Ventura City Council Meeting
September 27, 2010
Ventura City Hall - 501 Poli Street
Agenda Item No. 9, Appeal of a Decision by the Planning Commission Approving a Conditional Use Permit, Administrative Variance, Lot Line Adjustment, and Design Review for a New 42,172 Square Foot, 4 Story, 44 Unit Senior Living Facility; Property Located at 4010 Telegraph Road received heated attention. When during testimony the applicant's architect, Mark Petit, stated that what had taken place was "intimidation" of some residents by other residents who were opposed to the variance, a chorus of boo's and catcalls filled the Council Chambers.
To view a list of agenda items for the September 27 meeting, go to www.cityofventura.net/meeting/city-council-meeting-notice-2.
Deputy Mayor Tracy called the meeting to order, requesting that the city clerk call the roll. Mayor Fulton was not present. Mr. Deputy Mayor then led the council, staff and spectators in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Council Communications – the deputy mayor recognized Council Member Morehouse, who congratulated the Westside Conservancy for a concert that was well presented and well received. The councilman also picked up trash and participated in beach cleanup last Saturday, noting that some of the areas on the east side of the road were rather full of litter, with plastic bags quite profusely abundant.
Council Member Andrews reminded all present that the second week in October is the Seaside Island Games, on Friday Saturday and Sunday at Seaside Park Fairgrounds. Featured events are historical reenactments and dog exhibitions. Mr. Andrews attended on Saturday night the Winter Warming Shelter fund raising event.
Council Member Monahan attended the annual memorial for the fallen fire fighters. The veterans home will hold an open house at the new veteran center in Saticoy. All or welcome to help raise money for the worthy cause of veterans issues.
Council Member Brennan mentioned that October 6 is a day to highlight school safety in the walk toward and in and around our schools.
Reports on Regional Boards and Commissions – Council Member Morehouse spoke on the League of California Cities agenda, and mentioned that support is needed locally.
Council Member Weir spoke on the Kingdom Center celebration event, where there were additional charges stemming from the effort to house needy families. She also mentioned the upcoming community meeting (Tuesday, September 28 – 6:30-8:00 p.m. @ City Hall) for the siting of homeless shelters within Ventura.
Consent iIems – 2260 East Thompson Boulevard License Agreement – Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Community Development Block Grant Program Reallocation – 505 Poli Street NonProfit Sustainability Center Leases – Request to Apply for Certified Local Government Historic Preservation Program – Renaming the Community Services Department as the Parks, Recreation, and Community Partnerships Department – Historic Landmark Designation at 280 Parsons Avenue; Nancy and Robert Lopez, Applicants; Case No. PROJ-1105 – Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Include a New Land Use Definition “Personal Services: Restricted” (Examples of these Use Types Include Tattoo and Body Piercing Services) to be Permitted Only in the C-1 Limited Commercial, C-1A Intermediate Commercial, C-2 General Commercial and C-P-D Commercial Planned Development Zones. A poll of the council was then begun.
Item No. 7 (Zoning Ordinance Amendment – tattoo parlors) was pulled and transferred to the end of the meeting. Council Member Brennan had issue with storm water treatment (2260 E. Thompson – license agreement), and asked Chandra to present the issue with notation as it exists on this particular site in midtown.
Council Member Weir noted that in parking lots one canopy tree is usually planted for each four parking places. Her question was to clarify whether or not the property under consideration would have proper parking lot design.
Speakers on the consent items – Brian Rencher spoke in support of staff recommendations on Agenda Items 1 through 5. In addressing Item No. 2 – the Community Development Block Grant program – the speaker noted that in May of 2009 city council approved this grant program, which included removal of two decorative crosswalks and the institution of sub grade analysis to discover why the crosswalks were sinking. His claim was that with the need for a redo of the work, his belief was that the community development grant for the project should be reimbursed by the city.
