Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2003-01-13 12-9-02 / 12-23-02 / 1-13-03 police, and thanked all who helped. with regard to special event permits of $100, Councilmember Campbell inquired as to the fee to rent a portion of a park for a birthday party. The response of staff was that there are separate fees for rental of City facilities, parks, community centers, etc., the specific fee uncertain at this moment. ADJOURNMENT The direction of the Council was that the December 23rd meeting be canceled and adjourned until Monday, January 13th, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 11:13 p.m. I Approved: Attest: Seal Beach, California December 23, 2002 I The regularly scheduled City Council meeting to this date was canceled by action of the Council reco nition of the Holiday Season. be held on in it Clerk and the City of Seal Beach, California January 13, 2003 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Councilmembers Antos, Campbell, Doane, Yost Absent: None 1-13-03 Also present: Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I The City Attorney mentioned that this would be the time for anyone wishing to address the items listed on the agenda to do so. The Mayor noted that no one spoke to the agenda items. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda, a conference with legal counsel relating to existing litigation, wiles versus City of Seal Beach, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), a conference with legal counsel with regard to existing litigation, Peddicord versus Linc Housing, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), and a conference with legal counsel relating to one case of anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b). By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:31 p.m. and reconvened at 7:05 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported that the Council met to discuss the items identified on the agenda, gave direction relating to items A and B, no further reportable action was taken. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, to adjourn the meeting at 7:06 with consent of the Council, p.m. I o ex-off'cio clerk Seal Beach Approved: Attest: Seal Beach, California January 13, 2003 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:06 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Councilmembers Antos, Campbell, Doane, Yost Absent: None 1-13-03 Also present: Ms. Yotsuya, Assistant City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Dancs, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Ms. Arends-King, Director of Administrative Services Chief Cushman, Lifeguard Department Mr. Cummins, Associate Planner Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I APPROVAL OF AGENDA Campbell moved, second by Doane, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmember Campbell mentioned having retrieved from the Internet information relating to the State budget called 'the massive local government bailout of the State budget problem', that means that the State is going to bail itself out again on the backs of the cites of California. She also mentioned a recent news article that reported the budgeted amounts of the Vehicle License Fee of Orange County cities, Seal Beach budgeted to receive $3,402,000 and the proposed cut is $1,743,000, that a substantial amount of money that the State will take away. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Larson declared the Public Comment period to be open. Ms. Joyce parque, 6th Street, noted that Councilmember Campbell was the only member of the Council that voted against the budget, the budget meeting that was to be held in December did not occur, however what the Council did to the taxpayers was increase the medical benefits by $55,9lB, gave the City workers five days off, there are one hundred forty persons that work for the City, so if there was a skeleton crew of Police and a few people on call, the workers were paid over $600,000 to stay home yet the taxpayers in community had to go to work, therefore if the people do not want to work here let them work for no pay for those five days, there are only about ten employees that live in the City so the other employees were spending the money that the City gave them in another city to benefit their sales tax. Ms. Parque stated that she attended the hearing this date relating to the Trailer Park, questioned why the taxpayers are paying to defend the former Councilmember with regard to the Trailer Park since he pleaded guilty to fraud. She said the judge at the hearing said the speech of the former councilmember is not protected, his attorney claimed he falls under the First Amendment, yet he is being sued as an individual for money he received and, pleaded fraud, therefore the taxpayers do not need to be defending the former member of the Council, also, there is no need to have the attorney appeal the case. The Attorney's office prepared the Covenants for the Trailer Park, either the attorneys or the Council have ignored the laws for twenty years, so no further money should be spent to defend the former Councilmember, the case will still go on, this City needs to join the law firm that is representing the Trailer Park people and filed the lawsuit in order to get the Park back I I 1-13-03 I under