor Armstrong announced that no decisions were made during Closed Session. City :Tanager Romaniello gave the staff report regarding continuation and the amendment of CUP 83 -10 to allow entertainment. This was continued when it was appealed regarding possible parking requirements non- comformity. Ir. eomaniello also indicated that the operator was notified and the entertainment had ceased. Staff has reviewed the matter with the following findings: (1) parking standards that took place at the time of the project approval nad no specific designation for banquet facilities, (2) the project did not at any time go before the Commission to have this matter clarified, (3) it is the option of staff that the administrative decision to apply meeting room part:inz standards to the rooms in question limits these rooms to "meeting" or "conference ".The use of these rooms for banquet purposes ,:ould exceed the code required for parking and would constitute an expansion of a non - conforming use or the introduction of a new use into those rooms and therefore, violates the specifics and the intent of the parkins. The staff has outlined to the Council several options available which are clearly detailed in the staff report, as is the Police report, regarding the incident of the night in question as to when the violation was noted, as is the Fire Department, and Building Safety Department. :favor Armstrong opened the public hearing. Jim cicGoldrick, b40 California, El Segundo, stated he was in favor of upholding the appeal and denying entertainment. He asked that the Council notify the Planning Commission to justify their findings - especially in this matter regarding parking and noise. Wendy Wallace, 107 W. Grand Ave., El Segundo, said she favored entertainment at the hotel and it would be an asset to the community, and wished the parking problem could be resolved. Carol Kunzeman, 340 E. Walnut, E1 Segundo, also favored entertainment, and stated she was aware that there was a parking problem. Sue Dawson, 832 iIain, E1 Segundo, also favored entertainment. Myron Yates, 944 Sheldon, E1 Segundo, said he favored the entertainment. He also felt the revenue to the City would be beneficial. -4- I Council Minutes October 1, 1985 Cindy Campeau, 1205 E. Maple, E1 Segundo, supported the entertainment. Doris Smith, 1426 E. Walnut, E1 Segundo, supported the entertainment, and in addition expressed disfavor with the current constructed diverters. Ross Kongable, 909 McCarthy Court, E1 Segundo, favored the entertainment but felt there was a possible parking problem and thought that the appeal was to correct the parking. David Hopper, Manager, Embassy Suites, 1440 E. Imperial Ave., E1 Segundo, stated that a piece of literature he had seen indicated that the hotel employed 250 people - the last payroll period indicated that there were 115 people on staff. In checking with Mr. Siadek, he (Mr. Siadek) employs approximately 45 people at the hotel - with approximately 160 employees. As the business grows, there will be some increase in the employees but not a drastic number. Mr. Hopper went on to state that not all 160 of the employees are at the hotel at any one time, and in surveying the employees it was found that only 60% drive cars to work. The others carpool, walk, use the bus, etc. A second issue is the three options outlined by staff -and Mr. Hopper indicated a fourth which was to vote to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and remove Condition No. 7 from the CUP. One final issue is the revenue to the City. As most hotels, Mr. Hopper stated that Embassy Suites opened with low occupancy and with only 30% occupancy the hotel generated $11,000 worth of bed tax revenue to the City in the first 23 days of operation. In the next 35 days of operation (ending September 25, 1985) the hotel generated an additional $25,000 in bed tax revenues. Mr. Hopper went on to indicate that if entertainment be denied, the hotel can expect a decrease in guests in the hotel, groups cancelling because they can't have dances, etc. and that could impact the revenues -and subsequently the bed tax. Council asked how many rooms were in the hotel and what approximation of parking spaces would be used due to the occupancy. Mr. Hopper stated that during an 18 day period the cars in the parking structure were counted at 3:00 A.M. and they found that of 65-68% of the rooms occupied there were that number of cars (65 -68 %) in the parking lot. He contended that there were 366 parking spots in the hotel. Council also indicated the difficulty with finding the second level parking. Mr. Hopper agreed that this was a problem area but confirmed their action for better signs so that the second level would be easier to find and hopefully eliminate some of the street parking. Ed Erdely, 209 W. Acacia, El Segundo, addressed issues that he felt the Planning Commission was unable to answer or refused to answer. He stated that a copy of his appeal was not included in the packet for public inspection or for reference by the Council. He requested the Council to appoint an independent committee of professionals to evaluate the parking requirements of this Conditional Use Permit so that the buck passing would stop. He stated that the minutes of the Planning Commission provided evidence that Councilman Siadek had used his official position to influence staff and that staff communicated the Councilman's wishes to the Planning Commission in the staff report. He asked that the Council use the 40 days allowed to forward the evidence to the proper authorities to determine all of the probable facts. He stated that the if the proper authorities