Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2001-06-11 5-29-01 / 6-11-01 Approved: Attest: I Seal Beach, California June 11, 2001 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 5:07 p.m. with Mayor Doane calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Doane Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Larson, Yost Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Chief Sellers, Police Department Chief Cushman, Lifeguard Department Mr. Danes, Interim Director of Public Works/City Engineer Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation, Parks, and Community Services Ms. Arends-King, Director of Administrative Services Captain Schaefer, Police Department Captain King, Police Department Sgt. Zanone, Police Department Ms. Hull, Assistant Finance Director Ms. Yeo, City Clerk Members of the public were invited to present their comments to the Council relating to the budget or other matters at this time. I Mr. Rallie Rallis, Seal Beach, mentioned that in looking over the Budget Summary he saw no money earmarked for the storm water master plan, is that because the plan is not complete, also nothing for grant money nor for improvements to Main Street. Mr. Torn Fallon, Seal Beach Kids Baseball Association, said he too saw no allocation for their project, replacement of McGaugh School lighting; He stated that Kids Baseball, a small organization, is finding it increasingly difficult to fund this project which serves about three hundred seventy-five children, three hundred sixty-two of which are Seal Beach residents. He stated of concern is that most of the facilities they use are at McGaugh School, school property, the School Board has taken the position that much of the equipment and materials there do not help the Board with its projects and their contention is that it .is the expense of Kids Baseball to bear, the issue is the light standards, last year the Association replaced many of the 6-11-01 lights, upon inspection it was determined that the light poles are put into place in the 1940's or 1950's, will need to be replaced, the contention of the Board again is that the lights are not needed, are there only to benefit Seal Beach Kids Baseball, therefore if the lights are wanted the replacement is the responsibility of the Association, the cost to replace one pole is about $5,000 to $6,000 and there are six that need to be replaced. Mr. Fallon said ttiey have a very tight budget, this year was their highest participation, they do their own fund raising, pay all of their own expenses, and when the year is out the Association will likely have about $1,600, however there could be a potential $30,000 expense in the next year or two. He mentioned that now the Board is aware that the poles 'need to be replaced and they are starting to push when and how otherwise they will shut down Kids Baseball because of the potential danger should a pole fall. Mr. Fallon offered that the Association is in somewhat of a difficult situation, he is aware that the City has never funded Kids Baseball, they are not necessarily looking to be funded, possibly a 'grant or matching fund situation to possibly replace one or two poles a year. He noted that Kids Baseball has been in Seal Beach for many years, has been a benefit to thousands of kids, the Association has never asked for help in the past, therefore at this point requested consideration of some assistance for possibly a three to four year period. I Mayor Doane turned the conduct of the workshop over to the City Manager. The Manager distributed information relating to tree maintenance fees and a street sweeping analysis, as well as an information item from the Chamber. He noted that the workshops are meant to be informal, another will be held on the 25th along with the public hearing, he has discussed with the individual members of the Council the issues that need to be dealt with, by the time of public hearing it will be necessary to adopt the budget, the Capital Improvement Program, the Strategic Plan for Information Technology, the Budget and Fiscal policies, and the Comprehensive Fee Resolution. To the question of Mr. Rallis relating to water quality, the Manager made reference to the five yearlplan shown under project Cost Listings, mentioned that the Santa Ana Permit is going to require video taping of sewer lines of twenty-four inches or greater, the City approached the Orange County Sanitation District for money to video the sewer lines in Old Town and College Park East, that has a direct relationship to water quality, also, the City received a $30,000 grant from the County for catch basin filters, that to be matched with General Fund money, is shown in the CIP Program, there is $450,000 for ocean water quality, $150,000 will go toward the master plan and $300,000 for the debris boom, and under the Non-Departmental section of the budget document there is $10,000 for grant writing. Councilman Yost noted also $438,000 designated for the First Street pump station reconstruction. I The City Manager invited budget related questions from the members of the Council. I . The cost allocation and study fee, does that include a rate for indirect costs - response was yes, this will allow the hiring of DMG who will determine the permit/ person direct and indirect costs, to that add City Hall, building maintenance, etc., those costs will be allocated to every project or service; I I I 6-11-01 . payment of the Bixby traffic impact fees - they are tied to the building permit fees as permits are issued; . The Capital Improvement Program - Demolition of building adjacent to the Pier, the building is on the east side, being held up by wooden supports, trucks and vehicles are prohibited from parking on the overlook because of the condition of the building, the plan is to demolish the structure and landscape the area, this is an unfunded item - inasmuch as this area is used often by community groups for special event activities, suggestion was made that before demolition that staff bring this item back to Council to possibly consider a stairway or deck area - to that it was mentioned that a plan had been prepared some years back for improvements to the pier area, the main focus was to make that an area to park and walk to Main Street, the options and related costs could be provided Council; . With reference to the Public Works Yard Site Remediation, clean up of contamination from previous underground storage tanks - it was mentioned that it is believed there was a fueling station behind City Hall as well, that should be checked - noted that the County keeps a database of underground tanks, it is they who contacts the property owner, they test it and determine what needs to be done - it is thought that fuel station was used until about 1977; . Almond Park Playground Refurbishment - noted $20,000 of General Fund money, $40,000 grant money, question of the notation that it is for citywide locations and/or programs - confirmed these funds are for Almond Park; . Miscellaneous Park Improvements - Bolsa Avenue parkway, PCH islands, and Heritage Square - explained that Heritage Square is located at Main and Electric, this project is shown to be unfunded yet work is being done on the Bolsa Avenue parkway - it was noted that is with current year funds, there are no budget funds for next year; . Parks and Recreation Facility Improvements - Prop 12 removal of concrete path and trees in Heather Park - it was explained that these are ficus trees that are severely damaging the concrete - preference is that they not be taken out as they provide shade, it is difficult to get trees to grow to that size, prune the roots if possible - that can be looked into, maybe move the walkway too; . Street Tree Planting Program - what are the location - response was that there was an action plan for the Tree Committee to look at, the focus was to be Main Street, then Old Town, and then other areas of the community, the idea also was to have the Tree Committee inventory the City over the year to identify locations which can then be put on the GIS system; . Question, when is Seal Beach Boulevard north of Westminster going to have a median - response was that two projects have been added to the budget, the crumbling wall along Seal Way, the other the Boulevard median, the median estimate was $365,000 however an unfunded project; 6-11-01 . Wisteria Storm Drain - noted that they are currently working on the channel, replacing the riprap with a concrete box design, question, are they doing anything I to enlarge the outlet under the freeway - respoqse, yes they are, it is now a trapezoidal side channel, 'it is being changed to a vertical wall channel; . City Code allows work to begin at 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, preference that Code be changed to reflect 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday; I . Marina Drive Bridge Rehabilitation - the City's share of the cost is $150,000 and $100,000 for a total of $250,000, have the plans and specs been changed, what is the status - response, it is in a cycle at the Coastal Commission, they lost the traffic study, another has . been provided, they want further discussions onl alternatives, which are likely a clear span briqge, which is not affordable, if a meeting with Coasial fails then staff will bring the project back to Council with recommendations; . To the Marina Drive Bridge issue, suggestion was to simply close the bridge and post it - noted that under the Coastal Act they look at the least damaging alternatives, they have been made aware that there are limited funds available, they have been referred to CalTrans and other agencies - this project would significantly impact the people in Bridgeport - there would be problems with a clear-span bridge, examples would be that the crown would be five to six feet · higher, no piles would be allowed to invade the waterway, etc.; I . Seal Beach Boulevard/405 Overcrossing Widening - if OCTA constructs HUV lanes on the 22 Freeway, the bridge would need to be replaced - when is that going to be known and when will the bridge construction begin - respoJse was , that the Manager and City Engineer met with the'OCTA Executive Director, everyone agreed that the bridge should probably be widened and lengthened, the problem is that would be a major policy shift for the OCTA Board, the City gave them two weeks to make a decision, if they do not make the policy change the City will then go forward with the widening, then some ten years from now the bridge will come down and be replaced, the problem, if they approve Seal Beach there will be other cities that will want lengthening and widening of their bridges; . With regard to the widening of the 22 from the 57 to the 605, are they starting at the 57, is that why it is taking ten years to get to Seal Beach; I . Once a letter is received from OCTA relating to the bridge widening, the City will move forward, based upon experience with the Marina Drive Bridge construction will likely not commence for about a year and last from a year to a year and a half - suggested that the construction north of St. Cloud be completed first, with regard to who will do the contracting, the response was if it is just the widening the City will go forward, if OCTA participates in the project then that will be another decision point as to who commands the project, I I I 6-11-01 that decision has not been made since there have been no answers coming forth from OCTA; . with regard to the construction on Seal Beach Boulevard north of St. Cloud, it was pointed out that the City had no control, the contractor appeared to not have a plan or procedures - to that it was reported that when it was learned the contractor would be doing some additional roadwork staff had vivid memories of the past complaints, however