Item No. 3 – Nonprofit Organization Leases – Mr. Rencher opposed be because it allows the city manager to decide which social services “get to live or die,” which Mr. Rencher believed was an overreach by an unelected official.
The Historical Significance program was criticized, along with opposing changing the Community Services department to a new name – Parks, Recreation, and Community Partnerships Department – a convoluted and difficult name to remember, according to him.
Deputy Mayor Tracy recognized Council Member Brennan who wished to have the city manager comment on the NGO leases by the city manager as brought up by Mr. Rencher. The city manager cited a “bill of rights” noting that the bill contains a set of standards, making it legal and convenient for city employees other than council members to follow the rules and allow the city manager to implement those rules efficiently.
The city attorney offered clarification as well on the new lease program for small NGOs.
Council Member Monahan asked of the city attorney whether there were any selection criteria. City Manager Cole noted that the only one, really, is that the agency must be nonprofit, having obtained state and federal status as a nonprofit NGO.
Council Member Andrews asked that Consent Item Nos. 1 through 6 be called for approval – the city clerk called the roll, with all members voting yes. The items passed unanimously.
Agenda Item No. 9 – Appeal for a conditional use permit and lot line adjustment at a 44 unit senior living center on telegraph Road and Ivy Street. The deputy mayor opened the public meeting on this measure, asking the city clerk verify that the council was in accordance with the rules for public disclosure.
Council Member Brennan stated that he performed a site review conducted personally. Council Member Weir visited the site and met with local neighbors, having a chance to speak personally with them. Council Member Morehouse said the agent for the applicant did not meet with him.
Council Member Andrews visited the site, and met with several neighbors and other citizens. Council Member Monahan visited the site, with phone calls from the neighbors, but with no further personal contact.
The deputy mayor visited the site with Council Member Weir, and met with applicants at City Hall. He also met with several of the co-appellants for about an hour, discussing the issues from their perspective.
The deputy mayor announced the quasi-judicial heariing on the issue as something of a “judge and jury” with a co-appellants being treated very much as they would in a court of law.
Jeff Lambert represented the staff in opening the presentation to the council. Neighborhood compatibility was to be the main focus of the issue. Then turning the meeting over to Ian, there were several entitlements that needed to be discussed with two single-family properties being combined into a senior group care facility.
(1) – a use permit for senior apartment living and (2) – administrative variances. The use permit would cover 44 units in a four-story building with 19 parking spaces. Number two -- administrative variances -- dealt with a setback reduction from 25 feet to 9 feet off Telegraph Road and an increase in maximum lot coverage from 35% to 54.8%. The building exceeds the number of stories for the zone.
A footprint for the plan relative to the surrounding neighborhood was shown in a slide presentation. Elevation drawings from the two facing streets were shown.
Basis of appeal – the slideshow addressed the bulk size and mass of the building being too large for the area. Number two – merging of the lots should not be allowed due to the destruction of the established neighborhood. Number three -- the lot on Ivy Street should not be rezoned. Number four -- destroying an establish neighborhood is improper use of “infill” and violates the “smart growth” philosophy.
Alternative actions – Staff is recommending that approval for the appeal is to overturn the Planning Commission approval “without prejudice” and allow the applicant to submit for a use permit on the Telegraph Road property only. (2) -- deny the appeal and uphold the approval of the use permit “as is,” (3) approve the appeal by overturning the Planning Commission’s approval and deny the entire project.
Recommended action – is to adopt a city council resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the decision of the Planning Commission to grant conditional use permit and related approvals for the project.
Council Member Weir requested a second look at the elevation drawings from Ivy Street. Photos were shown of the existing location and condition of the buildings currently. The councilwoman wanted to clarify that of the two main administrative variants it is Variant Number two -- a setback reduction from 25 feet to 9 feet off Telegraph Road and an increase in maximum lot coverage from 35% to 54.8% that is under consideration and not height.
Council Member Morehouse spoke noting that administrative variance issues have been dealt with for over 10 years in Ventura in slightly different fashion than as with other bodies. The answer came in the form of height requirements which in this case are the driving issue for the variance, countering Council Member Weir’s understanding.