determined that all of the actions in this case were proper, he would agree to withdraw his appeal. Council refused to appoint an outside committee or refer the matter to the proper authorities, instead Council directed staff to answer the questions. He clearly stated that he believed that staff has a conflict of interest in addressing the questions raised but that he would like to hear the answers. He stated that he paid a $95.00 fee required so that he would be allow to direct those questions to the City Council - he felt he deserved answers. Now that staff has had 40 days to provide the answers - was Council prepared to answer the questions. -5- Council Minutes October 1, 1985 ,P;6R Question ( Erdely): Does the parking for this facility meet code requirements? City Manager Romaniello: No. Question ( Erdely): Has there been a change converting meeting rooms to banquest rooms? City Manager Romaniello: Yes. Question ( Erdely): Has a new Occupancy Permit been issued as required by code? City Manager Romaniello: No. Question ( Erdely): How many spaces have been provided for the conference rooms above the ground floor? City Manager Romaniello: None. Question ( Erdely): How many spaces are provided for the atrium or the hotel lobby? City Manager Romaniello: It has been undetermined. Erdely: Undetermined - that means none. City Manager Romaniello: No, it's been undetermined. The floor area is separated into different uses and we have not had the time to go inside the hotel take accurate measurements and determine that there is any part of the atrium that is not yet covered by parking requirements. Erdely: I have directed several letters to the City Council and City Manager offering witnesses that entertainment is being provided at this facility. Even though the Conditional Use Permit prohibited it. What was done to insure compliance? City Manager Romaniello: When we received your letter we treated your letter as an official complaint, we inspected the site and found that your statement was correct - there was entertainment, we issued a Stop Work Order and therefore, the need to know or the need to interrogate or question witnesses was not necessary - we had proven to ourselves and issued a Stop and Desist order to the hotel. Question ( Erdely): Have you followed up? City Manager Romaniello: Yes, we have. Question ( Erdely): There have been reports filed on an incident of the hotel which required services of the Police and Fire Departments to manage traffic and occupancy... City Manager Romaniello: That's correct. Erdely: If past present, was established which required businesses needing special services from the City to reimburse the City the cost of those services - has Hometel been billed for these services - yes or no? City Manager Romaniello: They have not been billed - there is not the administrative capability to do so - if the Council so directed us we would do it, but it is not within our power to do so. Erdely: Will Council bill? Mayor Armstrong: Mr. Dolley normal procedure is to - for any use of Police or Fire in crowd control in the shooting of movies has been to issue a bill to the parties involved. cm Council Minutes October 1, 1985 X f; F .11 Mr. Dolley: Yes, I'm aware of that. Mayor Armstrong: Ed, I'll ask for that. Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos: May I ask if we have that procedure covered by an ordinance and why we don't have this particular procedure. Mr. Dolley: I have never actually gone through that - the process, I can certainly tell you how it's done and... Mayor Armstrong: Ed, the matter will be referred to staff and addressed and followed through. Councilman Schuldt: Is that something - you say you charge - is that before the fact or after the fact. If something happens out there and you get a serious problem, when you've got police, you don't bill them. Councilman Jacobson: He's talking about the precedent of Prudential Towers when we had wind storm and so forth - the first time I know of it happening and I'm not sure why that one project was picked out by staff but when they have extrodinary circumstances - I'm not sure it's bad precedent that shouldn't be followed through more often - but if it's negligence on the part of the operator to cost us to have overtime.... Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos: The point is that we don't have anything in place that says we will charge X number of dollars. Question ( Erdely): Was Councilman Siadek notified that he was not permitted to provide entertainment, not permitted to use any rooms for serving food and beverages? City Manager Romaniello: To my knowledge Councilman Siadek was notified that he was not allowed to provide entertainment. To my knowledge he was not notified that he could not use the meetings rooms in a banquet manner. Question ( Erdely): Was Councilman Siadek willfully and knowingly breaking the law? Mayor Armstrong: That's a question....Mr. Dolley you'd better answer that. City Manager Romaniello: I don't believe anybody can answer what he.... Mr. Dolley: I can't answer that question. Question ( Erdely): Is it legal for a councilmember to approach staff to urge approval for a permit that would provide a financial benefit to the Councilmember? Mayor Armstrong: I'm not certain that question can be answered. Mr. Dolley would you like to give..... Mr. Dolley: I have advised every member of this Council I believe on one occasion or more and most likely several occasions concerning conflicts of interest. My position has been and I've been requested from Council a number of times that when I do give that advice, that advice is given under the attorney /client privilege to the individual whose privileged to release that information if they wish. Beyond that, I don't think I'm capable of commenting this evening. Mayor Armstrong: Mr. Erdely, I would hesitate any of us giving an answer to that - it would be impossible to read a man's mind - a man has a business and he's trying to get it going regardless if it's a Councilman or private - you'd have to read into that and I don't think that follows the letter of the law. -7- Council Minutes October 1, 1985 X664U Question ( Erdely): As of what date was the parking grandfathered for the Facility? City Manager Romaniello: I don't know. If you refer to it as grandfathering ... maybe the City Attorney would answer differently, but I don't think it was grandfathered, I think we were all under the opinion that the parking was approved on the basis that on the date the permit was issued - as is City policy - the project had obtained vested rights, therefore, parking which we did not know at the time was in violation of the existing code, did not have to meet the requirements of the new code. Question ( Erdely): Was it the date when a temporary foundation was poured and later removed? City Manager Romaniello: I do not have that information. Erdely: Well, this was a question in my last - I think I addressed it to the City Attorney. :Mr. Dolley: 'Mayor and members of the Council, on the whole subject, which I have been requested to look at - is a very complicated series of events that has occurred. I do not have that in any great chronological order at the moment, but it is not my view that when it comes to the meeting rooms and banquet rooms that any issue of grandfathering is involved at all. But rather a new use - and a new use needing a Certificate of Occupancy and those questions have been answered. There may have been some other issues that later on deal with the original permit, but I don't see them here this evening. Question ( Erdely): Does City staff have the authority to allow parking in an area identified with a No Parking sign? Mayor Armstrong: Ed, let me - may I jump in there. In defense of Mr. Romaniello or myself, or a position in the City, none of us can quote you section, code and I can't really tell you what the next street over - what their garbage pickup is. We can't really.... City :Manager Romaniello: And the way to answer that Mr. Mayor, is that in the administration of my responsibilities, if I allow administratively an existing regulation - like a No Parking restriction to be violated, and it is done in a way to help a one time situation, which could have been a church bazaar or the hometown fair - it was done with that intent. When we allowed the Hometel to use the center divider with our permission, we will all ... and I will have to admit, but as far as I'm concerned, even the hotel had no idea of the magnitude of the parking situation that would arise. We looked at it, we assessed the ground - because we are aware the ground is soft and sometimes cars sink, we sent one of our inspectors out to make sure it was dry enough to accommodate the cars, we informed Mr. Siadek at the time that any cars should sink into that dirt, he would have to pull them out at his own expense - the City would not assume any responsibility for towing cars or damage to cars and I think we all were under the impression - although it was not stated - we were probably talking about 20 -30 cars. Question ( Erdely): Although we have established there have been contacts made to invite entertainment to this facility, in most instances, the parties and the entertainment have been muted because the Conditional Use Permit makes it perfectly clear that no entertainment was to be permitted. We had one example of what happens when the lid is taken off and offer free beer which is not permitted by the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, free food, entertainment, and free passes attract every freeloader in the L.A. area to what was a single - family residential neighborhood in E1 Segundo. We had an example of drunks wandering through residential neighborhoods carrying drinks when the Fire Department started clearing exists. If our Zoning Codes are based on anything goes, that makes the U-M Council Minutes October 1, 1985 X 6641 cash registers ring for business, our way of life here will be destroyed. When influence and money can guarantee reductions in parking regulations, the quality of life in E1 Segundo is endangered. Each of you ran on a platform of preserving the quality of life in our residential area. Others who ran on the platform of preserving the integrity of our residential zones, managed to forget that promise on the day they are elected. If we fail to stop the intrusion into someone else's neighborhood our neighborhood will be next. Each of you have taken an oath to uphold the law - I suggest that you honor that commitment and vote to uphold my appeal. Bill Eyre, 1200 E. ,I.cacia, El Segundo, remarked that he felt the real issue was not addressed. :ie indicated that since he lives in the area - he thought entertainment in hotels is a nice idea but that the night of the airline party, tie had to park several blocks from his house. The hotel capacity was not up to full capacity - then why were the City streets and the median full on the first night of entertainment? Surely, there are good logical solutions to this - but had not heard any. He would like to see entertainment in the hotel - but not with the parking problems. But it all must be done with some consideration for the neighborhood and the City property. Jack Siadek, 1440 E, Inperial, Suite 250, E1 