for that there will be an improved traffic control plan, signs posted, suggested alternate routes, etc., when the first experience got so bad the contractor was required to work at night; . Pavement Rehab Program - inquiry if there is a Plan available to see - response was it is not complete at this time, the field review that sets forth the condition of all of the streets has been completed, staff could go over that with members of the Council, staff was able to compile the priority projects for the next two years, the next highest ranked street is College Park Drive for 2002-2003, the the CPE cul-de- sacs are 2001-2002; . Question was raised as to where Birchwood falls - response was that it will likely need to be repaved, there will be a list of streets that will need to compete, Birchwood will probably be year 2003-04; . Question as to whether there is any cooperative agreement with Long Beach for the College Park Drive project - response was that that project only takes into consideration the City's street, there is no plan to pave the entryway, that is a Long Beach street, however staff could make contact with Long Beach; . There was an inquiry with regard to Coral Place and the cove areas - response was that it is understood that the rubberized chips with a slurry seal overlay is working well, there is thought also of using a rubberized slurry seal, this does not tire mark as much, it is a darker surface, the rubberized chips are an emulsion of rubber chips and rock, better than a slurry seal, and actually stabilizes the base, Coral and the cul-de-sacs will likely be in next year's slurry program; . with regard to 2nd Street from Central to Ocean, it was said that the Old Town streets have not as yet been addressed, the downtown streets have tremendous curb and gutter problems, drainage problems, once those streets are touched for any repair it is necessary to redo the entire street, pursuant to Pavement Management the Old Town streets are going to be looked at separately, complete reconstruction costs run about $14 per square foot, there are a lot of Old Town streets that have underlying concrete, there can be problems with groundwater and bad base, all of which ends up to be quite costly, the intent is to keep them useable as long as possible; . Lampson Avenue Rehabilitation - it appears that both projects, Candleberry to the east City limits and Seal Beach Boulevard to Candleberry, are programmed for this year - it was noted this is a carryover of funds - it is a shame that the first project is the 6-11-01 Boulevard to Candleberry, that area is under construction so it will be repaved and then torn up - the response was that it is scheduled for about August or September, it is hoped the construction will 'be completed by then, to the issue of ,water lines, -which is ,usually addressed in conjunction with paving projects, the thought has been to place the line in the landscaped area so that the street will no longer need to De dug up - comment was that it would make more sense to do Candleberry to Wisteria first - it was noted that as long as the federal monies for the first project are. obligated by June 30th the project can likely be,pushed back for a period of six months, to that the response was that it is then the winter months; I . Water Improvements - 18 inch line replacement, Lampson to Basswood - this line is referred to as the 'onion skin' line due to its thin gage steel wall and I propensity for breaks, it is unfunded, question) when does the funding become necessary, when it breaks - the response was the staff is going to do a water rate study, there is thought of doing the same COP process as with the sewers, gather money and then bond for it, some of these projects will be factored in, how soon they can be dealt with relates to what is an acceptable water rate - the water system was looked at closely but without doing a detailed analysis, - this line was found to be in poor condition, there is another that runs through the Hellman property where there have been multiple breaks, throughout the country there is considerable infrastructure that is rated at 'c' and 'd' in that they were constructed some forty to fifty years ago, funding options are being looked at for replacement; I . Mention was made of the recent replacement of the sewer line in Seal Beach Boulevard from the top of the Hill to westminster Avenue, yet there is, a terrible odor at the Boulevard/Westminster intersection - response, that is the County pump station, there are always odors 'near pump stations - the County Sanitation District is starting a program to surround the pump stations with trees, theoretically that helps to alleviate odors; . There had been funding for the undergrounding of the power lines along Seal Beach Boulevard, that was not found in the budget, it is desired that those monies not be lost - response was that the Rule 28 funds are currently on hold, those are not City funds, they are monies that are obligated to the City for future Rule 28 undergrounding - noted too that the power company will continue to bank those monies; . Inquiry was made with regard to under grounding Lampson Avenue, those lines look terrible and they are destroying the trees which are under them, it is understood that it is very expensive to underground them also there is the complication of the high pressure gas line - 13KV is most common in neighborhoods, that is fairly inexpensive to underground, once over that, like the 66KV that used to run Bolsa and downtown, that was about $1 million per mile some five to seven years ago; I . Question was if there were not undergrounding funds that were to be forthcoming from Hellman and the Shore Shop 6-11-01 I property as well - response was that there are undergrounding monies coming from Avalon Homes for their area, also from Hellman for their portion, for the southerly section of Seal Beach Boulevard money has already been collected from Edison, that is going to be reserved until the time the Rule 28 monies are again available then it will be under grounded all at one time - an errata sheet can be included with the CIP relating to the Rule 28 projects; . with regard to Trees for Seal Beach - the area at 5~ and Marina Drive is not very attractive, would be a worthy area for trees; . Mention was made that there is $5,000 budgeted for fireworks for next year, $500 has been received from Jerry Tone (Hellman) for this year, will the city be contributing the $4,500 balance for this year - there is money in the Promotions account that can be used for that purpose; . There will be residents attending the City Council meeting this evening to speak to the wall at Catalina Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard, a letter received also from Mario Rossi relating to the same subject - there will be an attempt to do that project from within the operating budget; . The total CIP budget is $23.5 million, majority of that is the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing and bridge widening project, that is a phased project, of the total the City is using only 1% of the General Fund for all of the capital improvement programs, the City has been fairly aggressive in seeking grant funding, lobbying OCTA, AFRP monies, etc. - basically everything over the 1% is monies from elsewhere, not local taxpayer dollars; I . The Budget and Fiscal Policies basically lays out how you look at reserves, fees, etc., there is a goal set of 20% of the undesignated fund balance, the City is at about 10% at this time, there is proposal to go to a two year budget, that saves staff time, focuses more on planning, reduces the carryover issues for two years Members of the Council commended the policies document, a good basis for the Council to work from, and spoke favorably of a two year budget - with a two year budget there is an annual mid-point review, to make adjustments where necessary, get additional grant monies, move projects forward; . Question was posed as to a time line to reach the 20% - response was that it had been hoped that it would be reached this year, with the new software it is felt this can move forward, it is presently almost a zero based budget, start holding departments so they do not go over budget, for the most part the departments do exceed budget, some of that was due to the software system, this will aid rebuilding of the undesignated reserves; I . If an application rate can be done for indirect costs that will most likely mean an adjustment of some fees, what would the impact of that have on reaching the 20% - some of the departments work on deposits, some on time and materials, using labor rates that are as 6-11-01 current as they should be, even the Police Department is subject to it because if they work events or respond to an accident that can be cost recovered they are 'likely charging just labor and not indirect costs - it was pointed out that there is an administrative charge, benefits, etc.; . , . , How soon after the close of the fiscal year, Jurle 30th, are the final accounting documents for the events throughout the year available showing all of the actual costs - the response was about August - if the City is going to do an application rate for indirect costs that needs to be done as quickly as possible - the firms that are being looked at to do this specialize in this type of program; I . Information Technology Plan - it has become cle~r that the City has made a substantial investment in information technology, the City got new computers and software, what the Plan does is avoid coming to:Council throughout the year for monies to purchase computers as an example, so working with the City's consultant there was an attempt to level this off and develop a spending plan that is within the budget, basically a certain amount each year, about $60,000 in fiscal year 2001/02 to replace some work stations, add a GIS server, next year aim at about $74,000, this is somewhat of a leveling off plan - current programs are Windows NT, some are Windows 98 and 2000, some of the software does not communicate with Windows 2000, the old software will not communicate at all; I . Tree Maintenance and Street Sweeping Analysis - the street sweeping drain on the General Fund is about $46,000 per year, that is without moving to weekly street sweeping, three options are provided for Council consideration but within that staff also looked at the possibility of contracting out, in this case what was seen was increased service at less cost, option!l would be to keep street sweeping in-house, the current fee is $.50 monthly, the increase would be to $1.56 to cover the costs, option 2 would be to keep the twice monthly sweeping for a raise in fee from $.50 to $.59, showing contracting as more cost effective mainly because there would not be the need to purchase equipment as the current sweeper is nearly worn out and costs nearly $200,000 to replace, there is also flexibility with service by a contractor, option 3 would be to contract out and sweep on a weekly basis which would increase the fee to $1.46 per month - this however would be subject to Prop 218, therefore staff is looking at how an election would be conducted; . An election process would be a forty-five day notice of public hearing before the City Council with an election within forty-five days after that, that election could be in the form of ballots going to all of the people as opposed to precinct balloting, it would require a fifty percent approval as opposed to two-thirds; I . If contracted out for the same service the subsidy would be reduced to about $9,000; . Under option 3, $30,000 could be saved if sweeping restrictions were placed on both sides of the street for I I I 6-11-01 the same day which would require parking vehicles in the driveway; . Once the process is finalized, this