Council Member Brennan asked for clarification on the zoning in the telegraph area location, receiving an answer that indicates overall size only “for the zone.” It was noted that the applicant went through the DRC process in some depth. The councilman wanted to understand the broader aspect historically in order to extend existing corridors into new areas.
City Manager Cole mentioned that Jeff did indeed address some shortcomings in the way Ventura has proceeded in the past with zoning, even though coding for the general (Telegraph) area since 2005 has not been completed. The city manager apologized to the neighbors and the applicants for not being prepared for an unusual case, and that the city has been able to learn from this particular incident (crossings between residential and commercial corridors).
Council Member Andrews wished clarification on the issue of use in this zone – the question may in fact not be the use issue, but the height of the building in terms of stories, not in terms of feet. The councilman noted that the height in feet is within compliance, but that the number of stories is not. The last issue was the variance on the setback from telegraph Road. This variance is in compliance, and the long list of findings is more exhaustive than the summarized version, according to Staff.
Council Member Monahan asked whether this project could have been built to form-based code. His answer came with some equivocation, but overall, in the affirmative. The councilman also requested clarification on any “other” uses that may be taken on in the future.
Deputy Mayor Tracy was concerned with traffic conditions in the area, and whether the recommendation for traffic flow considerations figured prominently in the recommendation. The deputy mayor then asked that the next phase of the hearing be pursued.
There were to be 30 or more public speakers, and the deputy mayor reduced the time to speak – two minutes per person.
The appellants came forward -- Bob Shilken brought the visual that showed the neighborhood as it has been modified with the presence of a large building, which, he believed, has degraded quality of the neighborhood. His objective, according to a slide, indicated a summary of two years worth of development. The project began in 2007. His claim was that the neighborhood was not properly and conscientiously notified of final approval. A series of slides showed aerial views of properties that have been built out beyond the size of their intended residential “use” over the years.
Telegraph Road is higher than most of the rest of the neighborhood, according to his drawings. Mr. Shilkin's claim was that the invasion of the neighborhood with 42,000 sq. ft. and four stories is inappropriate for the neighborhood – including not being consistent with “smart growth.”
The “Walnut Park neighborhood” as he called it, is over 60 years old – well-maintained, and a model neighborhood. His claim was that it makes no sense to destroy the character of the neighborhood.
In a slide titled “Planning Commission,” indications were that due to the lack of public input the Planning Commission realized that there were problems, and that the Planning Commission had asked the applicants to redesign the project with greater community involvement. The appellants were told by the deputy mayor that their time was up, even though the presentation they had planned required at least 45 minutes in order to present, according to their spokesman.
The city attorney requested a return to the environmental impact slide.
Architect Mark Petit, spokesman for the applicant, stepped to the podium. Meetings with the planning staff were expected, he said, with the result that they should proceed on the basis of their application. A list of the meetings was rolled out, delineating all the Planning Commission meetings. Original designs were higher than current, with the grades all being reduced, said the architect. The number of residential units were reduced from 58 to 44, and a disagreement with Staff on whether four stories was the reality – the applicant claiming they were not. The applicant claimed that traffic redirecting through the neighborhood as claimed by the appellants is not in accordance with the facts. The Ivy Street and Armstrong Street setbacks are greater than the original requirement was also noted.
The applicant went through a series of adjustments that have been made, asserting that the property was “perfect” for a senior living facility. The applicant claimed that the building is a 2 ½ story building – not a four-story building. Other claims included a “park like setting,” with no access to Ivy or Armstrong.
The spokesman for the applicant claimed asset for the city in a building of this type, including tax base increases with other value being claimed. The spokesman claimed to remain open to further dialogue.
The next speaker, Bob Freeny, the applicant for the project, stated his desire to cooperate with all parties in an effort to improve the quality of life for residents of Ventura in a beautiful setting, with access to all the city amenities such as shopping, schools and transportation.