Segundo, addressed the City Council with the following: The fact is that at the time the hotel was built, it did indeed meet parking requirements. The codes they are referring to were February of 1985 codes and most of the problems -even the terminology being used is a little bit misleading - when this hotel was started, in 1981, there was a different set of rules entirely. It would have actually qualified for the 1970 requirements, instead it was built under the 1983 requirements. The problem that happened on the 18th was a fluke and it was truly a problem. Je had a party with the Interairline Club of Los Angeles - Jet America was sponsoring the event - there was no free beer - the people paid and they paid also for their chile dogs and we had twice the people show up at this thing. I have a letter here from Danny Favero, Vice - President (which Mr. Siadek read aloud) thanking the staff for the party. :4r. Siadek went on to state - Yes, I did call Nick Romaniello and ask about the parking, because when I had the bowling alley, at the same site for some 10 years prior, before I was ever in elected office, it didn't even occur to me when I called Nick, because I had done the same thing many times before and I've also done favors for the City - so I did call the City when it looked like there was going to be an overflow parking problem - and I did ask if we could use the strip. The strip, by the way, can be used for only two things, one is for parking and the other is for recreation. So I did indeed call the City - not as a Councilman - but as a proprietor of a restaurant that was hosting a function that looked like it was going to be getting out of hand. And it did indeed. And that was a serious problem - and the problem - we talked about what has happened since then - have I been checked out. Every night the City of E1 Segundo - you taxpayers are paying time and a half for some inspector to come walking through my place - with me not knowing about it. You businesses think about this - on 9/17/85, this is a memo to Nick Romaniello from Scott Fazicus /Building Safety Director - City Manager received Mr. Erdely's complaint, discussion with City Attorney rendered the decision that until the appeal period was over, the original resolution was still in effect. That is the first time I heard about this. Even though Le, you and I had a phone conversation - and Nick tells me I knew about it - and I'm saying I must be crazy. But apparently even our Building Director didn't even know about it? Even our Building Director didn't know about it. This was the day before this infamous bash was had. Mayor Pro Synadinos: You mean this Cease and Desist Order. Council Minutes October 1, 1985 SiadeK: i4o that was issued a couple of days later. This was 9/17/85 (and repeated the memo). When Erdely made his pitch here, I was in the back area and I was not aware of what was being said. Mr. Romaniello admits that he did tell me subsequent to that - that as far as he knew, that until the appeal was heard by the Council, I could still have entertainment. The problem is that I continued to have entertainment thinking I was okay. Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos: My understanding is that yes he did discuss that with you and I understand that you also talked to the City Attorney and he said that was in error that you could not. Siadek: :there do you understand that from? Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos: From discussions, yes. From the City Attorney. Siadek: '. +ell, the City attorney informed me in his notes that he talked with me about it. 1 just don't remember - there'd be no reason in the world for me take this kind of risk. On 9/18/85, I visited the Embassy Suites Hotel at 7:00 P.M. and witnessed entertainment in the form of a harp being played in the Capistrano Room. 9/19/85 - I advised Bob Whiteford to write a Correction Notice to the hotel management which he did immediately Councilman Siadek called in response to the notice and I explained the reason for the Correction Notice. he agreed to cancel the live entertainment. Vic Peterson visited the Embassy Suites from 7:15 P.M. to 8:30 P.;1. and no entertainment was being provided. 9/20/85 - I visited the hotel at 7:00 P.hi, and no entertainment was being provided. 9 /23/85 - the City Manager received a copy of a letter from Jack Siadek dated 9/20/85 to the pianist, cancelling her services. There was also a letter to the harpist, cancelling her services. A complaint was received by a caller of unknown identity stating that the disc jockey had been playing music to circumvent the Correction Notice warning which prohibited "live entertainment ". I visited the hotel at 7:00 P.M. and no entertainment was provided. I called the main desk at 10:00 P.M. and when the receptionist was asked if there was any entertainment - she responded that all they were allowed to have was a piano player. I asked if it was being played then, and she said yes. He may or may not have had personal knowledge of such as the piano was not being played at 7:00 P.M. There was no pianist playing that night. 