will be brought before the Council along with an RFP to contract for street sweeping inasmuch as under any scenario money will be saved; . The fee is based on residential and there are some on linear footage, a spread of costs according to the existing formula; . Question as to the cost per month per household for weekly street sweeping - it would be a $.96 increase per month; . Question raised if this would apply to Leisure World - they contract independently - whomever the City contracts with then Leisure World would likely have to follow suit - or Leisure World could be rolled into the City's contract; . Reality is that the more trash that is picked up from the streets the less goes into the storm drains which ends up on the beach and in the water; . Ballots can be sent or go to election, either way it must go to all property owners affected or all of the people that vote, either the property owner or the voter pays for it - if go with voters it would probably include Leisure World; . All fees are being looked at as a way to reduce subsidies; . For Tree Trimming the General Fund impact is about $19,000, about $55,000 is spent, about $36,000 is collected, tree trimming is done on a three year cycle, the younger trees are trimmed more frequently in order to train them, four options were provided Council, from reducing subsidy to making improvements; . Much of this will depend on what is happening with the economy at the time presented to the residents - an option is also to reduce service to what is collected by the fee but there are service implications with that in the case of tree trimming option 3 is being recommended, to include some sidewalk, curb, gutter, and replacement, from $.50 to $2.08 - if saving trees is a goal then more creative things need to be done to do that; . Requests from the Chamber for $1,000 per month for beach cleanup and from Mr. Caviola for $5,000 for demolition of concrete parkways, it would corne from undesignated reserves, direction is requested to factor this into the budget - comment was that support of the beach cleanup would be important as it has a great impact on Seal Beach and increased revenues if the beach is clean, that is different from supporting other commercial events that corne to the community - the Chamber does a great job with the beach cleanup; . Reference was made to the information that was obtained at the League Conference for the beach rake with the 6-11-01 advertisement - a member of the Council and the Assistant to the City Manager saw a demonstration, the status of that is not currently known - it was no cost to the City with a projection of a twenty percent reduction of trash - comment was that staff was not convinced that there was actually no cost, it needs to be commercial advertising to get the rake for fi;ee; I . with regard to the Chamber request - at some point in time the City is going to take charge of the Old City Hall building, possibly a subsidy could be made to the Chamber through utilization of space in that building - response was that if that were done it would save the Chamber $500 per month that could be used for something else; . With regard to the Caviola request, suggestion was to wait to see if more trees are obtained before making a decision. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the City Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda, a conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) relating to initiation of one potential case of litigation, and a conference with the City's labor negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:26 p.m. and reconvened at 7:04 p.m. with Mayor Doane calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported that the Council had discussed the items identified on the agenda, no reportable action was taken. I ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent to adjourn the meeting at of the Council, 7:05 ~~l / I ex-offipio clerk Seal Beach Approved: Attest: Seal Beach, California June 11, 2001 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in session at 7:06 p.m. with Mayor Doane calling the order with the Salute to the Flag. regular meeting to . 6-11-01 ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Doane Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Larson, Yost Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Chief Sellers, Police Department Chief Cushman, Lifeguard Department Ms. Arends-King, Director of Administrative Services Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation, Parks and Community Services Mr. Danes, Interim Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Doane requested that the SANE Award presentation be moved in front of Public Comments, Councilmember Campbell requested Items "L, M, and N" be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration, and Councilman Larson requested Item "Q" removed. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except for Items "L, M, N, and Q", removed for separate consideration. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements were made at this time. PRESENTATION - SANE AWARDS Chief Sellers said it was a privilege to introduce two McGaugh School students who were participants in the Drug Education Awareness essay contest this past year, after careful review of the many essays these two students were chosen as the top candidates for the SANE Award. Chief Sellers introduced Jacquie Ristow and David McCarron who in turn read their winning essays. Chief Sellers presented the winners with tickets to Magic Mountain, Knotts Berry Farm, and Sea World, and expressed appreciation to the Womans Club for their donation of same. The Chief also recognized Officer Paap for his dedication to teaching Seal Beach and Los Alamitos students to 'just say no'. Mayor Doane commended Officer Paap for the SANE program and his Seal Beach Live show, both of which have been on-going for eleven years. I ANNOUNCEMENT Councilmember Campbell noted her attendance at the Los Alamitos High School Boys Tennis Club banquet this past week, winners of the Sunset League and CIF Champions as well as outstanding students, and displayed the team recognition plaque that was presented to the attending representatives of Seal Beach and Los Alamitos. It was noted that the Tennis Club uses the Old Ranch Tennis Facility to practice and hold home matches, and to that they have been told that that facility will be maintained and available for their use. 6-11-01 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Doane declared the Public Comment period to be open. Mr. Tom Fallen said he was present on behalf of the Seal Beach Kids Baseball Association, an organization that has served Seal Beach kids for about twenty-seven years, the organization has funded themselves completely during that time, this year there were three hundred seventy-four children participating in the program, three hundred sixty- two being residents of Seal Beach. He noted that the Association is now facing some major equipment costs, most specifically the lighting at McGaugh, they have an opportunity to take advantage of several federal grants that will match the funds the Association raises. Mr. Fallen asked that his request be placed on an agenda so that he might take advantage of the City budget considerations in which there are funds that could be allocated as grants so perhaps the Kids Baseball Association could become a recipient, this is a cross roads where the program either continues in the community or stops. Councilman Yost asked if Parks and Recreation could place the McGaugh field light standard replacement issue on the Commission agenda. The City Manager suggested that a meeting be scheduled with Mr. Fallen and staff and then move the issue forward. Ms. Fran Johnson, Coastline Drive, inquired as to what the building under construction is on Seal Beach Boulevard, so close to the street. The Director of Development Services explained that there are a number of commercial buildings along the frontage of the shopping center, all behind the forty foot dedication area, the tenants of which are not yet known, the forty feet starts from the previous property line of the Bixby property which was about three inches behind the curb along Seal Beach Boulevard. Ms. Johnson asked if the last few eucalyptus trees are going to be left or is a way going to be found to take them out. Mr. David Feldman, College Park East, said he wished to pose questions and express his concerns to the Council as he feels the majority of residents, especially those in College Park East, would like answers. He asked if the City has had its latest Housing Element certified by the State, if not, then why is the City building houses, what is the City's fair share of affordable housing, how do the new housing developments fit into the Housing Element, have any studies been done on the impact on schools, what criteria are landscape plans based on and how is Bixby allowed to change them once they have been approved and started, why was it agreed to plant trees on a four to one ratio and Bixby is allowed to count trees planted on a private golf course, Bixby will agree to anything because agreements are always changed so they mean nothing, why is the sidewalk and bike path in front of the Towne Center twelve feet wide, most sidewalks and paths are a third or a fourth that width, the reason is that Bixby does not have to put in as much landscaping, the building that was mentioned is only about seven feet from the bike path and it is on such a steep incline that a tree couldn't even be planted there, what happened to widening of the 405 Freeway, maybe that will happen when the traffic gets worse, why hasn't the City led in the redevelopment of the Rossmoor Shopping Center, it is owned by the same people as the Los Altos Center, Long Beach put that Center into redevelopment, why is another signal needed on Lampson now where it was not on the original plans, traffic studies were done by Bixby for a much different development than what is going in, all of those stores are completely different, new traffic studies should have been done before these buildings were allowed as the impact is different from what was originally planned, if it is too much I I I 6-11-01 I then it needs to be made less dense, and now that the utility tax is illegal what is going to happen, are the people going to get refunds for the past three years. Mr. Feldman stated that the residents of Seal Beach, particularly those north of the 405, are especially affected and will continue to pay a high price for all of these issues and quality of life with the increase of noise, traffic, and congestion, because of all of these negatives the largest share of the revenue should stay north of the freeway to improve their area. Bixby keeps changing requirements and the City approves them, his recommendation was that the City not issue any occupancy permits or completion of building permits until Bixby has completed everything that they previously said they would do, now reneging on and changing. Mr. Felman questioned in a negative manner the qualifications of the Planning Director. Mr. Don Miller, Catalina Avenue, inquired as to the plans and a time frame for repair of the wall at the end of Catalina along Seal Beach Boulevard. The City Manager advised that the City is evaluating that wall, there are holes in it, removal of the landscaping made it worse, the intent is to repair it using operational dollars, cost estimates are being sought, some of it is a breakaway wall. The Manager asked that Mr. Miller contact him the following day and he would provide an estimated time frame and cost. The Manager acknowledged a comment that there be landscaping installed on both sides of the wall, something that would be looked at. Mr. David Bayles, Catalina