Council Member Brennan wished to speak again with the architect, wishing to clarify the access to Ivy and Armstrong, desiring to see the access and exit points, both vehicular and pedestrian. It turned out that former exit points would be available only for emergency purposes, such as fire. The councilman also wished to know the height of “the tallest element of the project.” The answer came back as “less than 30 feet.”
Council Member Morehouse decided to have clarification on the purpose for the choice of this site. For the most part it turned out that the proximity to city amenities and services was the driving consideration. Overall the architect indicated that “it was a business decision.”
Council Member Andrews noted that the photo illustrations were at least two generations behind, and wished to know whether there were current plan configurations that could be shown, and whether the material differences could be highlighted between the older plan and the present plan. The councilman's observation was that it would be helpful to have current plans and simulations rather than “something that has gone before.”
Council Member Monahan asked what the estimated time of construction from breaking ground to completion. The answer was “12 to 14 months.” The architect also indicated that there would be no construction equipment being parked on the streets.
Council Member Brennan needed clarification on the lot facing Ivy Street, and whether the reduction in size would include its conversion into a park.
Speaking for the applicant’s position, Mrs. Freeny stated that she and various local groups went into meetings with the DRC with the best of intentions, but that “ugly” remarks were saddening and disappointing to her. Her claims included the contention that values in the neighborhood will go up, not down.
Public Communications – Bob Valez spoke first, saying that every neighbor affected is in Council Chambers on this occasion, which should be an indication of the opposition to the project.
The next speaker, Marissa, a resident of the affected neighborhood, felt that when the two lots are merged the project will dwarf other buildings in the neighborhood. Her main emphasis was that incompatibility was the main issue. “Do not approve the merger,” was her final remark.
The next speaker, who also lives in the neighborhood, was in favor of the project and hoped that it would pass.
The next speaker felt that it will be necessary to look after “our seniors.” Her belief was that the project was positive.
Paula Griegs -- as an 83-year-old senior -- spoke against the project.
Mary Shilken – again for the appellants -- spoke in support of the affordable housing which this project does represent, but wishes to see that the project be scaled back in size.
Pat Autrey spoke as a resident on Armstrong, claiming that the project is outsized for a neighborhood that has been there and preserved for its time in history.
Nick St. Nicholas spoke, claiming that other projects that were considered too large for the area have worked, noting further that property values have increased when well-thought-out projects are introduced into quiet, older neighborhoods.
Richard Quirk spoke up as a member of a mobile home park in the area. He thought unfounded objections to this project “confounding.” He claimed that he would be “thrilled” to live in the area.
The next speaker, Jeff Berg, claimed that the citizens were not notified of this project in a timely fashion. It was his contention at the project should have been turned down.
Gloria Quirk spoke next, saying that she received a flyer but felt that most of the information was false, saying that the city council members have shown themselves to be “predisposed” toward overturning the project.
Caroline Berg spoke, saying that she is opposed to the project. She did not believe that seniors being brought into the neighborhood would be a problem, but only that the project was outsized.
Barbara Osborn spoke wished to deny the project “as it stands.”
John Baker spoke over concerns for the “mass” of the property, noting that 42,000 sq. ft. compared to the more common 1600 sq. ft. shows a basic incompatibility with the neighborhood. His request was that the city council deny the variances. Council Member Monahan wished to have clarification on a euphemism used by the speaker – “feather your nest,” – making it clear that he would be highly offended by the term if applied more specifically toward him or any other council member.
John Turner spoke, the owner of a small civil engineering firm, who has looked at the site from an accessibility standpoint. His belief was that a neighborhood in such close proximity to a main thoroughfare like Telephone Rd. would normally not have such concerns.
The next speaker, Shelley, indicated that that the plan had gone forward without many having seen the plan or having been brought into the discussion earlier.
Jim Gardner, the next speaker, felt that the project was too large and too tall for the location. It affects his “view of the hills.”