the 1090 Code. She claimed that there are forty people involved in the lawsuit over the Trailer Park, suing Linc, Richard Hall, Richard Hall Associates, and the former member of the Council, they are not suing the City. Ms. parque said if the City joins the lawsuit and overturns the Trailer Park venture then the twenty low and moderate income spaces will be retrieved, she has found five of them, Linc wants them, and she continues to look for the others. With regard to the budget, Ms. parque asked how the City will makeup for the expenditure loss of money when every six months pay increases and benefits are given. Mr. Paul Jeffers, Trailer Park, said he too attended the court session this date relating to the Trailer Park case which involves Linc Housing, Richard Hall, former Councilman Boyd, and Boyd Perkins LLC, his real estate firm, the attorney for the City was present to defend the former Councilman, his understanding was that he would only be defended as a member of the Council, in court all five slapp motions were denied, this case will go forward, and he was surprised also to see the defending attorney here this evening. Mr. Jeffers said one can say that the Trailer Park matter was clean however the former member of the Council pleaded guilty to evading paying taxes, and with the bond issue, if it is true that the residents will own the Park when the bonds are paid then they too are avoiding the IRS on tax issues with regard to the bonds, the intent of the lawsuit is to determine the truth of what took place with the Park sale. Mr. Jeffers claimed that the Park residents have no communication with Linc Housing nor with the representatives on the Board of Seal Beach Affordable Housing, there is no reason for that, he would appreciate having the City get behind the residents rather than fighting them, help get some communication with Linc Housing and the Affordable Housing Corporation, just a little help by the Council and Attorney so that the residents can get some of the things they were promised would be much appreciated. There being no further comments, Mayor Larson declared Public Comments to be closed. I APPOINTMENT - CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FOUNDATION Councilman Antos moved to appoint Ms. Margene Walz as the District One representative to the Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation for the unexpired term ending July, 2004. Councilman Yost seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "B" thru "L" Councilmembers Antos and Yost requested that Item "L", the parking citation administration contract, be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration. Mayor Larson requested that Item "M" be considered separately yet noted it was not a consent calendar item. Doane moved, second by Yost, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except for Item "L", removed for separate consideration. B. Approved the waiver of reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after the reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. 1-13-03 C. Approved the minutes of the December 9th, 2002 regular adjourned and regular meetings. D. Approved regular demands numbered 40182 through 40515 in the amount of $2,637,568.88, payroll demands numbered 18381 through 18647, 927737, 928902, ADP checks numbered 1394592 through 1394717 in the amount of $505,210.06, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I E. Received and filed the Monthly Investment Report for November, 2002. F. Denied the claim for damages of James Morrissey and referred same to the liability counsel and adjuster; Denied the claim for loss of consortium of Diana Morrissey and referred same to the liability counsel and adjuster; Denied the claim for damages of Roy Nielsen and referred same to the liability counsel and adjuster; Denied the claim for vehicle damages of Geico Insurance/Glaser and referred same to the liability counsel and adjuster; Denied the claim for damages of Phong V. Duong and Van Tu Giang Duong and referred same to the liability counsel and adjuster; I Denied the claim for vehicle damages of Sister Samuel Marie Set tar and referred same to the liability counsel and adjuster; and Denied the claim for vehicle damages of Paulette Pattullo and referred same to the liability counsel and adjuster. G. Adopted Resolution Number 5096 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-16 AND HEIGHT VARIATION 02-5, REQUESTING A MAJOR REMODEL AND EXPANSION, INCLUDING A COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURE THAT WOULD EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT, AT AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING 4-UNIT BUILDING AT 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5096 was waived. H. Approved lease renewal No. DACA09-l-03-005l, Department of the Army Lease to Non-State Government Agencies for Public Park and Recreational Purposes, Joint Forces Training Base, Arbor Park, Los Alamitos, Orange County, California, for a period of twenty-five years, December 31, 2028. and Res. 5097, Budget Amendment. I I. Bids were received for the Seal Beach Boulevard Storm Drain and Bike Lane, Project Number 50025, until December 11, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. at which 1-13-03 time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: I Tyner Paving Company KEC Engineering Palp, Inc., dba Excel Paving Shawnan KC Construction Buso Constructors, Inc. Paulus Engineering, Inc. $185,610.00 $189,000.00 $222,222.00 $228,724.00 $232,500.00 $243,896.00 $244,000.00 Awarded the bid for Project Number 50025, Seal Beach Boulevard Storm Drain and Bike Lane, south of Westminster Avenue, to Tyner Paving Company in the amount of $185,610.00, as the lowest responsible bidder, and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. J. Received and filed the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Emergency Response Plan and authorized the Public Works Department to submit the Plan to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. K. Adopted Resolution Number 5098 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO ESTABLISH CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2002-02 (SEAL BEACH/LAMPSON AVENUE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE) AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN SUCH DISTRICT." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5098 was waived. I AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR I ITEM "L" - AWARD OF CONTRACT - PARKING CITATION ADMINISTRATION Councilman Antos voiced his awareness that this is the same firm that has administered the parking citations for a number of years, however also aware that there have been a number of problems and complaints over time with the firm, to that he inquired if the City has some type of review process in place. The Assistant City Manager responded that the Police Department works directly with Turbo Data when there are problems, the Finance Director is also present to respond to any financial related questions, this has been a long term contract that Turbo Data and the Police Department have enjoyed, the Department feels comfortable with the majority of work that the company has done in processing parking citations. Yost moved, second by Campbell, to approve the award of the Parking Citation Administration Contract to Turbo Data Systems for an initial term of one year with provision for automatic one year extensions thereafter unless noticed of termination by either party. The City Attorney noted that some discussion has continued between the Police Department and Turbo Data, his firm had 1-13-03 recommended some changes to the language relating to indemnification and insurance provisions, therefore would recommend approval of the contract subject to those changes. The City Attorney described the changes, page three, paragraph 10, Indemnification, the second from the bottom line reads "...negligent act or omission", the word "negligent" is to be deleted thereby Turbo Data will be responsible for all of their acts, this takes away the issue as to whether it is negligent or not, paragraph 11 is a limitation of their liability, the third sentence reads "neither party shall be liable to the other for any indirect or consequential losses or damages", the recommendation is to add the language "due to the errors referenced in this paragraph 11", that clarifies that paragraph 11 speaks to just those errors both on the part of the City and Turbo Data, he mentioned also that Turbo Data is to provide the standard insurance requirements, that was not in the agreement therefore the agreement will be modified to provide for insurance acceptable to the City. I Yost moved, second by Antos, to approve the parking Citation Administration contract to Turbo Data Systems, Inc. subject to the changes as stated by the City Attorney. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried REOUEST FOR PROPOSALS - COUNTY OF ORANGE - LIFEGUARD SERVICES - SUNSET BEACH Mayor Larson noted that the recommendation is to authorize staff to forward a letter of interest to the County of Orange to provide lifeguard services to Sunset Beach, however with the dim budget that the City faces for the coming year he would not want to undertake any other lifeguard work when there may be discussion of reducing present lifeguard services, the report indicates that this could be a break- even situation yet he would presume that the County is desirous of contracting out the service because they are not making a profit. He noted that if this item is authorized that does not mean that the City will engage for lifeguard services in Sunset Beach as the item will come back to the Council for consideration. Councilmember Campbell pointed out that the fiscal impact states that by contracting City services to other agencies it may offset salaries and benefits of current personnel as well as provide funds for the purchase of essential equipment. Mayor Larson countered that that could be the purchase of equipment that might not be needed otherwise if there were not the contract. I The Assistant City Manager reported that the City recently received an inquiry from the County of Orange requesting information from cities that may be interested in providing marine safety and lifeguard services for certain County owned beaches, that includes Sunset Beach which is immediately adjacent to the City of Seal Beach. The agencies that would be interested in participating would contract for a three year period with a two year renewable option, agencies were asked to submit a letter of interest. Because