Avenue, said he resides adjacent to the subject wall, for years there were junipers and yucca trees on the residential side that were neglected, trash would build up, and often the City had to be called for some maintenance which they did in a timely manner. It was then heard that the wall was going to be replaced, then the landscaping was taken out, during that process the street became stained with hydraulic fluid and oil, the wall was greatly damaged by the backhoe, knocked two sections from its plumb, knocked out a whole section, damaged the sidewalk and street. Mr. Bayles said he believed that a letter was submitted to Council this date from a neighbor, Mr. Rossi. He noted that he had spoken with a contractor this date as well who indicated he had been asked to bid on the repair or replacement of the wall, and speaking on behalf of the residents it is not felt that repair is satisfactory, the neighbors on either side own the eight foot walls aside this five foot wall, it was built in 1965, was once knocked down, replaced with cinderblock, does not match the wall on the residential side, the feeling is that the wall needs to be replaced. Ms. Susan Hugo, Catalina Avenue, stated she is one of the people responsible for have the wall built in the first place as a result of rapidly traveling traffic, and in talking with about twenty of immediate neighbors all agree that a new wall is needed. Mr. Frank Boychuck, Trailer Park, noted that a couple of weeks ago a resident of the Trailer Park came to the Council with a petition to change the cooperative agreement of the Park, that it has since been found that there were a number of residents misrepresented on that petition, some have asked that their name be removed as they were not told that ,the lawyers had recommended something totally different, and a meeting will be held shortly to resolve these issues in'their entirety. The Mayor suggested that Mr. Boychuck attend the next Redevelopment Agency meeting as it is that body that makes decisions relating to the Trailer Park. A member of the audience offered to prepare a petition relating to the Catalina Avenue wall if that would be beneficial. There being no further comments, Mayor Doane declared Public Comments to be closed. I I 6-11-01 PRESENTATIONS GIRL SCOUT SILVER AWARD Councilmember Campbell presented a Certificate of Recognition to Charissa Goggin for Achieving the Girl Scout Silver Award. At the request of Councilmember Campbell, Miss Goggin described in some detail the requirements that led to her earning the Silver Award. I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4900 - HONORING LT. COLONEL LASSER Councilmember Campbell read in full Resolution Number 4900 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH HONORING LT. COLONEL THOMAS E. LASSER." Yost moved, second by Boyd, to adopt Resolution Number 4900 as presented. Councilmember Campbell noted that this past Saturday the History Channel presented a program profiling personal experiences of helicopter pilots in Vietnam, Lt. Colonel Lasser being one of the pilots profiled. Lt. Colonel Lasser expressed appreciation for the recognition, and said it is hoped the AFRC will be maintained as a Disaster Support Area for Southern California for a long time. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS - BADUM Mayor Doane presented a City tile plaque to Mr. Steve Badum, recently retired Director of Public Works/City Engineer, commending his efforts on behalf of the community. Mr. Badum introduced his wife Linda, and twin children Tom and Stephanie, expressed appreciation to the City Council and citizens of Seal Beach for allowing him to work for the City for the past six years, and to his Assistant and Public Works staff. Councilman Yost recognized Mr. Badum for protecting the property values of the residents by reducing the number of lanes of the Marina Drive bridge, and Councilman Boyd noted that Mr. Badum has accepted the position of Director of Public Works for the City of Newport Beach. All wished Mr. Badum well. I ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER - DORSEY Mr. Dan Dorsey and his wife, Erin, joined Mayor Doane who in turn read a brief commentary to the experiences and dedicated services of Dan Dorsey over the past forty years as a Seasonal Lifeguard, Lifeguard Lieutenant and Chief, and as the Assistant to the City Manager, that in addition to his military service and attainment of a Masters Degree in Public Administration. Mayor Doane presented Mr. Dorsey with a City tile plaque in recognition of his services and retirement. Mr. Dorsey expressed appreciation to all, and noted that he looks forward to serving the City on a continued part time basis. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4901 - ACACIA ADULT DAY SERVICES Resolution Number 4901 was read in full by Mayor Doane entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH SUPPORTING THE MISSION OF ACACIA ADULT DAY SERVICES." Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to adopt Resolution Number 4901 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4902 - SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATIONS Resolution Number 4902 was presented to Council entitled "A 6-11-01 I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN DEMANDS AND CHECKS FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS ON DEPOSIT WITH THE BANK OF AMERICA, AUTHORIZING ALTERNATURE SIGNATURES, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 4883." Councilman Larson expressed his objection to certain language in the Resolution which he deemed to be confusing. A suggestion of the City Attorney was to delete the first "and/or" language and insert the word "and". Boyd moved, second by Larson, to adopt Resolution Number 4902 as amended. By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4902 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4903 - MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS Resolution Number 4903 was preserited to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CONFIRMING APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE MAYOR OF REPRESENTATIVES TO VARIOUS BOARDS, AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS, ASSIGNING CERTAIN DUTIES TO COUNCILMEMBERS, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 4803." It was noted that the members of the Council agreed to continue to serve in the same positions as year 2000/2001. Councilman Boyd clarified that the districts of the Sanitation District have consolidated therefore the District is now simply called the Orange County Sanitation District. Campbell moved, second by Larson, to adopt Resolution Number 4903 as amended to reflect the names of the Council representatives. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried At this time the Council, by unanimous consent, took a brief recess. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "I" thru "R" Yost moved, second by Boyd, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except for Items "L, M, N, and Q", removed for separate consideration. I. 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. J. Approved regular demands numbered 33065 through 33106 in the amount of $165,518.80, payroll demands numbered 11950 through 12097 in the amount of $155,109.93, payroll liability account 9000599 through 9000605 in the amount of $78,918.20, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I K. Received and filed the Monthly Investment Report for April, 2001. O. Adopted Resolution Number 4904 entitled "A RESOLUTIION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT #822, CONSTRUCTION OF THE BALBOA DRIVE & PCH 6-11-01 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN EC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4904 was waived. P. Approved the plans and specifications for Project Number 50010, Lampson Avenue Rehabilitation (Seal Beach Boulevard to Candleberry Avenue) and authorized staff to initiate the bidding process. I Q. Adopted Resolution Number 4905 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, AUTHORIZATION BY CITY COUNCIL FOR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE "NO RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4905 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "L" - REOUEST FOR PROPOSALS - AUDITING SERVICES Councilmember Campbell requested certain corrections to the RFP document, specifically that the City is located in 'northwest' Orange County, was incorporated 'October 25th, 1915' rather than January of 1989, questioned the City being bounded by 'Garden Grove', the population estimate of 27,400 should be corrected to 24,157, and with regard to assistance to the auditing firm, the compatibility of software will be Word 97, it was also noted that the word 'Dana Point' was shown in the document. In reference to the time schedule, the City Manager mentioned that a revised draft RFP had been provided Council which shows a corrected schedule. Campbell moved, second by Boyd, to approve the request to distribute Requests for Proposals, as corrected, for an independent auditing firm. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried ITEM "M" DEMOLITION OF WATER TOWER - NAVAL WEAPONS STATION Councilmember Campbell made reference to the last page of the report which made reference to the City's water tank, and asked if this is a City water tank on the Naval weapons Station. The Director of Development Services responded that the City has had water tanks on the property since the mid- 1930's, when the Navy condemned the property for the Naval Weapons Station they did not condemn the City-owned property. He clarified that it is the water tower adjacent to Seal Beach Boulevard that is being proposed to be taken down, it is a Navy water tower, the City's water tanks can not be seen from Seal Beach Boulevard. Councilman Larson noted the suggestion that the federal government could construct a fake water tower that could be used for cell phone antenna, it should be clarified that that was merely a suggestion and not a condition. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to receive and file the staff report, authorize the Mayor to sign the comment letter, and instructed staff to forward this item to the Archaeological Advisory Committee and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. I 6-11-01 AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried I HOUSING ELEMENT LEGISLATION - OPPOSING SB 910 Councilmember Campbell commended the excellence of this staff report and letter, if a State employee is going to make the determination as to the City's compliance and has the ability to impose a fine of up to $100,000 that is not appropriate. Councilmember Campbell requested that this letter also be forwarded to the Executive Director of the Orange County League, as they will work on behalf of the cities. Mayor Doane asked if the comment letter could be forwarded to the Resolutions Committee, to that Councilmember Campbell said she could do that, the reasons for opposition should be known by all persons. Councilman Boyd noted the inquiry earlier in the meeting as to the status of the Housing Element to which he explained that the Element will be subject of consideration soon, it is being prepared by a consultant, the Element will be adopted locally and forwarded to the State for certification, as to the inquiry relating to affordable units, he reported that Seal Beach needs one hundred eleven low and very low income new construction units before 2005 to be in substantial compliance, this will likely be a rental product that meets the affordable criteria. Mr. Feldman said he was uncertain as to the terms of moderate or low income housing and what formula is used, something like one hundred twenty percent, so the City does not now have a plan now that is approved by the State, and is allowing things to be built that have no regards to State law, there is nothing that says the Housing Element is okay, it is thought it is supposed to be current within five years, what is there to say the State can not come after the City in the future and require the affordable housing, the City would be liable and start purchasing apartments, etc. to try to meet the low income housing. The City Attorney mentioned that the comments are not the subject matter of this particular item, however to address the comments stated that the City has a valid Housing Element now, it was certified by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court denied review of the case, therefore the City has a legitimate, court approved Housing Element, also, the City is in the process of updating the Element, and Seal Beach, as well as all other cities in California, will be coming before the Planning Commission and the City Council as a public hearing, also clarified that the comment letter is only about suggested legislative changes to current State law, if this letter is authorized, it is merely expressing opposition to certain changes in State law. Campbell moved, second by Yost, to receive and file the staff report, authorize the Mayor to sign the letter in opposition to Senate Bill 910, and instructed staff to forward this item to the Planning Commission for information purposes. I I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried ITEM "0" ORDINANCES NUMBERED 1472 and 1473 - PARKING CITATIONS Councilman Larson stated that his questions relating to this item has been satisfied. Ordinance Number 1472 was ' introduced entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADDING ARTICLE XV TO CHAPTER 13 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PERTAINING TO PARKING CITATION PROCESSING AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF." Larson moved, second by Boyd, to adopt Ordinance Number 1472 as presented. By 6-11-01 unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1472 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried Ordinance Number 1473 was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADDING ARTICLE XV TO CHAPTER 13 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PERTAINING TO PARKING CITATION PROCESSING." Yost moved, second by Boyd, to approve the introduction and first reading of Ordinance Number 1473 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - MIXED USE STRUCTURE - 229 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD - MILLER Mayor Doane declared the public hearing open to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of an Architectural Review of a proposal to construct a new mixed use structure at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported receipt of one written communication from Mr. and Mrs. Caldwell, 17th Street, in support of the appeal. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explained that this matter is before the Council as a result of an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a Minor Plan Review for property at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard, the properties in that area of the Boulevard are in a Limited Commercial Zone and a provision of the zoning requirements for that area require that any new development go through an architectural review by the Planning Commission through the Minor Plan Review process, not as a public hearing, rather a consent calendar item unless removed from the consent calendar by someone, where there would then be discussion at the Planning Commission level, in this case no one requested that it be removed for further discussion, and the Commission approved the item as part of the consent calendar approval by a five to zero vote. He noted that Council does have copies of the Commission staff report and the minutes of the meeting at which it was approved, as well as the adopted Commission Resolution approving the project subject to a number of conditions. The Director stated that the proposal is to develop a mixed use project in conformance with the provisions of the Limited Commercial Zone at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard, a vacant parcel of property located between the existing bike shop building and a day care facility to the south on the property, this project was approved by the City in 1996, was approved at the Coastal Commission level, the project proponent was not able to complete the project therefore the project approvals expired and is now coming back to the City to reinstate the approvals. The basic proposal is to construct a 1,300 square foot single story commercial building along the front of the property with four parking spaces to the rear off of the alley to provide off- street parking for two apartment units that are proposed to be developed, all of the project components comply with the lot coverage, setback, building height, and landscaping requirements of the LC Zone, the Commission approved the project and subsequently an appeal was filed by Ms. Fielding who owns the property immediately south of the subject property, a copy of her letter has been provided Council and the report from staff addresses the issues raised in her I I 6-11-01 I appeal. He noted that as staff looked at the concerns set forth in the appeal it is felt that none of those directly affect the architectural review of the project, that they are more related to how drainage issues be resolved, grading issues impact her property, those types of issues primarily set forth in the staff report, the opinion of staff continues to be that the recommendations of the Commission were proper and a resolution has been prepared that would sustain the action of the Commission and approve the project subject to the conditions noted in the resolution. Councilman Yost inquired if it would be necessary for Councilmember Campbell to abstain from review since she voted on the initial proposal in 1996 or is this a second decision because the permits expired and she can participate. The City Attorney confirmed that it is the latter, this, is a totally different application, the appeal is not to a decision in 1996 that she participated in. Display of the floor and site plans for the project were pointed out. To the inquiry of Councilman Yost as to the side setback in the LC Zone from the property line, the Director responded that a zero setback is allowed for a commercial building, for residential it is ten percent of the width of the lot or minimum of five feet, the width of the lot in question is believed to be sixty-two and a quarter feet, in this case the commercial is shown to be six inches from the property line on the south side, and believed to be about sixteen feet on the north side, as an example the buildings on Main Street are built adjacent to one another by putting in a skid wall with a foundation, slide the wall up and build around it, that is standard construction in commercial areas where there are zero sideyards, which is not unusual in commercial zones. Councilmember Campbell noted that the staff report states that staff will be presenting a report to Council on June 25th with regard to the steps necessary to initiate the appropriate studies to review the zoning and development standards for Seal Beach Boulevard from Electric to Landing, therefore possibly this item should be continued until those studies are completed, as an example something could be built and then in a few weeks not be in compliance. The Director stated that is a policy decision for the Council which could be discussed after the public hearing on this issue, on June 25th the request is merely to initiate a process for General Plan amendments and Zone changes, that will take somewhere between eight to twelve months to go through the environmental review process, public hearings before the Planning Commission, Council, and Coastal Commission for approvals before a zone change would be in affect in that area. Councilman Larson inquired what the appellant would need to do with regard to the sewer cleanout issue. The Director explained that that is a civil issue between the two parties, the Plumbing Code does not require an exterior cleanout,it also permits interior cleanouts, so if the property is built as proposed the exterior cleanout would not be operational therefore there would need to be an adjustment, that is a matter for the two parties to resolve. Councilman Larson asked if it is felt that there is any merit to the idea that if the buildings are adjacent to one another that is fine, but if they are six inches apart there will be papers and debris that could constitute a fire hazard. The Director said that is always an issue, but if one walks down Main Street the buildings are not actually butted up against each other, what will be found is the foundation footing has a spread that is wider than the wall itself so the footing does not go over the property line which results in about a three inch offset for that portion of the foundation footing and then the wall, also, he has I I 6-11-01 never seen it become a hazard. Noting the three options proposed to Council, Councilman Boyd inquired as to the latitude of the Council to modify the terms and conditions approved by the Planning Commission. To that the Director stated that the latitude would be with the architectural design of the project, if it is felt that the setback should be something different from what the Commission approved it is believed that under the notice provisions the Council would have that authority, the design review is what was before the Commission. Councilmember Campbell noted that the third staff comment states that the project as approved provides the 'required two off-street parking spaces for each residential living unit proposed, as approved in accordance with the provisions of the LC zone, in-lieu parking is provided for the commercial portions of the project, not the residential,' to that she mentioned that there is currently in-lieu parking on Main Street and asked what other areas of the City. The Director responded that this is the only other area in the City that has a provision for in-lieu par.king, the LC Zone on Seal Beach Boulevard. Councilmember Campbell then asked how much in-lieu parking already exists in this area, the response of the Director was that this would be the only project with in-lieu parking. Councilmember Campbell inquired if that would be precedent setting or a grant of special privilege, the response was that it is an existing provision of that Zoning Ordinance that has been in place for many years, it is allow by right through the Zoning Ordinance, it is not known if it would be a precedent as it is something the City has had in place since 1993. Councilmember Campbell expressed her objection to in-lieu parking, someone buys a parking space that does not exist to get around providing parking, she can not see how in-lieu solves the City's parking problems. The Director again mentioned that a provision of the Zoning Ordinance allows for in-lieu, an allowable use by right, and they are given certain credit for the number of in-lieu parking spaces based on the width of the lot, because of the width of the lot in this case the proponent has the capability of obtaining ten in-lieu spaces but that is not necessary for the size of his building. I I Mayor Doane invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and identify themselves for the record. Ms. Seretta Fielding submitted information to the Clerk for distribution to the Council. Ms. Fielding said she knows Seal Beach Boulevard very well, her belief is that there has been an error in the LC Zone findings which she had not been aware of, she had been on the Seal Beach Boulevard and Limited Commercial Committees and her belief is that at the time in-lieu parking was going to be allowed it was only if diagonal parking was going to be implemented on that street, the street had to have diagonal parking before the in-lieu parking could take place. Ms. 