Nick Visser was the next speaker, who was opposed to the variances.
Karen Blanchard was “highly opposed” to the project as it being too large.
The next speaker, Chris, noted his strong opposition to the merger of two lots.
Faith Floreen spoke as a resident since the 1960s, and one who is opposed to the project. Her feeling was that an “approach” to the neighbors would have been appropriate.
Michael Loper spoke as a resident of the area, saying that he was opposed to the project with the variances.
Yvette Ortiz spoke as a representative of neighbors and property owners, stating that the degrading of a neighborhood by a financial builder is inappropriate. Her feeling was that a scale-back of the size and a redirect of traffic considerations would be in order.
Raoul Avandano spoke in opposition to the project.
The next speaker noted that there were a lot of “4's.” (4 stories; 44 units; 44,000 sq. ft.)
Jeff Crum, a builder in the city of Ventura, noted that there have been a number of problems similar to the one being considered. He noted that the area is not the same as many others, this being a “transition” area, and much less of a standard “old residence” neighborhood as many claim. Council Member Monahan congratulated the speaker for a beautiful development at Main and Lincoln. Council Member Weir noted that the speakers’ work has been shown as a model for the types of developments he creates.
Cherie Clark spoke as a developer in the city, noting that the cost of housing is affected by changes, cutbacks and residential opposition. She claimed that the developer eventually passes these costs on to the users and eventually to the taxpayers. She supported the Project.
The next speaker wished to speak in favor of a project that helps house senior citizens. He stated that the future of many senior citizens can be jeopardized by the NIMBY argument.
Wilson Miller spoke as someone who recognizes the project as negotiated by the Feenys. It was his belief that this project will be eventually valued at around $8 million, and that the tax base for such a project should be taken under consideration by this council.
Anthony Gullien, an Episcopal minister, spoke as an advocate for senior living arrangements such as that represented by the project under consideration. He noted the general unavailability of senior housing in Ventura.
Lisa Anglin spoke, stating that she is for the project, as a title company worker. She claimed to be “intrigued” over the situation, were she claimed to be aware of numerous “bootlegged” parcels in the area. She noted that “change is difficult.”
Charles Procter spoke, saying that he has friends who live in senior housing, and that such housing is scarce. His feeling was that the housing project as planned would bring beauty to the neighborhood.
Julia Perez spoke, who works in a doctors office, and sees seniors on a daily basis who have difficulty with cleaning, cooking and accessing city amenities.
Rhonda Holden was the next speaker, who claimed to be not in favor at first, but has changed her mind. Her issue was mainly over the need that is there for seniors.
The deputy mayor stated that public communications were over and that rebuttals would ensue. The applicant began – the Freenys architect – again reiterating that there are not four stories. The comments about square footage are inflated when considering the size of the underground parking. The speaker claimed that some residents were in favor of the project initially, but then eventually admitted to being fearful of “retaliation by others” in the neighborhood. This elicited an outcry of boo’s and catcalls from the audience.
Council Member Morehouse asked the architect whether or not other modifications could be implemented which might ameliorate some of the concerns of the neighborhood. He noted that the average age of the future residents would be in the “mid-80s” saying in fact that the facility is often referred to as “boutique” in nature.
Council Member Brennan said he was fearful of the fact that many who are in opposition did not hear of the project early on.
Council Member Weir noted that catering and staff accommodations for parking and service entrances do not appear to be well delineated, inasmuch as the councilwoman has a family member housed in an assisted living facility, thus claiming familiarity with the needs of a commercial operation of this type. Her many questions seemed to be answered, including the necessity for services and delivery, and the methods in which such traffic might or might not be disruptive to the neighborhood.
Council Member Monahan seemed concerned over the fire lane accessibility for emergencies, and that there seemed to be little parking other than on the street. He was concerned also with ambulance accessibility, especially in light of the fact of seniors being involved. The councilman was intensely critical of the architect’s commentary over the claim that residents had switched their thinking due to intimidation by their neighbors.
A public rebuttal speaker, Bob, delineated all of the arguments usually heard, but mostly because of size.
Deputy Mayor Tracy announced a 10 minute recess before closing the public hearing.
Council Member Morehouse wished to ask Staff whether Environmental Quality Act considerations had been made. One consideration that may have needed review was the age of the homes, they having exceeded four years of age, but most of which were also not of historical significance. Staff felt that there were no extenuating circumstances beyond normal “infill” zoning. Both of these properties also qualified for secondary housing units on the main properties.
The city manager wanted to know about the maximum lot coverage – 40% was the answer.
Council Member Weir asked about other circumstances that may be pointed to by Staff as similar. The answer – the Sentex project on the Avenue. (Council Member Weir quickly noted that she voted against “that project.”) The councilwoman’s major concerns currently seemed to center on the accessibility to the building through underground parking, where seniors’ services are the focus ... including the delivery traffic and emergency vehicle presences. Her experiences, such as at the Lexington, contrast with this one in the sense that there may not be easy front entrances specially for ambulance and fire access, according to her.
Jeff responded to the councilwoman by saying that early planning could be handled better in the future, mostly in terms of outreach to the neighborhood. Council Member Weir said she was in favor of involving neighborhood before the DRC meeting takes place. It appeared to her, possibly, that the planning on this project could have involved “squeezing” or crowding of the project into an unusually limited space.
City Manager Cole seemed to concede that the outreach to the neighborhood was insufficient, but there were reasons including the fact that there was no community representative to help with the process.
Council Member Morehouse wanted to know whether there would be additional fees required when going back through the process. The answer was in the affirmative. The councilman indicated some agreement with Council Member Weir's position in the area of community notification. The councilman also mentioned that 3-D elevations were promised, but appear not to have been completed.
The councilman then moved to approve the appeal and overturn the process. The motion was seconded – Council Member Andrews had a question concerning the fees. This was to be included in the motion. Mr. Andrews further noted the difficulty of the situation. He claimed that the use was not the issue, nor was excessive traffic the issue. It was also not the quality of the proposed amenities, but the mass and compatibility of the building. The councilman expressed his concern over the failure to produce adequate pre-approval renderings of the project.
Mr. Andrews spoke to the philosophy that had been accepted by most residents in Ventura when comparing “infill” development against urban sprawl, which is almost overwhelmingly rejected by most in the city.
Council Member Brennan suggested that the vote be taken so that the council could see where they stand. The council member felt that the appeal could be denied, with the project going forward.
The motion was begun, but interrupted with staff questioning whether flat fees would be the issue. “Without prejudice” would be wording which would allow the project to be returned to Staff. City Manager Cole appeared to be appealing for clarification of fees and public communications from this point on.
Council Member Morehouse returned to his point as “maker of the motion” and felt once again that the measure could be returned to Staff.
Overruling the zoning commission “without prejudice” was addressed affirmatively by the city attorney.
Jeff Lambert wondered if to deny the appeal and send it back through the process, or the other way around, would have the same impact on Staff. Mr. Morehouse questioned whether the additional clarifications should be included in the motion. The lot on Ivy Street became one of the sticking points for both the council and Staff.
Council Member Andrews continued with his concerns on Ivy, declaring that he would not support eliminating that property from the design.
Council Member Weir stated that the Ivy property could be enhanced with landscaping. The councilwoman wanted greater specifics on lot coverage, e.g., 45% versus 55% and less.
Council Member Morehouse withdrew his motion, asking for a new motion. Council Member Brennan made the motion to deny the appeal and “without prejudice,” send the application back to the DRC for what was heard to be further consideration in the reduction of building “mass,” and with the Ivy property being reduced to a green space. He also wanted to look into lot line adjustments, and to bring back a specific lot coverage which would be useful when returned to the city council.
The city attorney indicated that the rework could come back to the council, but that the process may be an abbreviated one on the next go round. Mr. Cole agreed that a return to the DRC with specifics on coverage, public hearing and testimony would be useful.
Mr. Brennan recommended returning the appeal to the DRC, including the factors under discussion, to be brought back for further review. With a motion and a second on the floor, the motion called for a continuance. Factors under discussion included items such as 3-D drawings, the structure underground on the Ivy lot and a reopening of the public hearing. A date certain for the public hearing would be necessary, and it was asked of the city clerk if that date could be definitively stated. It was also asked if a date certain for the re-notification of the public could be agreed upon.
The city clerk called the roll on the motion – all members voted yes, with the appeal being denied and the project being returned “without prejudice” to the Planning Commission.
The Westside Development Advisory Committee agenda item was brought before the council. Jeff Lambert noted that Staff had been directed back in July over the Westside issue. A “proposed resolution” slide presentation along with a “recommended action” slide presentation was shown to the council, including an adoption of the resolution and a finding that a Project Area Committee, under California Redevelopment law, is not required for the establishment of the Westside Redevelopment Area Project “WRAP.”
Council Member Monahan spoke from the public speaking platform, in that as a Westside resident and property owner, it was necessary for him to recuse himself from the council discussion.
Council Member Morehouse spoke, wanting to know more about the formal structure of the WRAP. Jeff noted that there would be three members from the major areas such as business, resident, religious organization and existing community council.
Agenda Item 7. which had been pulled, was brought up – the tattooing item – with the city attorney reminding the council that First Amendment rights of citizens is part of the consideration. The screen presentation “Tattoo Parlor Ordinance” showed that tattoo parlors currently operating may require redefining. Commercial plan development zones have been established. Most existing tattoo parlors currently in operation do not qualify for all zoning requirements, especially those in school zones.
Staff recommendations are to approve the zoning amendments, consistent with existing court cases. Deputy Mayor Tracy asked for clarification, with the city attorney noting that tattoo parlors cannot be banned altogether.
Council Member Weir wanted to be certain that health inspections and other restrictions could be enforced. The council member brought up the issue of quotas, in the manner of surrounding communities.
Council Member Brennan expressed his concern over enforcement as well. The city attorney weighed in saying that the city is not geared up to deal with environmental health considerations such as hazardous waste from needles and wound dressings.
Council Member Andrews wanted to address the city attorney's concerns, stating that he was troubled by a process that labels a legitimate business as “blighting a neighborhood”. Using zoning to control moral behaviors is not something he was comfortable with. The councilman is sympathetic to the “residues” problem, agreeing that this is serious and deserves protracted attention. He was also not sure that establishing an arbitrary distance from a school is necessarily an appropriate approach to managing the issue.
Council Member Weir noted that without parental permission, no person under the age of 18 may receive a tattoo.
Council Member Morehouse mentioned “time, place and manner” when it comes to regulating businesses. He also took issue with Mr. Andrews’ comment over “zoning morality.” The councilman was of the opinion that Staff was operating in the right direction.
Council Member Monahan mentioned that forms of insurance are required to operate a business, wondering if this may be used in one way or another to ensure that healthy practices are being followed.
The deputy mayor noted that tattoo parlors had a habit of being burned down in earlier years. Mr. Tracy asked for a motion that the issue be turned back to the city attorney. With the motion being presented and seconded the roll was called. All members voted yes in the measure passed.
Paul Bramson, public speaker “off agenda,” wished to thank Mr. Tracy for participating in the flag program.
Melody Baker spoke, again off agenda, who wished to thank the council for their support of the veterans and veterans’ facilities. The responsible retailers program (or RP) is assigned the responsibility for unruly nighttime patrons and should be seeing to it that safe and sanitary activities are promoted before, during and after 2:00 a.m. bar closings. Ms. Baker was critical of downtown law enforcement.
With no further Council Communications or public speakers, the deputy mayor adjourned the meeting – continued to the next Closed Council session.