one of the goals and objectives of the Council was to explore the feasibility of offering City services to other agencies, the City Manager suggested that this be brought to the Council to determine if there was an interest in responding to the request for proposal, the City would send a letter of interest and based on discussion with the County develop cost proposals for submittal. She mentioned that the Chief of I 1-13-03 I Lifeguards was present to answer questions regarding potential expenses yet it is believed this is not at a stage where hard numbers have been worked up, at this point it is basically to determine if there is an interest in exploring this issue. The Lifeguard Chief confirmed that the City responded to a request for proposals in year 2000, the proposal was for all of the beaches from Sunset Beach to San Clemente, noted that when a response to an RFP was done in 1995 the other firm was undercut by Seal Beach by $100,000 for the Sunset Beach area, at that time the County was going through bankruptcy yet at the time they had been with Ocean Safety for a number of years and decided to stay with that contract. His belief is that the County is looking for a somewhat stronger lifeguard service, there may be more dollars available to the City to pursue this, he has spoken with other agencies to take over other portions of the beach, as an example, Newport may have interest in the Santa Ana River mouth, Laguna may be interested as may San Clemente. The Chief mentioned that the letter would merely indicate the City's interest, determine some acceptable costs, this could also offset costs for permanent personnel, nothing would be given away as there would be costs incurred. In response to Council the Chief noted that in the 1960's Huntington Beach did have the Sunset Beach contract, that was before the State was in Bolsa Chica, there was then Lifeguard International that serviced the area for about five years and then U.S. Ocean Safety took over. Councilman Yost inquired if this would be revenue positive, neutral, or negative, the response of the Chief was that he would not go into a contract unless it is a positive so that it will offset some current costs. Councilman Antos said he would not object to submitting a letter of interest however it needs to be understood that the budget will need to be looked at again soon based upon what has and will likely continue to happen at the State level, if this were to be done there can be no cost to the taxpayers of Seal Beach, at this point he would not object to a letter proposal and then see what happens. The Chief offered that should such a contract come together it would need to be on a calendar year basis, he could not be prepared on a fiscal year basis at this point, therefore it would not be in effect until next year. Councilman Yost said when costs are calculated for something like this there would be an increase of full time personnel and inquired if costs for such things as disabilities, retirement and other such payments would be taken into consideration, the response of the Chief was that all factors will be considered, should such a contract be let and in five years be terminated there would be more full time staff than needed, again, all factors will be taken into account. Councilmember Campbell asked if this would allow the department to retain some employees that might be considered to be eliminated because of budget constraints. The Chief pointed out that there are only two full time lifeguards, all others are part time, in fact two lifeguards were lost this day to a fire department position and the private sector, guards come and go all the time. I o Councilman Doane moved to authorize the City Manager to allow the Lifeguard Chief to send a letter of interest to the County of Orange in response to the request for proposal to provide lifeguard services for Sunset Beach. Councilman Yost seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Yost Larson Motion carried 1-13-03 Mayor Larson stated he would like to explore turning the entire beach back to the state, possibly that could be discussed during budget considerations. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 02-1 / ORDINANCE NUMBER 1493 - RETAINING WALLS Mayor Larson declared the public hearing open to consider Zone Text Amendment 02-1 relating to retaining walls. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received relating to this item. The Associate Planner presented the staff report, explained that the Zone Text Amendment is proposed to amend the zoning Code to address retaining walls within the City, this issue came to attention last fall and it was realized that there were no specific provisions relating to height of retaining walls, there were only provisions relating to the height of fences, what is before the Council is the result of three study sessions with the Planning Commission, in October the Commission voted to recommend the ZTA proposed. The planner noted that there are standards that apply to all properties in the City, there are also two separate areas that have unique characteristics, the sloped sideyards of properties on the Gold Coast adjacent to the stub streets and the rear yards of the properties that abut Gum Grove Park and the Hellman property. With regard to the proposed