'Fielding stated that she supported Mr. Miller's project in 1991, at that time he was going to place his building next to her building, her building was built in 1949 and it was felt that plan would lend support to her foundation and structure, it is now going to be six inches away from her building whatever reason whether law or Codes, this is not a good idea, that area will be damp, dark, will breed mosquitoes, if an animal gets caught it will die, it seems ironic that between his commercial buildings there is sixteen feet but between his building and her building he wants six inches. If one looks at the project from 1991 to now he is basically increasing his square footage by six hundred forty-eight feet I 6-11-01 I and adding six in-lieu parking spaces on the street, her preference would be that he go back to the original project, yet she is not against this project, her feeling is that there needs to be some common sense with regard to the distance between the buildings. Ms. Fielding said there should also be some design as to what one wants the street to look like, the Musso project has set some standards, there is no longer commercial on Seal Beach Boulevard north of this project, after Landing there are commercial projects, she is not against that, just saying that the tone is changing on the block, and it is felt that Council needs to consider this particular project seriously when thinking of what is wanted on Seal Beach Boulevard. Again, Ms. Fielding stated this is a great project, she likes the look of the building, she is only asking for a few things that are common sense. Mr. Jack Linn, 17th Street, said his concern is the same as Ms. Fielding with regard to two buildings being so close together, in conversations with fire personnel they all said fires in these kinds of buildings are the most difficult to fight, there is no light or ventilation, in case of a fire it would affect both buildings, it makes no sense to put two buildings so close together, also, Seal Beach Boulevard is not Main Street which is all commercial, the Boulevard is not. I Mr. Walt Miller, property owner, said he just heard arguments that are not even part of this agenda, there are two types of construction, residential and commercial, residential has sideyard setbacks, commercial does not, allover the State building codes allow zero setbacks for commercial, this project is built to commercial standards with zero setbacks, he does not know where the six inches came from. Mr. Miller stated that he wrote a letter to Ms. Fielding advising that he could pour a foundation on his property line next to her property line as long as there is a soils engineer present, he can then build a wall horizontally and tilt it up at the zero property line, there is no need to have space between commercial buildings, the illusion is a gap between two buildings that is open at the top with debris accumulating between the buildings due to rain, wind, etc., every commercial building with other buildings around are built to the zero property line, this illusion makes no sense. With regard to the sewer cleanout, it is illegal to put such a cleanout onto another's property as there needs to be access, Ms. Fielding claimed to have an easement for the cleanout, there is no easement, all that needs to be done to correct this is to turn the cleanout around to the interior, it is illegal the way it is now, and if that is going to stop a project like this, then he does not know where things are headed. Mr. Miller said he proposed his project in 1991, received approval to build 3,000 square feet of retail, two artist studios, he was allowed ten in-lieu parking spaces, then the Coastal Commission said they did not allow in-lieu parking on Seal Beach Boulevard because of it being beach access, the Commission then said if the retail were to be reduced to 1,300 square feet and make it a bike shop which was thought to be conducive to enhancing public attraction to the beach, a bike repair and rental shop, then they would approve the project with no parking, that is what they did in 1996. He then redrew the entire project however the City was unclear as to what they were going to do with the street. At that time however he had no tenants, he was uncertain if the live/work concept would work, even though he thought it would he did not have the finances to do the project, he could not risk putting a mortgage on the property that would exceed the I 6-11-01 value of the income, if he could not rent the units he would lose everything, so he pulled the project back. He did make a mistake however in that he found out today that he could have gotten an extension until today instead of the one year extension that he did get, the Commission wants to see this project go through, with a bike path and bike shop that has been there for twenty years they think it is good, they still know there is no parking, but when one looks at a biKe shop and anything recreational that brings people to the beach, that is why there is street parking, this is an enhancement for beach going traffic. Mr. Miller said this is an opportunity for a live/work project, he and his wife will live on-site, his son will be able to continue his business, and his wife's son will live in the other apartment when he retires, this is the revised 1991 plan that was considered in 1996, this is an opportunity to do a development on the Street that is attractive and possibly encourage others to build, this particular block is all commercial with the exception of three older apartment houses, some think this will become all residential, but that is unlikely beqause they are short lots, there are businesses that are going to remain, architects have said maybe this area should be high density residential/mixed use. Mr. Miller stated at this point to challenge the sewer cleanout and the six inch setback does not make sense. Councilman Boyd mentioned that he had looked at the staff reports and discussions from the two previous project submittals, one adhered to a five foot setback on both sides of the property, now it is indicated that the retail component will not have a setback on either side of the property only a front setback, to that Mr. Miller countered that the five foot setback is the street setback, and confirmed that this is the same plan as was submitted in 1996, the exact same floor plan. Councilman Boyd agreed that the live/work product is a progressive idea, however what happens at some point in time when retail is no longer viable, if the Council chooses to change the direction for use of properties on the Boulevard then Mr. Miller would be left with a legal nonconforming use at the front of the property, is he prepared to take that chance. Mr. Miller noted that there are neighboring properties that are' commercial, he would have no problem with that. Counci1member Campbell inquired if there are any windows on the northerly side of Ms. Fielding's building. Mr. Miller responded that there are however they are illegal, anything on a zero property line requires a one-hour fire wall. To the inquiry if the Fielding building was illegal when built, the Director of Development Services said he was not aware of the building codes in 1949, today a building can not be built on a property line and have windows except under very unusual circumstances, there are now some fire rated windows that do comply with Fire Code separation requirements, a very expensive window therefore not used often, in this case the Building Code allows commercial to be built on property lines subject to providing certain fire wall requirements, this project complies with all current Building and Zoning Code provisions regarding construction with required fire walls. Mr. Miller made reference to a project of his in San Clemente, the special windows can be used if the building is back five feet, if ten feet back regular windows can be used, at zero property line there are no windows allowed. Councilmember Campbell asked if these windows are opened for ventilation, what does that do to her business and the health and safety of the pre-school children, this could be a 'negative impact, to that Mr. Miller stated that her business is on the first floor, there are no windows on the first I I I 6-11-01 I floor, there is no impact on her business or the children. Councilman Boyd inquired as to the width of Mr. Miller's property from the Fielding building to the next northerly building, if the existing bike shop will be torn down, what is the intent for that building, and what is the current upstairs use. Mr. Miller stated it will not be torn down, the use will remain as it is now as a bike shop, and the second floor is currently architectural use. Councilman Yost inquired why this project went before the Planning Commission, why not an over the counter permit if it complies with all legal requirements of the Code. The Director explained that at the time the Limited Commercial Zone was implemented by the City the mix of residential and commercial uses was one that the City wanted to have the opportunity to review the plans to make sure that the architectural design and layout was something that was compatible with the zoning standards that had been adopted in approximately 1991, at that time mixing residential and commercial uses on one piece of property was fairly new, the Zoning Code specifically requires that any new development in the LC Zone requires an architectural review by the Planning Commission on the Consent Calendar as a minor plan review process, that is the process that Mr. Miller went through, the decision of the Planning Commission is an appealable decision. To the question if there was any discussion at the Planning Commission level, the answer was no, it was approved as a Consent Calendar item, and to the question if the Fielding building is built on the property line the response was that it is believed it is. I I Ms. Fielding said again that she respects Mr. Miller's project, he has worked very long on it, stated that she too thought that he had five foot setbacks, Mr. Miller purchased his property five years after she bought her property, he was well aware of what was there, he knew that her building was on zero lot line, she was confused at first thinking that his project was five feet from the property line on all sides, it was not until she returned home and read that it had been approved by the Planning Commission did she learn that the project would be six inches away, his building will be wood, how will he ever repair his building or she her building, she can not understand how the Commission approved this, it was represented wrong, and this is an existing concern. To the question with regard to windows, Ms. Fielding confirmed that there are windows on the second story, they are used for ventilation, the second story is her living quarters, and to the question if Mr. Miller's commercial structure will block the windows, Ms. Fielding stated they will not, her second story will look over his commercial structure. Mayor Doane asked if Ms. Fielding was satisfied with the explanation of the six inch gap, to which she answered no, that Mr. Miller had told her that he could build his structure against her building, which in her opinion would be better for the security of her building because he would then need to have a soils engineer on-site. The Mayor asked if Ms. Fielding would be satisfied if he met that requirement and butted the two buildings, to that Ms. Fielding responded provided that he has the proper fire burn ball, that may be better structurally