9./24/85 - Bob Whiteford was directed to amend the original Correction Notice to reflect Condition 7 of Resolution 2448, prohibiting any entertainment instead of only live entertainment. He did so. At 9:00- 9:30 P.M. Kerman lHorgan, another City inspector, visited the hotel and no entertainment of any kind was being provided. I have been visited every night - every night - at some ungodly rate to protect the interest of the town. As far as the Fire Department coming over that night - I was turned in. And they can do that to any one of you - any one of you can be turned in, saying I suspect there's something going on at your home. Apparently, that's the way this thing works. When they got there, there was indeed some fire exits blocked. The fireman that was there said to the young man that was working - "you got 30 minutes to remedy this problem, or we're closing you down." So the young man responded with all due haste and probably aged a few years, but the job was accomplished. This was the same night. I found the next day, from Councilwoman Synadinos, that the fire truck was parked out there for quite a few hours.... Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos: An hour and a half. Siadek: I was not aware that the fire truck was out there. I guess that's standard procedure. I find out now tonight, that we're going to pay for that. So the $33,000 we paid in bed taxes and sales tax dollars I paid, will not cover those figures, I'm sure. But we'll take care of that. I had hoped to address specifically the problems, but Mr. Erdely has some points there that needed to be addressed as far as what was being done as a result of his inquiry. Believe me folks, you were well represented. -10- Council Minutes October 1, 1985 I do have some entertainment booked - and Mr. Eyres suggested why don't we come up with a solution. I have some suggestions for that in a moment. I want to run down these because regardless of what happens, if it goes the wrong way tonight, something needs to be done and I would hope we could take care of these folks. (Mr. Siadek then read the list of dates and the type of entertainment /meeting /receptions taking place.) Hotel policy is that all such gatherings must end at 12 midnight. That fact is, that property, when it was built and when David and I came on the scene we figured that was sufficient parking. Last Wednesday, on the 18th, there was not sufficient parking. There was no doubt about it. What this letter from the Interairline Party doesn't indicate is the fact that there was another party going on at the same time. There was a dinner in the back in the Barcelona Room for a 150 people. So it was really quite a mess. It was disasterous. We know better in the future. There's no way, by the way, short of shutting the place down, that we can guarantee something like that would never happen again. But we can take precautions. We should have, for example, shut down when they had reached a certain point. There is no way we can guarantee against that. (He went on to indicate a letter from Mr. Donald Smith, Director of Administration from Hughes Space and Communications indicating that to assist in the parking problems, Hughes is willing to enter into a limited license agreement with Embassy Suites Hotel - upon the hotel's agreement with appropriate documents to be prepared by Hughes' legal department - the license will permit Embassy Suites to use a portion of the parking lot at 1700 E. Imperial Highway - including approximately 430 stalls for special occasions after 6:00 P.M. on weekdays or on weekends.) Mr. Siadek indicated that this is one suggestion to appease the parking problem. The noise problem is very air tight - however, the person mentioned to Mr. Siadek about the E1 Segundo resident who was staying in the hotel who complained about the noise - the complaint should have gone to the General Manager of the hotel. Because the noise may be offensive to someone staying in the place. Mayor Pro Tem Syandinos: Went on to elaborate abou 10:30 P.M. at night from a resident staying in the there was excessive noise from inside the hotel. David Hopper: He also indicated that the complaint referred to the Manager on the property - 7 nights and authority to take whatever action is necessary down a party if it is too loud). t a call she received at hotel indicating that indeed should have been a week until midnight - (including shutting Councilman Schuldt: You orchestrated all the visits to hotel. Councilman Siadek indicated that he had no idea. City Manager Romaniello responded that he had received a phone call from the Police and Fire Departments and three Council people - and told what was going on after the fact. So that's how Nick turned everyone in - since I don't live in E1 Segundo, I wasn't here to observe it myself. So I found out about what was taking place late at night by the Police Chief, the Fire Chief, the Building Safety Director and three Councilmembers (two Councilmembers). So that how I turned someone in who I just allowed parking in the median island. The second thing that you said, which indicated to some degree, that we are giving Mr. Erdely some sort of favorite approach to his question - he specifically said to me, "is that parking in conformance with the parking regulations ?" For clarification purposes, since you did not quite understand my answer - in accessing the building as built under the parking regulations in place the time the permit was issued, which means the proposed parking regulations, the parking for the Hometel in total, is significantly under Code required parking. And if it is the desire of the Council to approve it, I will so do it. -11- Council Minutes October 1, 1985 Xf;61IR Councilman Siadek indicated that as he understood the Code - what's the difference between a banquet room and a meeting room. He also understood that he heard this evening that food was not to be served in a meeting room? He had not realized that - because many meetings or training sessions serve lunch (in another room). They go from the training session to the other room for lunch. Lengthy Council discussion transpired regarding banquet rooms versus meeting rooms - and that the builder applied for an application that only guests would be using the cocktail lounge, restaurants, etc. and that no entertainment would be included. It was also the concensus that the builder misled the City on the basis of guests only. It was brought out that the hotel had entertainment from the day it opened. Mr. Siadek indicated that he had a Conditional Use Permit from the City stating that he could have entertainment (June 27) and that the hotel opened on August 1st. Councilman Jacobson indicated that a Conditional Use Permit does not allow entertainment. 'Ar. Siadek corrected his prior statement indicating that tie appealed on June 27. And on July 11 got the permit and entertainment was provided until the Correction Notice. Mayor Pro Synadinos then responded that the Conditional Use Permit was in effect for no entertainment. Mr. Siadek reiterated that the CUP was amended, dropping Condition #7 when he opened on August 1st. City Manager Romaniello indicated the Mr. Siadek was correct - that by the request from Mr. Siadek to the Planning Commission to amend the existing CUP which prohibited entertainment - to eliminate that condition, Mr. Siadek's request was granted by the Planning Commission. Councilman Jacobson stated that on July 21st the City Clerk's office received an appeal... Mr. Siadek indicated that the only correspondence lie had received from the City had been two nice letters from the Planning Commission stating that he had been granted the removal of the condition (one letter dated June 28 and the other dated July 12). City Clerk responded that on July 22 at 10:30 A.M. Mr. Siadek was verbally notified that Mr. Erdely tiled a complaint and later given a copy of the complaint. Mr. Dolley included information that under the Code (Section 274090) a decision of the Planning Commission is not final if it's appealed. A rendering of a decision by the Planning Commission has no effect until such time as an appeal is finally heard and decided by the Council. Mr. Siadek asked that the Council okay his current bookings and in the meantime try to work out a solution for the parking problem. Council inquired as to the effect if Hughes gave a 30 day cancellation? Council was also concerned regarding convenants attached to the parking. Also, Council expressed concern over bookings 30 days in advance (because of the possibility if Hughes cancelled). Mr. Siadek felt that the only thing to do is to accept the offer of Hughes in the spirit in which it was given. -12- Council Minutes October 1, 1985 Mayor Armstrong requested that staff look into the actual amount of parking that is there (at the hotel) - for instance, the meeting rooms upstairs, they have never been adequately addressed - and what is really needed. And never have a parking problem arise again. Mr. Siadek and Mr. Hopper both indicated that the hotel could take some extra action by not booking parties over a certain number of people and by policing the area themselves. Council again discussed the best way to keep the bookings open until the parking has been addressed by staff to be adequate. Council asked Mr. Hopper if the hotel has agreed not to book any events at the time Hughes is using its parking lot. Mr. hopper indicated that not to book anything - he could not agree to that and would have a severe impact on the hotel. He also agreed that having City staff to come in and look at parking is a fair suggestion and then go from there. :Mayor Armstrong indicated that he would like to have this cleared up in 30 days but had to consider the impact on City staff. Mfr. komaniello stated if the Council was talking about legal requirements for public hearings - notification process - if Council is talking about Just coming back for further consideration, then it's just a matter of continuation. But if it goes back to the Planning Commission, then it would be impossible to meet the legal obligations to get it done in 30 days. :1r. Hopper responded that if the public hearing is continued with the current laws then the hotel would not be able to have entertainment of any type in the hotel and they are back at square one. Discussion ensued as to what time limits would be needed, what would happen if the matter went to the Planning Commission, and what to do in the meantime. Mr. Dolley stated that the Code provides that the City Council can refer the matter to the Planning Commission, if it's going to make a decision different than the Planning Commission, for a report and that the report of the Planning Commission be forwarded in a 40 day period back to the Council. There is an opportunity and one of the alternatives under the Code is to forward the matter to the Planning Commission for a report. :Mr. Siadek asked if there was some way to keep the bookings - and have the staff look at the operation in the meantime. Council discussed the occupancy of the hotel and those guests who may or may not be in the hotel during daytime hours. Bill Eyre, 1200 E. Acacia, E1 Segundo, indicated that the everyday operations don't seem to affect the residents. The concern is over reoccurrence of the impact of the number of people who may attend a function at the hotel. Mr. Hopper stated that perhaps the best thing to do would be to go back to the Planning Commission or City staff and let them come in and determine the number of parking spaces needed, how many are there currently, and what steps can be done to meet the Code. The offer from Hughes would certainly seem to be one of the solutions - but on convenants, indicated he wasn't sure. But could be looked at if that would help. The immediate concern, is what to do to keep the business booked and solve the matter at the same time. -13- Council Minutes October 1, 1985 ' Xf�F4P x6F 4r Mayor Armstrong asked Mr. Erdely that !iis concern was to bring the parking up to code so the problems in the rneihborhood are alleviated? Ir. Erdely stated that that was correct. The parking was short spaces. 'loss Kongable, 909 McCarthv_Court, E1 Segundo, suggested that a 45 day permit be granted for the entertainment and look at solving the parking problem and correct it in the meantime. If not resolved within 45 days, then put a stop to the entertainment at that time. Mr. Hopper indicated that this would give everyone a chance to look at the hotel at some or the most crucial times (Christmas) and at the same time to keep the bookings open and work on resolving the proolem. Fire Chief Larry Sheldon indicated that the Fire Department had a concern over the number of people at functions. On the evening in question - the Fire Department :was cited for making demands on over - occupancy - the room was certified by the Building Department for 650 and it was estimated by the on -duty Battalion Chief that there were approximately 800 people present. This is a violation of local code and state code. The Fire Department is obligated to respond to any reported infraction of City or State Code and this is what the Fire Suppression did. It appeared that the =ire Department was being somewhat heavy handed in stating that if exits were riot r2leared, if people were not thinned out, then the place would be ;:losed. guaranteed the Fire Department would have and will continue to do i` the violations continued to exist. However, it is true that hotels cannot control these intermittent infractions but to control these takes close cooperation of the hotel and the Fire inspection and City people. he hotel is to be commended for training its people and interfacing with the Fire Department on Fire /Life Safety. With permission of the City :Tanager beginning October L, this hotel along with all hotels and public assemblages in the City of El Segundo will be put on nightly inspection. These would be friendly, assisted inspections, with the cooperation of the `acilities and an assertiveness of the Fire Department the frequency of these occurrences can be cut for over - occupancy. Also, the staff would be On-duty Lire personnel and not overtime staff. Councilman Jacobson MOVED, Councilman Schuldt SECONDED, to close public hearing. Motion carried by the following vote: :=eyes: Councilmembers Jacobson, Schuldt, Synadinos, and Mayor Armstrong Noes: None Not Voting: Councilman Siadek Council continued to discuss the parlcing code, the misleading application, and a solution to continue bookings while finding a solution. Council recessed at 11:41 P.i. Council reconvened at 11:55 P.M. Roll call was taken by City Clerk Hart: Councilman Jacobson - present Councilman Schuldt - present Councilman Siadek - not participating (seated in the audience) Mayor Pro Tem Synadinos - present Mayor Armstrong - present City Attorney Dolley presented the possible alternatives open to Council under the City Code and indicated that essentially when a decision is appealed the appeal comes to the City Council for a full public hearing and then during that public hearing any information that is pertinent can be used. He indicated that he found nothing in the Code that would allow Council to grant a permit for a short period of time under the terms and condtions presented. -14- C'ouucil Ainutes October 1, 1985 -;,ere are :>everal options: ) -_3 send the natter back to the :,lanni:: jmmission if Council is ; oin-- to :.are a ,recision which may 7,C _.. :ny :av corrcrary to that or the :'lannial- Commission, (2) Council could „rant ,.l.e appeal, (3) deny the appeal, ,lnc (,) under tie Code, grant the appeal :ith certain conditions which t:re conditions have been met. he oniv !:ossible ioiution - and it :.ia; : of _�e ,i solution - is to grant a permit and 'lave it 1iie on a certain Gate. sut then the Council must go through the process - as with the variance :?roceedings berorehana - which would require council to decide that tnrou;;tr the sections of the Code that deal with Conditional 6se ?ermits, that Conaitional [:se ?ermit neets those sections of the code (27050 and 040). I­-is is sometning certainly for Council's consideration. iowever, Luis does not solve anything because then a permit - if a decision is mace - a permit would die at some point in time and there -ouid be ao t)ermission to anything at that point. The Code just doesn't fit what exactly the Council is trying to do. Council then aslced for clarification of Option 2, ,;ranting; the appeal with conditions - granting the appeal, out cannot tie in any snort -term. !r. :volley indicated that the snort -term of ;ranting the appeal for a :;port period of time just isn't covered in the Code. Council could rant n appeal and condition it by having it die on a specific date but then )nce c:ne condition dies, then there is no recourse to bring it bacx to "ouncii for further consideration. Council continued the discussion on how to handle the matter and what could )e cone to let the bookings stand. .,_ _ '-tanager i:omanieilo stated that if Council's objective was to help the applicant (the notel) and to deny the appeal which contains tactual information, the condition the denial of the appeal with concerns that ,.ouid -rake the applicant liable for any .lawsuits brought against the City on the basis of denying a factual appeal, make the applicant liable with -onding to provide parkin; that ;Teets cone and hold the applicant _iaanciall-; responsible for all oblizations the City :could incur in i4ntin�: either one or those suits should they arise and hold the applicant responsible for meeting anv lawsuits that result out of the cancellin, ur all the bookings that could :;e proved to be booked before date authorized to have ntertainment. 'he main issue is to crake sure he CitEv's liability is covered in all cases. hereby taking an appeal that 'has factual informacion in it (provable, tactual information) ana ,.vertirrning chat appeal i;; savor of the applicant All open the Cit"; cc a _reater liability than any amiability chat might arise from denying tine _pp -icant iiscrecionary ase chat we can rove e violated. City .ittorney uoiley reiterated that the Code was difficult to interpret and flat temporary uciief >eems lust .tot i;resent in cne Code. Jac;c Schott, :hair, r1lanning Commission, stated that if it came before the Commission, to _ive them adequate ci::e Lo consider the matter. Lengthy Council discussion ensued as to solutions and it was the concensus of Council at this meeting to postpone the final decision until Flednesday, October 2, 1985 to see if there :night be other alternatives that could be found by the City .Attorney, starf, and Council in the meantime. Councilman Jack Siadek returned to the bench. -i5- Council iLinutes October 1, 1985 F�Faf y6r UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None ZEPORT'S OF COMMITTEES — None PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — VQITTEN Julia '1. tIosher, 410 Standard St., �:l Segundo, submitted petition which stated that the residents and taxpayers (who signed the petition) who reside in the 400 --lock of Standard Street and surrounding areas wish to call attention to the restaurants on Main Street which leave 'Drought noise, odor, and parkins; problems. 3ryan Alen, 3142 Drew St., Los Angeles, reminding Council of the LACTC Open ,,Ouse. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — ORAL ::en Jalgleish, 603 td. :Maple, El Segundo, addressed the Council regarding the difficulty in understanding the oudget especially the reserves). :ie presented ,s ;)etition to she Council. :Mayor Pro Tom Synadinos responded that it was difficult to comprehend if one :iid not uncerstand all the procedures and terminology in the budget. `favor Armstrong indicated that after the next audit released in November, Council would address this issue. Jims - ieDer, 603 Virginia Street, El Segundo, asked r_hat -'.�3 on the Consent sepia De aaaressea. CONSENT AGENDA ouncilman Jacobson requested that Item ,i3 be withdrawn. '�!ayor Pro Tem }naclinos :•IUVED, and Councilman Jacobson SECONDED, that the remaining items listed on the Consent Agenda be approved. ;`lotion carried by unanimous voice Note. 1. ,equest to Accept a Check for 53000 donated to the El Segundo Fire ;apartment Paramedic Rescue unit from Rockwell International Corporation. Donation accepted ror ,)urchase of a video camera /reccorder /player and Monitor for the Training Division. .�-ecommenaation to Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Staff to :advertise ror :ids for Temporary Facilities for sire Station No. 1 — Proiect ::o. PtJ 85 -10. _'fans and specifications approved and staff authorized to advertise fOr t: ids. CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA 3. Request to Award Contract for Construction of Hydroelectric Generating Facility Proiect No. PW 84 -17. Jim Weber, 603 Virginia Street, E1 Segundo, stated that as citizen when $189,202 is oeing taken from a reserve fund that it not be a consent item and should be brought out to the public as a report and made available. City Manager Romaniello reponded that all material for this matter was in the public packet at the City Library. Mr. Weber then requested a roll call vote on this matter. Councilman Jacobson added that this was a loan from the fund to be paid back by the Hydroelectric Plant. —16— Council '•Unutes October 1, 1985 was further stated that his was a follow through item which was started years ago. :3yor Lro Tem Synadinos ':OVED, +.,ounciiman Jacobson SECONDED, chat this ratter be approved. ::otion carried y a unanimous voice vote. _JEQ 3USINESS - CITY AANACER - None :ZEO 3USIHESS - CITY ATTOBBEY _'resentation of - resolution Granting _gin .'topeal ct the Planning Commission Jecision Regarding Conditional Use Permit ::o. 35 -2 for Retail Sale of "leer drrd 'dine, with Certain Conditions. :ity Attorney Jolley presented the resolution: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, : :1LllORNIA, GRANTING AN APPEAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING CONDITIONAL SSE PERMIT '0. 35 -2 FOR RETAIL SALE JF BEER AND gINE, ',dITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS. layor Armstrong MOVED, Council Schuldt SECONDED, that the r --solution be aaproved. :iotion carried by the following vote: 'yes: Councilmembers Schuldt, •�iadek and ::ayor Armstrong Noes: Councilmembers .iacobson and Synadinos YURTHEB NEW BUSINESS :layor Armstrong indicated that applications for the vacancy on the Planning Commission will be announced in the paper. :FOOD OF THE ORDER - :done PUBLIC COMMUMICATIOHS - ORAL - None CLOSED SESSION - :lone ADJOURNMENT - No other business appearing to come before the Council at this session, the meeting was adjournea at 1'2:50 A. :1. to 9:00 P..'-I. on October 2, 1985. Council adjourned in memory of: APPROVED: -elen :;with dicksler, ,.rse o9 and a 25 .rear zesiaent. ::oy ear, ,re , 7, u ormer El Segundo Police Officer and a 40 year resident. Donalda Aary workman, ah4e 73 an a 17 year resid (� .<onald L. Mart, City Clerk -17- Council tlinutes October 1, 1985 XbF4,9