citywide standards any retaining wall of up to thirty inches in height would be allowed by right, therefore in the case of having to retain less than thirty inches of earth the property owner would be able to obtain a building permit over the counter, a retaining wall of more than thirty inches would require a minor plan review, a consent calendar item before the Planning Commission. The proposed citywide stardards are that any retaining wall between thirty inches and four feet be permitted subject to the minor plan review and analyzed individually, for a wall. taller than four feet there would be a step-in of landscaped buffer, staff continues to recommend allowing a fence of forty-two inches in the front yard area, which is what the fence provisions currently allow, therefore one would still be allowed to build a fence on top of a retaining wall subject to the maximum fence height requirements once there is the new grade from the retaining wall. The Planner noted that it is proposed that a fence/ retaining wall combination be no higher than ten feet, example would be a four foot retaining wall and a six foot high fence, the standard maximum fence height in most areas of the City, in that case a landscaped buffer would still be required in between the retaining wall and the fence, it is felt the greenery would help to break up the facade of possibly a six foot block wall. The Planner stated that any retaining wall tall enough to require a guardrail under the Building Code would be a requirement, it is believed that is about thirty-six inches, the language is that it be as required by the UBC, an example would that be a thirty to forty foot front retaining wall would be required to have a guardrail to avoid someone falling from it. He noted that all pre-existing retaining wall/fence combos would be grandfathered. With regard to the Ocean Avenue properties along the stub streets staff would recommend a minor plan review for any retaining wall taller than thirty inches and that automatic sprinklers be installed with a two foot landscaped area, also, it is recommended that no retaining walls be allowed in the rear ninety-six foot area, the area between the utility line easement and the rear property line. The only difference with regard to the rear yards abutting I I I 1-13-03 I Gum Grove park and the citywide standard is that the maximum height of retaining walls be six feet rather than four feet in between landscaped buffer areas, the reason being that the slope in that area is quite substantial in some situations, with a three foot rather than two foot landscaped buffer. The Planner showed photographs of existing walls, fences, landscaping, etc. I Councilman Yost noted that the Council recently adopted a grading ordinance and asked if the proposed retaining wall provisions are compliant with the grading ordinance, in other words if the grades of properties are set within a certain range one could not construct a retaining wall to raise the grade of a property above the norm. The Planner stated that the proposed ordinance is in conformance with the recently adopted grading ordinance, new soil can not be 'imported, yet existing soil could be retained, also, confirmed that College Park East and West would also be subject to the citywide standards. Councilman Antos said he had a couple of safety issue concerns with regard to block walls with greenery, setbacks and stepbacks for aesthetic purposes, possibly placing the City at risk. He noted that there is a Code requirement for a minimum six foot block wall measured on the outside of swimming pools, he is aware of situations in the City, including the Gold Coast, where there are not six foot high block walls, however if one were to construct a retaining wall the six feet could be realized measured from the outside, with swimming pools the problem is not with the people on the property where the swimming pool exists, it is the attractive nuisance from the outside, with the requirement for a two or three foot setback from the wall the block wall above the retaining wall then could serve as a ladder for persons from the outside. Councilman Antos said the last thing he would want is to have a child from outside the property found drowned in a pool, entering the property because of the attractive nuisance by climbing up from the setback, safety is well above aesthetics. The Planner responded that the step that is being suggested would not preclude the UBC requirement for a six foot high wall around swimming pools, therefore where the natural grade of a property is at a certain level and earth needs to be retained the UBC requirement for a six foot high wall would still be in effect from that point up, example would be if there were a four foot retaining wall on the outside with a six foot UBC required wall on top of that it would become a ten foot wall, therefore essentially by stepping it in there could be a four foot wall that someone could crawl up yet there would still be the six foot wall that protects the outside from the swimming pool, with regard to the Gold Coast there is no proposal to allow retaining walls at all therefore the UBC mandated wall requirement would prevail. The Planner explained that as far as requiring the proper height for safety from swimming pools, this ordinance does not create a situation where one would not be required to build a wall tall enough to meet the building concerns. Councilman Antos asked if there could be something in this ordinance as a disclaimer which states that in no case does the retaining wall requirement supercede the safety requirements dealing with pool fences, again the pool fence requirement is six feet high measured from the outside, he also cited an example of a pool on the Gold Coast where the wall was not six feet measured from the outside thus a child on the beach could climb the wall and end up in the pool, again expressing his concern with safety. Councilman Yost too inquired if a clause could be added whereby this ordinance does not I 1-13-03 supercede the UBC requirements for fencing surrounding swimming pools. Councilman Antos agreed provided that it requires that the most restrictive safety requirements apply. The Planner noted that typically the Zoning Code is more conceptual, it provides provisions as to how tall something can be, the Building Code then assumes something built . correctly, the provisions being discussed then are in the Building Code, being acceptable under the Zoning Code does not preclude one from having to meet Building Code obligations. The City Attorney agreed that a 5th section could be added to the ordinance to address that issue. Councilmember Campbell noted that along the south side of Lampson Avenue from Candleberry to the easterly City boundary the wall has been in place for thirty-five to forty years, at some point it will need to be replaced. Councilmember Campbell mentioned that she lives adjacent to the wall, and after years of observing persons walking along the Lampson sidewalk she discovered that the Lampson sidewalk is approximately a foot and a half higher than the grade of her rear yard, part of the wall is a retaining wall and once it reaches the sidewalk it is a block wall. She noted that when Rossmoor replaced their exterior wall they constructed a generic block wall and faced it with the bricks .from their original signature wall, the bricks having come from the sugar beet factory, they also raised the height of the wall, and when the Lampson Avenue wall is replaced it too should be raised in height, would that be possible under this ordinance, that wall also has no rebar. The Planner responded that the issue under discussion is just the portion of the yard that is being retained, the height of the wall above the sidewalk falls under the fence code provisions where the maximum height is presently six feet, the Council could, at their discretion, look at the provisions of the fence codes at some point in time. I I Mayor Larson address this themselves. Mayor Larson invited members of the audience wishing to item to come to the microphone and identify No member of the audience spoke to the item, declared the public hearing closed. The City Attorney suggested afifth section added to the proposed Ordinance to read "In'no case shall any provision of this ordinance supercede, limit, restrict, or effect the requirements required by the Uniform Building Code." The City Attorney read the title of Ordinance Number 1493, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING RETAINING WALLS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1493 was waived. Yost moved, second by Antos, to approve the introduction and first reading of Ordinance Number 1493 as amended. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried I CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report was presented. CITY MANAGER REPORT No report was presented. COUNCIL COMMENTS Given the news reports relating to the State budget and the impacts that will be known shortly, Councilman Antos noted 1-13-03 / 1-27-03 I that the Council needs to give thought to setting aside time for budget modification sessions to determine what the implications of the State budget will have and what the City will need to do. Councilman Yost agreed. Mayor Larson mentioned having received letters from McAuliffe School students, one wants the beach cleaned up, another wants more signs when the beach is polluted, the Council will need to communicate to them what the City does and possible inform them of the beach cleanup programs. Mayor Larson noted having received letters from Leisure World residents as well that do not want parking meters yet suggest a two story parking structure, more restrooms in the downtown area and on the greenbelt, and that the police make more arrests for u- turns on Main Street. These communications illustrate the difficulties that the Council has in making decisions that are equitable throughout the community. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned the meeting until Monday, January 27th at 6:00 p.m. to hold a workshop session relating to the Municipal Code revisions and meet in Closed Session if deemed necessary. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 7:54 p.m. I CJ Approved: ~-/}~ ~ Mayor ~u~)mL d Ci ty Clerk / Attest: Seal Beach, California January 27, 2003 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:08 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Councilmembers Antos, Campbell Absent: Councilmembers Doane, Yost Larson moved, second by Antos, to excuse the absence of Councilman Doane from this meeting.