if his wall were against her building rather than six inches away. Councilman Boyd said if the Council were to sustain the appeal would the preferred condition be that a five foot setback be imposed like the residential portion of the property. Ms. Fielding stated that was what she had understood at first, that would be her first choice, she would have preferred that Mr. Miller had talked to her 6-11-01 about the project. Mayor Doane stated what is needed is a compromise. Councilman Yost noted that Ms. Fielding lives on the second floor of her building which is residential, there is a zero lotline, and asked if she was aware that if her building were new construction it would require a five foot setback, also inquired if the LC Zone was in place when she purchased her property. The answer was no, the LC Zone was put in place in about 1991. with regard to the comment that the Coastal Commission did not allow consideration of in-lieu parking, question was what is their policy now, to which the Director explained there are two different parking standards being discussed, the City, by ordinance, has parking provisions that do not match Coastal Commission guidelines for parking for commercial uses in the City, the Coastal Commission reviewed this project in 1996, after litigation between Mr. Miller and the Coastal Commission there was a settlement agreement between those parties that allowed him to construct a 1,300 square foot building without having to provide any parking for the commercial use on the property if used as a bike shop, the submittal now is the same project, anticipation is that the Commission would approve the project as they had previously. He noted that the City's in~lieu parking program is a different issue, in-lieu is always an issue with Main Street properties, as an example, the project at Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway meets the City off- street parking requirement however does not meet the Coastal Commission requirement, Coastal staff recommended denial of the project however was finally approved because the City was able to provide them information that indicates the parking on the 300 block of Main Street is generally no more than fifty to sixty percent occupied at any point in time therefore there were sufficient parking spaces to meet the concerns of the Commission, the Commission took those same types of issues into consideration in 1996 when they approved this project. To the question if this has to go back to Coastal, the answer was yes. Ms. Fielding said if the residential zoning were to go through and at some point in time she would want to sell her property as residential would that mean that her first floor would always have to remain commercial. Councilman Yost responded that her building would become a legal nonconforming residence, and if substantial changes are made it must corne into compliance with Code, it can remain where it sits provided it is within the constraints of what the building is currently. Question was if the first floor was residential could the building have a zero lot line, to which the response was no. Ms. Fielding concluded then that the first floor of her building will need to always remain commercial, to that comment was unless the zone of the street is changed. To the question as to whether any changes 'have been made to the proposed plans between 1996 and now, the Director advised that there have been no changes to the plans however there are changes to the City's approval requirement that will have to be met, initially the plans were prepared to conform to the 1994 Building Code requirements, the City has since adopted the 1997 Codes, that means all of the plans will be re-evaluated for compliance. As to whether this plan was approved by both the City and Coastal Commission in 1996 and ready to be built, the response was that it was. Mr. Miller confirmed that there have been no changes to the plans since 1996, also, if building to the zero property line with a soils engineer present is what Ms. Fielding desires that is what he will do. Councilman Boyd noted the statement that the existing building that houses the bike shop will remain, inquired as to its square footage, number of parking spaces, I I I 6-11-01 and does parking meet Code. In response, about one thousand square feet and two parking spaces. with regard to meeting Code, the Director responded that it does not, yet as a legal nonconforming what is there is what he would have to provide unless there is a request for an addition at some point in time. Mayor Doane declared the public hearing to be closed. I I Councilman Boyd indicated concern that the Coastal Commission is recommending approval of this project dependent upon the retail use bike store remain in perpetuity. The Development Services Director confirmed that that is a basic provision of the settlement agreement, it is however not unusual for the Coastal Commission to require certain types of uses for certain land use designations, the Mitchell Plaza on PCH as an example was conditioned to have only a certain amount of professional medical offices, if a change is desired it is necessary to go back before the Commission for an amendment of the permit. with regard to the six inch separation between the buildings, the Director noted that under the Building Code there are ways to design a foundation system to put a wall on the property line, it would need to meet all Fire Code requirements, it is called a skid wall, it is pre- constructed, tilted up and bolted into place, the foundation is designed differently than a standard foundation, that could be made a condition. Councilman Larson mentioned that about four years ago when he was on the Planning Commission these same parties were on the opposite sides, Ms. Fielding wanted the street to be composed of residential, Mr. Miller wanted commercial, and his evaluation was that it was a residential street with some commercial that was to be phased out, the Commission at that time recommended to the Council to take steps to clarify the issues as there would continue to be problems with the difference between setbacks for residential and commercial, that has not been done, maybe the combination of residential with commercial is not the best idea. Councilman Boyd agreed, that is why staff will be presenting a request at next meeting to commence work on changing the zoning, he has personally been an advocate of a zone change, his feeling is that the commercial/ residential mixed use has failed, a combined use that has been around for years but is no longer the trend, Seal Beach Boulevard does not necessarily lend itself to being a strongly viable commercial street, yet Mr. Miller is willing to take that opportunity, that is somewhat of a concern because it is hoped that the Council will move towards a zone change to residential, he wants to see Mr. Miller build his project yet there is concern with the setback and parking issues, the sewer issue can be worked out between the parties. The City has been very cognizant of setbacks, that reduces lot coverage, if there was a desire for a complete facade down the Boulevard as there is on Main Street then Musso would have been allowed to build from one end of their property to the other, the City did not do that, not only did the City require reduction of the number of lots from nine to eight and increased the lot width, there were other things that were contrary to what is being done here, and he would delete any provision for in-lieu parking at the earliest possible time. Councilman Boyd said he did not want to delay Mr. Miller for another twelve months while the process for a zone change is proceeding. Councilman Larson agreed that Mr. Miller should not be penalized for that process. Councilmember Campbell said she has a problem with zero lot lines, also the Fielding property is partly residential, what if Mr. Miller decides to put a second story on the commercial, that would then impact her windows and I 6-11-01 residential unit, what if she wants ,to convert to all residential, she is stuck, if Mr. Miller's project had a five foot sideyard setback she would not have a problem, this is creating a problem for future uses. Councilman Larson said if this area eventually goes to residential and Ms. Fielding has a property with no setback then everyone else will be penalized because of her property. Councilman Yost said he is aware that residential earns the property owner more money but no one ever gives up residential for commercial yet as much commercial as possible needs to be maintained for the sales tax base, in this case the project meets all of the zoning laws, meets the setback for commercial, the residential has a five foot setback, yet ironically the Fielding property does not meet the setback because her residential is on the second floor and the first floor has a zero lot line. He suggested that it would be nice if the two parties could work together to resolve some of the problems, he has a problem turning down something that meets all current laws in favor of something that might be changed at an upcoming meeting, or in turn might not be changed. Councilman Boyd said this is based on the ability of Council to make findings relating to the LC zone, there is an architectural review process, while that process has maximized the guidelines to the fullest it is within the scope of the Council to request that the guidelines be modified for certain purposes of quality of life, project viability, etc. Councilman Boyd stated that based upon hearing the discussions he would support sustaining the appeal with a condition that the setback be increased to five feet on the southerly side inasmuch as he owns the adjacent property. Councilman Yost said it must be kept in mind that this is a project that has previously been permitted through the process in 1996, does meet all laws, by City Code the commercial area is allowed a zero setback yet for this particular property the desire is to require a five foot setback, that creates a difficult situation for others who want to corne through the process for a permit under existing law. Councilman Boyd countered that that is within the discretion of the Council, and recalled the request in about 1998 for a decision on a maximized three-story property within the thirty foot limit on Main Street, that was approved, then shortly thereafter a zone text amendment was brought forth to limit the number of stories on Main Street, in that case the project was permitted and within the design review process the Council could not amend the project, and as stated, when the LC Zone was enacted it was foreseen that there may be need for architectural approval of discretionary matters. Councilman Yost once again stated that this project has been through the process, so upon what basis are new findings being made for a different approval decision from what had been approved five years ago. Mayor Doane made reference again to the six inch issue, citing the fact that Mr. Miller has said he is willing to meet the zero lot line, to do that he must then install a special fire wall. In response to a prior comment Councilman Boyd stated he was not a member of the Council in 1996, as a member of this body now it is within his discretion to change any prior recommendation. I I I Councilman Boyd moved to sustain the appeal, revising the decision of the Planning Commission to approve construction of the proposed development, subject to the terms and conditions other than those approved by the Planning Commission, this being one additional modification to require a five foot setback for the retail component on the southerly 6-11-01 side of the property. Councilmember Campbell seconded the motion for discussion. I Since there is a five foot and a zero setback, Councilmember Campbell suggested the zero lot line be between the two buildings of Mr. Miller's and the five foot setback be adjacent to the building of Ms. Fielding. Councilman Boyd said if that is in the form of a motion he would second. I The City Attorney reminded that the public hearing has been closed, to reopen the Council must make a finding. Councilman Boyd said his argument for the motion would be that Mr. Miller owns the building to the north of this project, if he wishes to affect his property with a zero lot line to his existing building he can then do so, from the conceptual drawing it does not look as if that is the case but it is difficult to determine, what he is proposing is to butt the neighboring southerly property, again the intent is to reduce density, increase open space, modify the landscape of the community, yet do that in a way that still permits a property owner the right to develop their property, requiring a five foot setback for the commercial frontage does reduce some of his interior square footage, he may take exception to that, his feeling is that that will make this a property that is architecturally and physically viable for the street, as well as address the issues of the neighbors. Councilmember Campbell said this is basically moving the project to the north placing the zero lot line to the north with a five foot setback to the south. The Director of Development Services clarified that the setback on the northerly side of the property is approximately thirteen feet, the proposed action would leave about eight feet on the northerly end of the property. I By unanimous consent, the public hearing was reopened, and noted that the persons who previously spoke were still present. Mr. Miller directed attention to the project plan, they created a large courtyard, there is a six foot handicapped ramp to bring people up to the level of the bike shop, if the idea is to start eliminating that and leave space on the south side with no possible use that destroys the entire concept, this was an attempt to build a project with a fifty-eight percent footprint that had a large courtyard, long handicapped ramp, and open areas, by moving this back it takes away the handicapped ramp and leaves a five foot space for nothing. To the question if the five foot space could be the handicapped ramp Mr. Miller responded it could not, suggesting that the building be looked at, there is no means of reaching the rear of the building, the first floor of the building next door is windowless, solid, and built on a zero property line, he could have gone to a second story and blocked the windows but he chose not to do that. Mr. Miller said that he would be opposed to the motion, the cost and the end result, stated he is offended by suggesting to go to his zero property line because he happens to own that property, if it is thought to be an economic detriment to go to the zero property line of Ms. Fielding's building, what about the economic detriment to his building, why is he being penalized because the Council is seeing this as a residential future, moving the plan over does not change that, his intent is to create a building that is attractive, now ~ suggestion for a five foot corridor down one side with absolutely no function. Mayor Doane said if this were approved would it not enhance the future of both properties should the street go to residential zoning, to remodel the 6-11-01 lower floor to make it residential, if the buildings butt each other than can not be done. Mr. Miller responded that it would not in any way because this is thought to be an attractive structure that will blend into any neighborhood. Councilman Boyd inquired of Mr. Miller how far the setback is on the northerly end, the response of Mr. Miller was that the wooden building is six feet from the property line. Councilman Boyd continued, the existing parcel is vacant, an existing parcel with a wooden building that is a two story bike shop, the existing building is set back six feet from the property line to the south, then the project proposed, how far is that set back from the property line to the north, thirteen feet, with a proposal to create some type of courtyard between the two buildings with a handicapped ramp of six feet, that leaves seven feet, if asked to reduce that to eight feet there is still the ability to have a six foot wide handicapped ramp. Mr. Miller responded that would be two feet from the ramp to the entrance to the building. Ms. Fielding said again that when Mr. Miller bought the subject property he knew the property was on the zero line, when she bought her property it was within Code, Mr. Miller continues to call his project a 1,300 square foot bicycle shop, it is being forgotten that he is putting in a 580 square foot storage room which makes it a larger commercial area, she is merely asking for the same thing that Mr. Miller is asking, he will be able to turn his existing property into residential, he is going to turn the new property into residential, she is asking for only what he has allowed himself to do by the way he has prepared his plan. Mayor Doane declared the public hearing closed. I Councilman Larson offered that he did not feel the Council was ready to vote on this matter, and moved a substitute motion that this matter be continued to the next meeting with a strong suggestion that Mr. Miller and Ms. Fielding consult with the Director of Development Services and develop some form of mutual agreement as each are right and wrong. Councilman Yost seconded the substitute motion. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried The City Attorney advised that the public hearing has been closed for the next meeting unless staff is directed to renotice the hearing. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - STATE ADVOCACY SERVICES - MANATT. PHELPS & PHILLIPS The City Manager presented the staff report relating to the request for State advocacy services, noted the City has a number of project requests pending in Sacramento such as the tennis center, sand groin repair, water quality grants, Prop 13 projects, sand replenishment, etc., the City was recently faced with the possibility of losing monies from the Coastal Conservancy, that took considerable staff time to turn the State agencies around to work with the City's legislators. The concern of staff is that the City may want to have someone who can advocate for the City, Del Smith is an advocate in Washington, D. C., that has worked well, this would help the City in Sacramento with some of these issues as it relates to the State budget. Councilman Larson mentioned that Manatt, Phelps & Phillips is a very qualified firm and he has no question as to what is foreseen as the need, however the contract is in letter form with the first few lines covering what their services will be, the remainder I 6-11-01 I covers fees, extraordinary expenses, late charges and unpaid bills, termination of engagement, arbitration of disputes, retainer, and the effective date of the agreement. Councilman Larson said he would like a further definition of what the City will realize as services, something to the effect that the City Manager will receive a report when services are rendered and for what, that their billings specify their services rather than the flat fee of $2,000 per month, identification of the key people who will be providing services, there should be a hold harmless clause to make certain they have adequate insurance, that they are an independent contractor and not an employee, provision that they will comply with the Political Reform Act, that their records will be maintained for an adequate time, and a termination date specified. He suggested that this item be referred to the City Attorney for revision to include those items. Councilman Boyd moved to approve the revisions as suggested by Councilman Larson and that this item be referred to the City Attorney as requested. Councilman Larson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried I The City Attorney clarified that their standard Professional Services Agreement will be prepared for next meeting to include indemnification, insurance, etc. and that the City Manager will contact the firm to provide a more precise identification of their tasks. To a question posed by Councilmember Campbell, Councilman Boyd stated he had referred the firm, Scott Baugh is their local representative and is quite effective in Sacramento. I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4907 - ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY - LONG TERM BONDED INDEBTEDNESS The City Manager presented the staff report, explained that the proposed Resolution would approve the issuance of long term indebtedness by the Orange County Fire Authority, under the ten year contract each member agency needs to approve said indebtedness, with two-thirds approval the bonding can go forward. The Manager noted that the Council received a briefing relating to the Regional Fire Operations and Training Center at a recent meeting, this City is a cash contract city with a contract cap of three and a half percent, the indebtedness will not impact Seal Beach more than the three and a half percent, and in this fiscal year because of the service charges and compensation increase for the Fire Authority staff Seal Beach has reached the cap therefore will not be subject to the debt service. Ms. Lori Zeller, Orange County Fire Authority Treasurer, was recognized. To the question as to this cost to the City of Seal Beach, Councilman Boyd explained that there is no fixed cost, it is spread as an incremental cost as a contract city, as was stated the City has a ten year contract with a three and a half percent cap, the entire project will cost $50.4 million, the cost is not applied incrementally per jurisdiction, Seal Beach pays for regional fire protection. The City Manager said he believed that the issue is if the City were not at the three and a half percent what would the cost be, for 2001-2002 the debt service would be about $73,000, this year the cap has been met therefore there will be no debt service. Ms. Zeller confirmed that the maximum for Seal Beach will be three and a half percent, this year 6-11-01 there is no debt service due from Seal Beach and that could likely be the case for the ten year term, and as stated, had the cap not been met for 2000-2001 the debt service would have been $73,000. Councilman Boyd mentioned that this is a nine year financing package, about fifty-three percent of the project is being paid in cash, the remainder is the $25 million bond issue. Boyd moved, second by Larson, to adopt Resolution Number 4907 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF LONG-TERM BONDED INDEBTEDNESS BY THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE REGIONAL FIRE OPERATIONS AND TRAINING CENTER." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4907 was waived. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report was presented. CITY MANAGER REPORT No report was presented. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Campbell announced that the Colle&e Park East Neighborhood Association will be hosting the 11t Annual Bicycle Parade, Barbecue and Chili Cook-Off on the 4th of July. Councilman Larson said he finds it nicer to be on the City Council than on the Planning Commission. Mayor Doane mentioned that he is pleased to have received so many telephone calls and cards pledging support upon his selection as Mayor, that he will work hard to live up to the expectations. I ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned the meeting until Monday, June 25th at 5:00 p.m. to conduct a second budget workshop. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting/a~10:03 p.m. I I ! ! I clerk \ C ~y Clerk and Ithe City of Approved: I Attest: