Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2002-04-08 4-8-02 Seal Beach, California April 8, 2002 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:03 p.m. with Mayor Doane calling the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Doane Councilmembers Boyd, Larson, Yost Absent: Councilmember Campbell Councilmember Campbell arrived at 6:12 p.m. Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Ms. Arends-King, Director of Administrative Services Ms. Yeo, City Clerk The City Attorney advised that this would be the time for members of the public to speak to the items identified on the agenda. No comments were made. I The City Attorney announced that the City Council would adjourn to the Conference Room to meet in Closed Session to confer with legal counsel relating to anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.9(a) and (b), thereafter would hold a Council workshop relating to proposed Municipal Code revisions, a review of Chapters 1 through 3, and new revisions of Chapters 4 and 6. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:05 p.m. and reconvened at 6:10 p.m. The City Attorney reported that the Council had discussed the Closed Session items identified on the agenda, no reportable action was taken. Mayor Doane called the workshop session to order. I WORKSHOP - MUNICIPAL CODE REVISIONS The City Attorney offered for consideration Municipal Code Titles 4 and 6, Title 4 generally streamlines current provisions, because of Propositions 13, 64, and 208 no changes were made to the content of the various City taxes, most existed before Proposition 13, others preceded Proposition 208, there was an attempt to streamline Title 4 as much possible however that was not possible with some sections as it would change the content therefore the language was left as it exists, a comparison of language was provided the Council in the agenda packet. Councilmember Campbell arrived at 6:12 p.m. Councilman Larson pointed out that there is going to be a new member of the City Council, he does not want the new member to be told that this is something that this Council adopted, his preference is that this process be slowed to some degree so that the new member of the Council is not presented with this large volume of paper to then be voted on. Councilman Larson said if there happens to be errors or omissions, something that would create problems, he prefers that the 4-8-02 responsibility lie with someone other than'the members of the Council. The City Attorney said the comments were well taken, Title 4 and 6 are forty-four and sixty-eight pages respectively, considerable information even though substantive changes were not made, he agreed that it would not seem fair to impose such a massive document on a new member of the Council, therefore after this session he was uncertain as to when another portion of the revision would be ready. The City Manager mentioned that there are upcoming budget workshops and hearings, possibly this task can be postponed until after budget adoption. The Attorney stated that the new Councilperson will be provided with all of the materials thus far. I Councilman Larson noted that there are misdemeanors and infractions for Code violations, and requested an explanation of the administrative penalty. The City Attorney explained that there has been a trend in a number of cities to have a third category for things that are not infractions yet are violations of the Code, this is an area of revision that will require considerably more work, he and the staff will be doing further review to determine minor infractions, thus far there have only been a few at that level. The City Manager said a number of cities are giving building inspectors administrative citation authority to issue what is basically a ticket for something that is deemed to be a minor violation of the Code, that is the procedure as opposed to calling out a Code enforcement officer, another reason for the administrative citation is that in the case of infractions or misdemeanors that go to court they are often not filed on because they do not meet the threshold, the city will often establish a process whereby a retired judge or attorney will hear the matter, and agreed that this process would be similar to that for a vehicle violation citation. The City Attorney clarified that this person would only hear appeals, they would be held at City Hall, most people merely pay the fine, this has been proven to, be quite effective in other cities. Councilman Larson said he was astonished at the number of taxes there are, some can be used for any purpose, others can only be used for a specific purpose. The Director of Administrative Services stated that from an accounting point of view, and the auditors agree, under the Community Services Fee she would like to change the wording relating to delinquencies so that it coincides with the water bills, due in twenty days after the billing date with a ten percent penalty after thirty-six days, that under the section entitled 'Collection.' Councilman Larson recalled that during the election relating to the street sweeping and tree trimming fees it was understood and the voters were informed that those fees were limited to that purpose, to that the City Attorney said that is likely under Proposition 218. The Administrative Services Director said it would be difficult to track delinquent fees if the same payment time frame is not used. The Director made reference to the Transportation Impact Development Fee, stated she has set those fees up as a deposit account to the General Fund, interest is allocated to that account, would this not be considered the same as a reserve account, the response was that is thought to be true however will be confirmed. The Director made reference to Section 4.10, Special Funds, and inquired as to what the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund is and is it needed, the response was that it will be looked at as it is felt it is no longer necessary. The Director noted that an account is established in the General Fund for the Self Insured Loss Reserve for workers comp and liability, therefore is the separate Fund I I 4-8-02 I still necessary, the City is required to have $900,000 in the General Fund for insurance, an OCCRMA requirement, the auditors also set up a reserve for the minimum self insured. It was noted that this Fund was established years ago when the City went to self insured. The Attorney said it was believed that subsection "A" relates to workers comp, "B" was thought to be the OCCRMA liability reserve fund, if it could be determined when that provision went into the Code the rationale would likely be determined. The Director stated that when that Fund is shown separately it looks as if those monies are not General Fund yet they are, it is somewhat confusing in that the reserves need to be shown on the balance sheet. The Director referred to the title 'Disposition' under the Environmental Reserve Tax, stated that a deposit account has also been established for that, interest is allocated to it, that just makes the accounting much easier, easier to find. The Attorney noted that this was a pre- Proposition tax, it is uncertain if it needs to be segregated. The Director responded that if it does not need to be segregated she would prefer that it not be. I Councilman Boyd inquired as to the process to increase a tax, to place it on the November ballot, or would it necessarily require voter approval. The City Attorney stated it would depend on the nature of the tax, if it is a special tax the answer is yes, under Proposition 22 it would need to go to a general election. It was clarified that the deadline for placing a measure on the November ballot is August 9th, a preferable date would be in July. Councilman Boyd made reference to the Transient Occupancy Tax and placing an increase on the ballot, it is now nine percent, lower than most cities in the County, the City can either tax itself or tax the visitors. The City Attorney mentioned that after Proposition 64 was reconfirmed, first declared to be unconstitutional then reconfirmed, many cities increased the TOT rather than the Utility Users Tax. To the question as to what the general percentage is in other cities, staff responded that Long Beach is twelve percent, Anaheim is thought to be thirteen percent, the median is about ten percent. Question was raised as to the current TOT revenue, the response of staff was about $200,000, yet there is the new Ayres Hotel and potential for another. It was noted that the revenue could increase by $15,000 to $20,000. The City Attorney inquired if the Council wished to explore an increase of the TOT, the City Manager indicated that would be part of the budget presentation. I Councilman Larson made reference to the Real Property Transfer Tax and the exceptions, and inquired how that is affected by a family trust, it is not a sale so possibly it is not covered. The Attorney offered to look into that question. It was mentioned that staff has not had an opportunity. to review Titles 4 and 6 as yet therefore there may be additional comments forthcoming. The Finance Director stated that there were no questions other than the accounts for receipt of funds, keeping them separate rather than mixed and then interest is allocated thereto. The Attorney said he just wanted to make certain that the Code is not changed to where revenue is not forthcoming. To Title 6, Franchises, the City Attorney stated that there are some changes, when a comparison chart is prepared it will be easier to see the changes, at this point Title 6 is somewhat of a preview. The Attorney mentioned that their hands were somewhat tied in that there are existing cable and 4-8-02 waste contract franchises as well as some for oil and gas, they attempted to modernize the cable ordinance to account for new technology, an example would be Open Video Systems which he was not certain as to what that is specifically. Councilman Larson inquired if there is anything that would provide for any further control that the City might have in that the law has been variable as to what can and can not be done relating to cable. The Attorney said the language is state of the art, their firm has been developing a new ordinance in this area for many years yet every few years the law changes which again requires revisions. with respect to the waste franchise, in effect since 1986, they tried to revise some of the language however there is not much difference from what was done three years ago, the attempt was to clarify language where there have been problems in the past, recurring issues regarding recycling, issues relating to interpretation, addressing some ambiguous language. I The City Attorney said again that when the comparison charts are completed this review will be more easily read, however the charts are not easy in that_ there are wholesale changes in order to streamline the Code in terms of placement, matching, make it more user friendly and understandable, and deal with new technology. It is believed there will be twelve Titles. Zoning will be held over pending the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan revisions, Business Regulations will be difficult and there will be a need for greater staff involvement, that Chapter was done somewhat piecemeal, it is difficult to understand, in the end it will be more understandable for those who wish to do'business in the City so they can readily see the requirements and fees. He noted that there will be no changes in terms of actual fee amounts. I Councilmember Campbell inquired if there is a park policy in one specific place, the response of staff was that there is, believed to be in the Policy Manual. Councilmember Campbell said at one time she drafted a park policy where all provisions were in one place yet it was never considered. The City Manager mentioned that there are things in the current Code that could lead the City to problems, they are out of date and unenforceable, news racks, parades and processions are examples. The City Attorney mentioned that they will be addressing the issue of news racks, signs and banners another issue, those are sensitive areas, for anything that touches on First Amendment rights it is difficult to prepare something that makes everyone happy or is subject to challenge, and noted that in Buena Park it has taken about three years to develop a news rack ordinance, some cities are requiring uniform racks particularly in areas like Main Street, Buena Park will require that all news racks be a certain model, double stacked, there will be limits and spacing requirements, all of the large newspapers are supporting and agreeing to the ordinance except for one distributor of approximately three hundred publications, he does not want uniform racks and feels it is discriminatory to have a limit on the number of racks, that city made significant concessions in terms of priorities for pre- existing publications at certain locations, the big issue is to make sure that no one is foreclosed from the street, therefore when the spacing requirements are developed staff will need to do a survey of what currently exists. The Development Services Director said he believed what had been previously determined was eight at anyone location with spacing requirements and a common design. Councilman Larson stated it is basically a matter of negotiation to get the I 4-8-02 newspapers to agree. The City Attorney mentioned that some of the large papers have attorneys that deal with news rack issues only on a daily basis. I ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourned the workshop at 6:50 p.m. Approved: tI)~ ayor Attest: Seal Beach, California April 8, 2002 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 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 Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Danes, Director of Public works/City Engineer Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilman Yost requested that Item "0" be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration. Boyd moved, second by Larson, to approve the order of the agenda as revised. With regard to taking action on the Lampson Avenue Paving Project, Councilmember Campbell was advised that there was no conflict with her voting on the item. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried 4-8-02 ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Doane mentioned that the 10K Run was very successful, it was a great day, good turnout, the Chamber and the community worked hard to make it a success. With regard to the discussions with Boeing relating to their future project, Mayor Doane noted that the City worked closely with the Boeing representative Gary powley and announced his sudden passing this past week, the City will miss him as he was a fine gentleman. I PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATION Mayor Doane read the "National Public Safety Dispatcher Week" proclamation in full, recognizing same for the week of April 8th through the 14th, 2002, and presented the Proclamation to Ms. Lisa Barr, supervisor, and Ms. Trish Glut, lead dispatcher, at the West Comm Center. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Doane declared the Public Comment period to be open. Mr. Charles Antos, Seal Beach, said he has been a planner for thirty years, has worked in redevelopment, affordable housing, an appointed member of the Orange County Housing Authority, an appeals officer for the Authority, has dealt with senior projects, a number of low income and senior type issues. He stated that at present Seal Beach has approximately sixty-five hundred or more low and moderate income units in the City, that number has existed in each census since 1970, at the prior meeting the Council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, approved a resolution for the renovation of a four unit building at 1119 Ocean Avenue, his understanding is that the terms of that will require that the building be available for low and moderate income for a period of twenty to twenty-five years and that this program will likely be expanded citywide. Mr. Antos said he received several calls relating to this matter, there may be a problem that the City likely did not look at, all of the units in the community that are eligible tend to be buildings that are between thirty to fifty years old, this particular building has four units on a twenty-five foot lot, today if that property were vacant one house could be built on it, typically the private market at some point has the older buildings removed and replaced with something that is to Code. The problem is that if the City enters into a contractual agreement with someone and they are required to provide four low and moderate units for twenty-five years, that perpetuates non-conforming units for that period of time, and offered the scenario that the occupants are out of the building, the structure catches fire, burns down, the owner then has the right to approach the City inasmuch as the person has an obligation to provide four units on that property therefore has a right to a building permit to rebuild the four unit building, then the life of the new four unit building is another forty to sixty years. Mr. Antos concluded the only buildings that will be eligible under the low/moderate income program are very old with many units, that will pose a problem in the area, thought should be given to this before it is done elsewhere in the community, or if possible do not do this one. Mr. Jim Caviola, Ocean Avenue, stated that the building that the City wants to turn into low income housing is next to his house, the reason he built his house was because it was R-l zoned. Mr. Caviola stated that currently he has no representation, calls are not being returned, there is a District Attorney investigation, there I I 4-8-02 I is a runoff election, the City has chosen to make this decision, to make a decision to impact his property rights, which is the foundation of what this country is about. If the referenced investigation reaches indictment it is ultimately a criminal act, it involved the sale of a trailer park to a person through a limited partnership which had previously purchased a deal in Laguna Beach, he has the records, this is the same thing. Mr. Caviola said when he and others remove concrete to plant trees at the expense of the individual doing the improvement they are required to notify the residents, he was not notified of the proposed building improvements for low/moderate income people next to him, not even a courtesy, why was there not a town hall meeting, this matter is rent control, subsidized housing on a three quarters of a million dollar property, property owners have rights, also, you can not use the low/moderate housing money outside the project area, this is an improper use of redevelopment money, this is committal of $400,000, what could the City build for $400,000, a lot more than four units, this is irresponsible, it is thought that a lesson would have been learned from the Trailer Park sale, under the circumstances of the value of real estate, this kind of rent control, subsidized, low income housing deserves at a minimum a town hall meeting. He stated his belief that the City is not informed enough to make an intelligent decision about the powers of the Redevelopment Agency, personally he wants to pay the debt and get rid of the Agency, no matter if there is a penalty because the low/moderate monies have not been spent for years. He stated there is no continuity of representation in this City, proposition 40 is the largest bond issue in the history United States, he personally flew to Sacramento, met with the City's Assembly representative, $2.6 billion yet there is no discussion about it, no grant applications, but now the City is going to subsidize housing with the residents tax money, what is the incentive for people to work hard to buy property, this is a proposal to give money to a limited partnership in Laguna Beach to purchase a three quarter of a million dollar property under the guise of helping the poor, this is the same kind of deal as the Trailer Park. Mr. Caviola claimed that he had been told that on April 22nd the Council would vote to have citywide rent control, these are R-l zones and why values are nice here, this needs to be thought out, this proposal will do millions of dollars of damage to the value of the real estate in this community. Councilman Yost asked that this subject matter be placed on the next Agency agenda. Mr. Chi Kredell, Seal Beach, agreed with the prior speaker, and invited anyone who does not want low income housing in the most expensive area of Seal Beach to come to the next Council meeting. Mr. Kredell recalled there being an overflow Council Chambers crowd when the rezoning of Old Town properties was considered, at the time he was told that if a twenty-five foot property were rezoned to single family it would not work, that was late 1970's, in the first year eighteen properties were built as single family dwellings, since then the regulations have been diluted from twenty-five feet in height to about thirty feet or higher with the doghouses, also, duplexes are now going to single family not the opposite, downtown is the most expensive area in all of Seal Beach, why not have low/moderate housing in College Park East or the Hill or Leisure World. The 1119 Ocean property is worth a quarter of a million, does not even have adequate parking for four units, it only has three parking spaces but requires four, the description of the property says that the contractor will put in balconies, stucco the outside for a I I 4-8-02 price of about $10,000, it is said that $150,000 will be spent on the upgrade, then where is the other $250,000, understood too that the City will subsidize this property for a minimum of twenty-five years. Mr. Kredell noted that some seventy homes will be built on the Hellman land, where is the low cost housing there, where is the low cost housing for Centex homes, the Ocean Avenue property could be rebuilt for $100 per square foot, it is not believed the building is even four thousand square feet. Mr. Kredell said he does not know where the Council gets the idea that it is alright to tread on the downtown area. I Ms. Laura Brecht, 6th Street, said as a member of the Long Beach Yacht Club she wished to encourage people to turn out to watch the Congressional Cup which takes place starting Tuesday through Saturday off of the Belmont Pier, the ten top skippers in the world. Ms. Brecht stated that she had written a letter to the editor of the Sun newspaper a couple of weeks ago in which she pointed out that this is the fifth time Mr. Antos has run for the same position since 1986, many old time residents remember September, 1983 when the then City Manager terminated the planner for conflict of interest for having a financial interest in a unit in the Seal Beach Trailer Park which had an application pending for the construction of a cabana for which the plans were processed by Mr. Antos for approval by the Planning Commission. Ms. Brecht showed a copy of a news article relating to that issue. She noted that the termination was appealed, the City agreed to drop the conflict of interest charges, reinstated him so that could resign in November of 1983. Ms. Brecht said it appears that her Council representative also has a conflict of interest issue and has lent his support to Mr. Antos, of interest is that both conflicts stemmed from the Trailer Park. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, asked that something be done about the loudness of the street sweeper in Old Town at 4:00 a.m. Ms. Corbin asked for ,an investigation as to who has provided information from the personnel records of Mr. Antos, who is in possession of them, how often this has occurred, if the Police Chief does not want to do this then hand the matter over to the District Attorney, the Grand Jury, or the Attorney General, laws have been violated. It also needs to be determined why people are going to organizations that are not political action committees and using them as an arm of the City to defeat a candidate, the same group of people have done this for years. Ms. Corbin claimed that the Council could very well be sued in their individual capacities, the City does not pay for that, the City Attorney needs to report any malfeasance, that is a duty, it will be much more difficult if an outside agency comes down on the City. She mentioned too that the newspaper reported that candidate Pearce asked candidate Miller to withdraw from the election, that is illegal, and candidate Antos asked for a retraction, there is a legal and moral obligation to give him that retraction. I Ms. Joyce Parque, 6th Street, said as of last Thursday she was informed of the Agency and Council approval of Resolution Number 4992, she requested a form to appeal that approval and was advised to address her concerns to the Council, her issue is that when noticed in the newspaper it said nothing about $400,000, it only said public improvements and facilities, housing improvements, acquisitions, rehabilitation, deed restriction of aging multi-family project, and asked if she could appeal approval of the Resolution. The City Attorney advised that there is no appeal process for these types of I 4-8-02 I decisions of the Councilor Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Parque stated no one in the City deserves that much power. With regard to the Trailer Park said the people paid to have the old trailers taken out so Riverbeach could be developed, the people were told that was low income housing, now they are told the City does not have that, either pay the penalty or do the low/moderate housing, she would like to see the City pay the penalty, again, no one deserves the power to tell the people, without an appeal, why this has to be done. With regard to the upcoming election, Ms. parque noted that candidate Pearce is in favor of Section 8 housing, that is rent control, and read a letter from candidate Pearce in response to questions she had posed to the candidate, to that Ms. parque said if that candidate is elected there will be Section 8 housing and her hope is that it will be in every neighborhood because the residents of Old Town do not deserve this. It has been said that this property rehabilitation is by a local developer yet it is known that is not true, he is from Laguna Beach, said that the building is in need of repair yet there are persons who pay rent there, and her question is what are the federal guidelines for low income since the City would be paying the difference. I Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, announced that the Homeowners Association will meet on April 11th at the Senior Center, there will be a report from Boeing, there are always other interesting topics to discuss, and candidates night will be April 24th. Mr. Shanks said for years he has pointed out the weaknesses and problems with redevelopment agencies, they sound good but something always comes up, at some point the State legislature will give agencies more thought. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach resident for over forty years, stated that the people here are not ready for subsidized housing, especially in Old Town where property is so expensive, over the years people have worked hard for their properties, if there is going to be subsidized housing the City should find something less expensive than Old Town. Ms. Olson stated she sat in on the Civil Service Board meetings relating to the Antos matter, there was nothing to it, the then Manager and Councilperson wanted him gone because he knew too much, and now there is a need to have someone sitting on Council who knows about planning. Mr. Walt Miller, Seal Beach, made reference to the grass that has been planted in the parkways on Seal Beach Boulevard, it is dying where there is commercial traffic, he asked for staff to look at it, they have not, he has sixty-two feet of grass, it is dying because there is a preschool next to his property where drop-offs and pickups are made, his request for concrete instead of grass was turned down, asked for a handicapped ramp, that too was turned down, there is such an effort to make the Boulevard a residential street yet there is still commercial activity. Again, he would like someone to look at the grass, he should not be charged with having to keep the parkway green for his neighbor's drop-offs, it is a City responsibility, she pays taxes to the City for her business as does he. Mr. Greg Miller, Sandpiper Bike Shop, said he believes that the people of Seal Beach deserve more 'than what they are given, people should see what the Council does while people are addressing them, they do not listen, there is someone on Council that rents, has no investment in the town, no one on Council cares about the problems, there is dead grass on his street, the City took care of it for ninety days, it was mowed and watered two or three times a week, now they want, the property/business owners to take care of it, this town is a joke. I 4-8-02 Ms. Jane McCloud, Balboa Drive, made reference to the Orange County Fire Authority, on March 28th the Board of Directors felt they could only make a regulatory decision, the representative from Dana Point, knowing they were going to lose engines and volunteer units, tried to work on behalf of Seal Beach to have a motion made whereby this community would be able to retain one engine in Old Town as well as the role of the volunteers for fires, rescue, as well as medical emergencies. The majority of those who voted to accept the OCFA regulatory changes felt they could not make a decision on operations, only a decision on regulations, it was felt that operations decisions were up to the Authority themselves. She mentioned that the majority of those in attendance and spoke at that meeting were from Seal Beach, and in addition to the thirty some signatures in support of this community that had been given to Council, by the time of that meeting she had eight hundred thirty-six signatures, about eight hundred of those were from Seal Beach, business owners, employees, or residents, three hundred thirty were residents of Leisure World, since then she has been getting calls from various Leisure World groups asking her to speak, they have great concerns with the decisions being made. Ms. McCloud said given the fact that the members of the Council voted unanimously to retain the volunteer program as it has been in the past she would hope that the Council could begin to initiate a quest to see what operational decisions can be made so that there can be a similar program to what there has been in the past, such program exists in villa Park, Sunset Beach, Modjeska Canyon, Silverado Canyon, and one other area, this community remains unique regardless of the changes, there are bridges, the community is isolated in many areas, and now only half the manpower that can deal with major incidents of fire, etc. because help will be coming from out of town and possibly not available to Seal Beach. She has heard that there has been discussion with the Weapons Station and their engine can be used if needed even though they need to meet their Base needs first, also that there may be an aerial truck placed at Beverly Manor but there is no staff, and no longer can the City's most capable volunteers be that staff. Again, Ms. McCloud requested that the Council initiate some means of dealing with the operations issue and the volunteer program, or will it be necessary to petition for a ballot measure, her hope would be that it be at the Council level. Ms. Beverly Pearce, Seal Beach, agreed that the City lost its local control of the fire department when it chose to go with the County, she has stated before that she favors local control, but with that there comes a responsibility to educate the public. She too has received a number of calls regarding fire services and the property on Ocean being declared for low/moderate income housing, she believes that there is a place in this country to assist seniors on fixed incomes, she does not mind that her tax dollars are used for that, also believes that there is a place for assisting low and moderate income people in Orange County, an example of a moderate income person is a teacher with a spouse that does not work and two children, her belief is that they deserve to be renters in Seal Beach also, if that is an unpopular belief then she apologizes, and she has promised to tell the truth and let the people know where she stands on issues, her fear is that by acting both during a time when District One is a lame duck election that there is a perception that decisions are being made regarding districts that have no representation, the second problem is that these are such complex issues, the General Plan has a low and moderate income component, that is a necessity, as I I I 4-8-02 I well as the Redevelopment Agency, and if the Agency were to be disbanded, there would still be a component for low and moderate income housing in the General Plan for the very things that she supports, seniors on fixed income, people who are ill, disabled, struggling young families, this is the reason the law exists, the problem is with the action being taken at this time. When these complex issues come up, like the upcoming budget, it is important that the Council not wait for the public to educate themselves or wait for the little public announcements, some people simply do not understand what they mean, the Council needs to be proactive if one wants to be good City representatives, take the message to the people in any way possible, if it means that when the community is not in an election mode one needs to continue to knock on doors, then that is what should be done, if it means that the City needs to spend some money to buy space in the newspaper to describe an issue, then possibly that is what should be done, if it means letting people register their e-mail addresses at City Hall so that more information can be sent to them for free, maybe that should be done, if there is a problem with not enough staff to do that then the City should reach out to its volunteers, she would like to see the City work harder at this, address all of the issues to be best of ability. Ms. Pearce offered her preference that rather than choosing a property in town, no matter what district, perhaps look at getting back the vouchers, set someone up to do a little housing authority locally where tenants that already live in town could be provided with assistance instead of bringing in new people. In reference to the prior comments Ms. Seretta Fielding, Seal Beach Boulevard, stated there is already a group of people in place, she is the District One representative for the H/CD program which years ago dealt with low/moderate income housing. She suggested that since the city is mandated to do this, that consideration be given to using the $400,000 to assist people who are already in the community and who have low to moderate income qualifications, think about how far the $400,000 could be stretched, the local committee already has a representative in place from each district and could inform people in their district that there is money available to assist them. I I Mr. Ron Stevenson, representing the Seal Beach Spoiled Dogs Society, stated there was a bit of confusion after the last meeting where there was a vote to deny the request for Zoeter Field use based upon a change of law, the Society saw this as somewhat of a victory in that they did not see the request as a need to change the law to begin with, the transmitted message as of this date reiterates the fact that in the Recreation Guide dog obedience training takes place off-leash at Marina Park, he has asked on a number of occasions that the same permit that is used for Marina Park also be used as a license for the Seal Beach Spoiled Dogs Society to use Zoeter Field. Mr. Stevenson said he has attended three meetings and has yet to hear anyone speak against their request, for now he would ask that the City Attorney respond to how the Society can get a permit similar to that for Marina Park to allow the play by a group of individuals that occurred for over two years without incident or violation, to hopefully come to a quick decision for a trial period which would allow the various issues that were brought up to be tested, failing that there is, if need be, a law already on the books of Orange County that in effect says that the City Council has the ability to permit special usage of fields, that is the way it is done in Huntington Beach for use of the 4-8-02 water facilities. Mr. Stevenson expressed appreciation for the time that has been spent, it has been six months since they were asked to leave the Field for understandable reasons to seek clarity for the use of the Field so that it is not in conflict with law, that it is responsibly used at designated times and hopefully provide a blueprint for how other facilities can be maintained and utilized in the same responsible manner. I Ms. Mary Michaelian, Aster Street, stated she was present to address the tree issue on Aster, Basswood, and Candleberry, initially she had a petition of one hundred plus names which was submitted to the City Manager, also, nine persons in addition to the Manager, Mr. Eagle, and herself met and spoke to the issue of keeping the trees. She mentioned that they now have the opportunity to stand by the paper drop-off bin at the corner of Aster and Almond where most everyone delivering papers signed a paper to save the trees, one person who happens to be in this room did not and could not sign, there are many more signatures in addition to the hundred therefore it seems to her that there are more people in favor of keeping the trees than destroying them. Ms. Michaelian mentioned that it was initially said there was a root rot problem, to that she had asked for a horticulturist opinion, in the first meeting with the Manager she had been informed that such a report would have more authority than the two arborist reports, the arborist reports were provided by two condominium residents who had obtained the reports on their own, in her opinion they could have been biased, the horticulturist determined that a pathological chemical analysis could be done of each tree which would determine if there was in fact a root rot problem, there needs to be that testing, if every other tree were to be taken out and if found to have the root rot how could one expect that the every other tree that they are trying to leave in place does not have the same problem. The other issue was fire blight which is said to be common to this particular flowering pear tree, it often goes untreated but does not cause the demise of the tree, it can be treated, the fire blight branches can be cut out, or sprayed, it seems there is no evidence of fire blight yet if it were so one would see the brown leaves or branches falling onto the parkway, which is not seen, not even with a recent high wind. ,She commented that the trees currently look healthier than ever, and it seems that by allowing them to grow up and out, according to the initial memo it was recommended that spacing be provided because they wanted the trees to lace out and then trim the trees, they have not been trimmed but they have laced out as was requested for a crowned effect. Ms. Michaelian said she was interested in knowing how the trees to be removed were chosen, on the corner of Candleberry there are three trees, two are marked to be destroyed, one is being kept, staff stated that a sapling tree would be planted next to the mature tree, why would they not want to keep two mature trees rather than a mature tree and a small tree, it was stated also that the trees could be pushed over, but she feels that may apply to only a couple of trees. She mentioned that any tree could fall and cause a liability, but that is only a potential, there is a more current liability with some of the streets, Birchwood an example, where there are large cracks where if children on bikes get their wheel inside the gully they could in fact fall in the front of a car, to her that is a current liability, the potential liability of a tree falling over does not seem to be evident at this point in time. Ms. Michaelian said when she called the Manager to I I I I I 4-8-02 establish a meeting she was informed that the permit had already been signed to take out the trees, she was informed too that it had already been discussed, at that point she called her Council representative to have this issue placed on the agenda, why would the Manager have the authority to remove fifty percent of the trees, they are beautiful, in many parts of the country trees are placed close together, they do not fall over, have root rot, that seems to be a problem that does not need to be addressed at this point. She asked that if it is necessary to evaluate each tree that it be done before trees are cut down so that the beauty and integrity of the causeway can be maintained in this parkway as there are only a few parkways. Ms. Maria Coles, Birchwood Avenue, confirmed that Birchwood is dangerous, with holes, cracks, etc., it is a liability, she walks the area, when she arrives home in the evening she often travels the left lane because of knowing of the danger, yet there are youth in the neighborhood who often pay no attention to speed limits, and requested that Birchwood be considered for repaving. Mr. Artie Gilkins, Old Ranch Townhomes, said his concern is with the liability, his understanding is that in 1975 when the townhomes were built one of the requirements was that the condominium association would maintain the trees, the parkway belongs to the City, he believes, the trees belong to the City yet the association is responsible for the trimming. He noted that the problem has come up that the trees are diseased, are root rotted, he personally found three trees that are moveable, they could likely be saved if the trees are staked and wired, yet if they are a problem they should be taken out so they do not fall. Mr. Gilkins stated that two meetings have been held at the townhomes, the first attended by fifteen couples who are residents of the townhomes, the second was five or six residents, at the first meeting the, Board determined to remove every other tree, the question is how does one know whether it is a good or bad tree, they may be pretty yet is this right from a liability standpoint. Mr. Gilkins said his recommendation would be to remove any and all trees that are clear and health proven liabilities to the City and College Park East, and do it in a proper way, do not remove any tree that need not be removed, have the City take over the control of the trimming of those trees, have the City make the decision on any removal or repairs utilizing appropriate services. Mr. Nate Kranda, 5th Street, spoke to the fire services issues, expressed appreciation to all who came forward to speak for the volunteer program, the problem is the people in other communities do not understand this City, it is not certain where Seal Beach wants to go at this point with regard to maintaining volunteer fire services in Seal Beach, the public needs to get used to seeing fire trucks from other cities in the community, an example was Saturday evening with two back to back calls, he would hope the Council would request the City Attorney to look into the contract with the Orange County Fire Authority, having lived in this community his entire life the volunteer fire program has been like an unwritten rule. Mr. Kranda noted that Seal Beach is surrounded by other large departments, Huntington Beach and Long Beach as examples, there may be other things to be looked at, it is hoped that the fire contract will be looked at for possible violations with the removal of the volunteer program. There being no other comments, Mayor Doane declared Public Comments to be closed. 4-8-02 with regard to the Redevelopment Agency issue and notice, Councilman Yost asked what is the required notice for something like the 1119 Ocean matter, is something in the newspaper all that is required and how can it be changed if something is proposed to occur in close proximity to another persons property. The City Attorney responded that staff fully complied with the legal requirements for notice, it is believed that for the April 22nd meeting there may be additional notice, the Agency always has the ability to supplement the State law required notices with additional noticing. Councilman Yost likened this issue to the Seal Beach Boulevard proposed name change to Bay Street without notification, to him it is better to notify people ahead of time as to what is transpiring, his request would be to notice anyone who would be affected prior to the next meeting, with regard to the multi-family unit that was proposed to be funded for upgrade, given the testimony at this meeting is there any recourse to change the initial decision of the Council. The City Attorney advised that unlike a quasi-judicial hearing for a Conditional Use Permit where once the Council makes a decision the only recourse is to go to court, the decision reached by the Agency and Council could be reviewed, contracts have to be implemented, therefore the issue is not finalized at this time, if the Council would like further information staff can be directed to provide that. Councilman Yost requested that that be so directed. The Director of Development Services confirmed that there will be two items on the April 22nd Agency agenda, one is consideration of the AB 1290 Implementation Plan, a requirement of the Redevelopment Agency, whereby it needs to be indicated how the Agency anticipates spending its low/moderate income housing funds over the next five year period, in addition it was anticipated to come back to the Agency at that meeting with program guidelines for assistance to persons throughout the community to upgrade existing residential units, owner occupied and renter occupied, this is similar to the program that was brought to the Council some four years ago where a major part of that was FHA Title I funding however the federal government has abandoned that program, that took a major component away from the City, and confirmed that program was through Civic Stone. Councilman Larson mentioned that in two months there will be a new member of the City Council, in his opinion any of these major issues that are going to be decided should wait until that person takes office, they may agree with what is being put forth or have an idea for something different, and some of this affects District One where the election will take place. Councilman Yost agreed, or if decisions are made there needs to be an understanding that they can be undone. Councilmember Campbell expressed belief that there are a number of issues relating to the Redevelopment Agency that people are not aware of, Leisure World as an example does not qualify as low and moderate housing stock because existing housing stock is not looked at, rather, it is new construction, the penalty needs to be explained, and to do away with the Redevelopment Agency does not remove the requirement for low to moderate housing, that is mandated by the State. The City Manager stated that this item came before the Council on January 28th at which time this issue was discussed, as of June 30, 2002 the Redevelopment Agency setaside fund will have excess funds that are going to be subject to a fifty percent penalty, the total excess funds as of that date are $534,000 therefore if the excess funds are not encumbered or spent by June 30th, at this point a member of the audience interrupted and claimed the explanation by I I I , " 4-8-02 I the Manager was a violation of the Brown Act. The City Attorney clarified that the Brown Act allows the Council and public to ask questions of staff however if it gets to a point of discussion the issue must be placed on the agenda, if the Council feels this is reaching a point of discussion it should be placed on the next meeting agenda. Councilman Boyd suggested that the decision on the Housing Implementation Plan should be postponed until after his Council seat is filled, therefore the item should be continued. APPOINTMENT - SEAL BEACH CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FOUNDATION Councilmember Campbell moved to appoint Mr. Fred Furman as the District Four appointee to the Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation for the unexpired two year term ending July, 2002. Councilman Larson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:26 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:39 p.m. with Mayor Doane calling the meeting to order. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "c thru P" Larson moved, second by Boyd, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except for Item "0", removed for separate consideration. C. waived the 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 reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. I D. Approved regular demands numbered 36825 through 37052 in the amount of $1,242,097.22, payroll demands numbered 15515 through 15665 in the amount of $172,546.53, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. E. Received and filed the Monthly Investment Report for January, 2002. F. Approved the proposal for Special District Administration of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 for fiscal year 2002/2003 for the annual fee of $9,500 payable quarterly. I G. Adopted Resolution Number 4993 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT," (additional cell phone, Public Works). By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4993 was waived. H. Bids were received until 10:00 a.m., March 27, 2002 for a Traffic Signal Fiber Optic Interconnect, Project ,Number 50011, at which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: 4-8-02 Broadband powering Systems, Inc. $300,274.00 C. T. & F., Inc. 309,800.00 Moore Electrical Contracting, Inc. 318,805.00 Inspection Engineering Construction Baxter-Griffin Co., Inc. Lambco Engineering, Inc. Benergy, Inc. ProTech Engineering Corp. Dynalectric Herman Weissker, Inc. 327,581.56 343,100.00 348,885.00 350,960.00 385,542.50 389,034.00 469,476.00 I Awarded the bid for Project Number 50011, Traffic Signal Fiber Optic Interconnect, to the lowest responsible bidder, Broadband Powering Services, Inc. in the amount of $300,274.00 and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. I. Bids were received until 11:00 a.m., March 27, 2002 for Lampson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation (Seal Beach Boulevard to east City limits), Project No. 50010 and 50013, at which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: All American Asphalt R J Noble Co. Griffith Company Silvia Construction, Inc. Sully-Miller Contracting Co. Excel Paving Company Shawnan HPD, Inc. So. CA Underground Contractors $ 840,463.15 955,429.00 972,112.75 1,031,979.50 1,044,054.00 1,086,455.35 1,111,111.11 1,123,342.50 I 1,145,565.20 Awarded the bid for the Lampson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation, Project No. 50010 and 50013, to All American Asphalt, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $840,463.15 and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. Adopted Resolution Number 4994 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT #49813 AND #50062, ALLEY UTILITY'REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (WATER AND SEWER), 13th/14th AND 14th/ 15th ALLEYS, ENTERED INTO BETWEEN MAJICH BROTHERS, INC. AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4994 was waived. J. I K. Adopted Resolution Number 4995 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF THE NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND TURN POCKETS LOCATED AT THE MAIN STREET/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTION." By unanimous consent, full 4-8-02 reading of Resolution Number 4995 was waived. L. Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned and regular meetings of December 10, 2001. M. I N. I I AYES: NOES: Adopted Resolution Number 4996 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ~ITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACTS OF THE PRIMARY AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS HELD IN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ON THE 5th DAY OF MARCH, 2002, DECLARING THE RESULTS THEREOF, AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4996 was waived. Adopted Ordinance Number 1484 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON TUESDAY, MAY 14th, 2002, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH" and Adopted Resolution Number 4997 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON TUESDAY, MAY 14th, 2002" and Adopted Resolution Number 4998 entitled "A ,RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THAT THE CANVASS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MAY 14th, 2002, BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1484, Resolution Number 4997, and Resolution Number 4998 was waived. P. Authorized the Mayor to sign the comment letter relating to the Haynes Generating Station Repowering Project Draft EIR, instructed staff to forward same to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, directed that the letter and staff report be forwarded to the Environmental Quality Control Board, Planning Commission, Archaeological Advisory Committee, and the Golden Rain Foundation for information purposes, and that the staff report be received and filed. Boyd, campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "0" - ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - VACANCY Noting the District Three vacancy on the Archaeological 4-8-02 Advisory Committee, Councilman Yost requested that any qualified person having an interest in serving on this Committee to please contact him. Yost moved, second by Campbell, to receive and file the memorandum from staff. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried I TREE REMOVAL PERMIT - OLD RANCH TOWNHOMES The City Manager ,explained that when permits for various matters are approved by the City Manager, in this case tree removals, that decision is final in that the Code does not provide for an appeal to the City Council. He emphasized that City did not go looking for this problem it was the Homeowners Association that approached the City. In this case the permit has not yet been signed, this item was agendized at the request of Councilmember Campbell to allow review of the preliminary decision to go forward with the plan, again, this is not an appeal of the decision. The Manager reported that in October of 2001 the City received a letter from the Old Ranch Homeowners Association with a request to remove the trees for the reasons that they are too close together, have root rot, fire blight, have been pruned incorrectly, their belief was that the trees have been weakened and it would be better to take some out so that they could grow into a healthy state. He noted that the CC&R's provide that the Homeowners Association are responsible for the repair and maintenance fronting their property, that provision has existed since 1975. As requested by the City, the Association did provide two arborist reports, copies of which are in the agenda packets, they rather than a horticulturist usually do such examination of trees. The Manager mentioned that in February they commenced marking the trees, this issue came about, the removal was postponed as it was learned that the Homeowners Association had not notified all of its members as well, as some other issues, the process was suspended March 7th, the Association was required to hold a community meeting to discuss the issue of the trees, to notify all of the residents, about thirty people attended along with Mr. Eagle, that is how a consensus plan was arrived at. He noted that under the original plan about twenty-eight trees were to be removed for a net of twenty trees in the parkway, under the revised plan twenty-three trees will be removed and six trees added for a net of thirty-one, therefore there will be more trees than under the initial proposal, the Board of Directors have agreed to the revised plan as have certain residents of the area via letter. Mayor Doane noted a number of comments heard about removal of possibly healthy trees because of the every other tree plan, he has personally had problems with his Mutual Board given the excessive pruning that in his opinion is unnecessary, he too does not like to see beautiful, healthy trees taken out, and can understand the position of those who have spoken to this issue. Councilman Yost said he too looked at the trees, to him they appeared to be healthy, he did not see canopies even touching, nor did they appear to be excessively pruned, therefore he was having a problem with this issue, yet is also not an expert in the matter. I I Mr. Bob Eagle, Public Works Supervisor, explained that when the Association Board came to the City they had been taking care of these trees since 1975, they are planted seventeen feet apart, in the past three years the City has been sent to the area on several occasions because of trees that had fallen, in each instance that occurred because the roots had 4-8-02 I rotted, since these trees were never cared for by the City when a tree fell they were not replaced. From his observance over the years he pointed out that the trees have been trimmed with hedge trimmers instead of using International Society of Horticulturist Association standards for trimming trees, the canopy has been kept a certain way, the root system is not strong enough to uphold a tree that is trimmed properly, if one looks inside the trees all of the growth is at the ends of the branches and the inside is just bark, that is called horsetailing a tree, if the trees were trimmed properly two things would happen, there would be natural looking trees and for the trees to grow to a larger size they need to establish a better root system, if they continue to be hedge trimmed the fire blight will spread. Mr. Eagle stated the trees should no longer be hedge trimmed, and as the fire blight becomes apparent, which does exist, that should be trimmed out properly by a certified arborist or a firm that has a certified arborist on staff, when fire blight is trimmed out the tools need to be cleaned so that the blight does not spread, by using a hedge trimmer the blight will eventually spread throughout the tree leaving bare, spotty areas, last year mid-summer there were large spots of fire blight, now the trees are fairly full but there will be more blight given the trimming practices, and according to the CC&R's the Association is supposed to be caring for those trees. Mayor Doane said then corrective action on the part of the Association could be an alternative. Acknowledging that the responsibility for these trees lies with the Association, Councilman Boyd inquired however if these trees in a public parkway were the responsibility of the City would the recommendation be removal or some other alternative. Mr. Eagle responded that he would only remove the unhealthy trees, he would look at the tree structure and the root system to determine what would be possible, they should be larger trees than they are, some have a trunk of about ten inches in diameter, the parkway is large enough to support a larger tree, pear trees can have a span and height of twenty- five feet, these trees do not. - Councilman Boyd mentioned that it is the responsibility of the City Manager to make a recommendation and issue the permit for removal, and confirmed that this was done after the arborist reports recommended removal, a part of the policy for trimming trees as well. I I Councilmember Campbell moved to save the trees, that is what her residents prefer. Councilman Yost seconded the motion. Councilmember Campbell said usually one looks at trees in someone's lawn and give deference to whose lawn they are in, in this case it would be deference to the residents of the townhomes, this is a large number of trees, their appearance is very striking, at present it is felt that they add beauty to the development, if they are allowed to lace out in a couple of years possibly only a couple will,need to be removed, and inquired if it would be detrimental to the trees to allow them to grow. Mr. Eagle stated the type of trimming they have received is his concern, a certain look is anticipated when they are trimmed like a hedge, that look will not be there if they are trimmed according to standards, for the health of the trees he would not suggest hedge trimming again, there is a distinct possibility that some trees may do well, others may not, what the Association is trying to do is eliminate a few of the trees to allow the remaining trees more room for the root structure to develop. Councilman Larson posed a question that even if some are removed, the rest remain but continue to be hedge trimmed 4-8-02 nothing will be gained. The response was that the fire blight will spread and there will be no foliage in the trees. Mayor Doane made reference to the staff report which put forth the question as to whether the City should accept the maintenance of the trees, the cost of which would be approximately $1,000 per year, additional future costs to remove diseased trees, repair raised sidewalks, and liability for falling trees would be encountered as well, to that he said that could be discussed at budget time which would mean the Manager would need to hold the issuance of the permit, his intent is to appease what seems to be a majority of residents of the area that do not want these trees removed if there is a feasible way they can be saved, this with the insight provided by Mr. Eagle. Councilman Yost said if the Homeowners Association is responsible for maintaining the trees pursuant to the CC&R's, he wonders how much money they spend to do that, perhaps they would be willing to contract with the City to perform that service, possibly make them an offer. The Manager concurred with the suggestion of the Mayor to hold this issue in abeyance until budget considerations, that would provide more time to look at the long term maintenance, what it would cost, have the City's arborist look at the trees, $1,000 is likely a guess at this point, no motion is necessary, staff has an understanding of the direction of Council by the comments made. To a question as to the responsibility of the sidewalks, the Public Works Director responded that the concrete curb, gutters, and sidewalks, if in the street right-of-way, which is believed they are, would be the City, except in accordance with the Streets and Highways Code one can enjoin a property owner to fix their sidewalk. To that Councilman Boyd said possibly that is something that should be considered, it is fine if those residents want to save the trees yet do not make it onerous upon the City to repair the sidewalk, curb and gutter if the trees raise or break them. Councilmember Campbell noted that no motion is requested, however asked then where do the trees stand. The City Manager responded that the permit will not be issued, additional research will be done on the long term tree locations, his concern is that there is a tendency of the City to assume responsibility for projects once they are run down completely and then have to spend money to rehabilitate them, therefore staff will take a further look at the costs, bring that back during budget considerations, it will then be a budgetary decision of the Council. Councilman Yost made reference to the trees on the Bixby project whereby due to improper trimming led to them not being healthy, he would not like to see that mistake again, and asked who will be responsible for the trees in the Bixby Center and will there be some control so that they are maintained properly. The response was that will be an assessment district to be done in the near future. Councilman Boyd stated that this sets a bad precedent whereby the City is taking on the responsibility of private property owners maintenance of a piece of property that is within the public right-of-way, what should have happened years ago when the Homeowners Association was formed is that the curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and improvements in the public right-of- way should have been required to be maintained to certain standards that the City established when the development was done, what could be done now to correct this would be to negotiate with the Homeowners Association to turn over the improvements and let them do as they choose, this is going to pose problems, it sets a precedent whereby every time an issue comes up or someone has a tree they want to be trimmed or not trimmed those people will come before the Council, I I I 4-8-02 I this belongs in the jurisdiction of the Homeowners Association inasmuch as they have the responsibility for the public right~of-way. Councilmember Campbell countered that this is fifty trees of which seventeen are proposed to be taken out, this is a look to that street that is being impacted, and as was pointed out the removal was designed to be every other tree yet in some cases it is not necessarily going to be every other tree, the uniform'look will be lost when one drives down the street. Councilman Boyd stated that is all the more reason that those who live there should be making the decisions as to how those trees are trimmed and maintained. To that Councilmember Campbell noted that the trees are in the public right-of-way, then who is the public, just the people who live in the townhomes or those who live on the opposite side of the street and have a view of the trees, the trees are pleasant to look at, softens the look of the townhomes, a plus for the neighborhood and property values. A consensus was indicated to hold this item over until the budget hearings. BUDGET WORKSHOPS - FISCAL YEARS 2002/03 and 2003/04 The City Manager presented a brief staff report citing proposed dates for budget workshops as well as the date of the public hearing and final date for budget adoption. Yost moved, second by Campbell, to approve budget workshops for May 29 and 30, June 12 and 13, and June 17 and 18 commencing at 6:00 p.m. I AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Boyd Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING / RESOLUTION NUMBER 4999 - APPEAL - MINOR PLAN REVIEW 02-1 - 233 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD - RAOUF Mayor Doane declared the public hearing open to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Minor Plan Review 02-1. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported no communications received. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explained that the appeal under consideration is to Planning Commission approval of a Minor Plan Review of the property identified as 233 Seal Beach Boulevard, the application is to develop two separate buildings on three separate lots at that location, basically office use on the ground floor with residential use above on the north and south parcels, the center parcel to be used as a common driveway and parking area for the office uses and with garages provided off the alley for the residential uses. He noted that the application was submitted in February, considered by the Planning Commission on March 20th, the item was removed from the Commission Consent Calendar and the appellant in this matter spoke to the item at that time, the staff report, minutes, letter submitted by the appellant, and Commission Resolution are included with the Council report. The Director reported also that a copy of the appeal and addendum to the appeal has been provided to Council, the staff report attempts to address each of the issues brought forth by the appellant in the appeal and addendum. The Director explained that the project, as presented to the Planning Commission, complied with all requirements of the Limited Commercial Zone as far as development standards. Councilman Yost noted that the height limit on the residential is thirty feet with three stories, and inquired 4-8-02 if that is permitted on a twenty-five foot lot. The Director advised that it is permitted in the L/C zone, that the only zone that allows a third story on a residential lot of that width, on other lots in Old Town one is allowed to go to a third story on lots of thirty-seven and a half feet or larger, and only on the rear half of the lot. The Director confirmed that this proposal is covered in the Municipal Code under the Minor Plan Review process. I Mayor Doane invited the appellant, applicant, and public to comment on this item if so desired. Mr. Walt Miller, Seal Beach, displayed a diagram of the proposed project, said he found it a strange thing that he paid his appeal fee to say that the staff has not followed the City ordinance, the Council has no training in architecture, engineering, or construction, therefore relies on staff. Mr. Miller noted it was said there are three twenty-five foot lots, but it is a seventy-five foot lot because every lot in Old Town is a twenty-five foot lot, ,subdivided into thirty, thirty-seven and a half, etc. lots, they are building sites, to that he made reference to the three lots, one considered to be a twenty-five foot lot, the next complies with a twenty-five foot lot, and the third he claimed to be setback, stating that this design with the residence above the dental office can not possibly be built on the twenty-five foot lot, an impossibility according to the Code which basically says that six parking spaces are needed for the commercial and two spaces for the residential, to that he asked where are the parking spaces, if all six of the spaces can not be put on that lot then you must look at the full seventy-five foot width. Mr. Miller claimed that the property owner can not build on the third twenty-five foot lot in the L/C zone, asked for an opinion as to whether it is legal to consider it a twenty-five foot lot on a seventy-five foot parcel and additionally say that the parking is not required to be on that lot. The City Attorney advised the appellant that when the presentation is concluded and the public hearing closed he would respond to questions of the Council. Mr. Miller said if the question is not answered now he would not be able to rebut the response. Mr. Miller continued with reference to the garage at the property line, there is an eight foot wall on that property line, yet the Code says that can be done in the L/C zone if it sits on a side street, that makes sense because the fire department can then service the side of the property, the only way to service the property now is to go down a three foot wide section and not come in from the back, according to staff a mistake was made so they are going to change the Code because this is okay according to Code, to that Mr. Miller claimed it is not, it is a fire hazard, this is supposed to be set back seven and a half feet for a seventy-five foot lot, the trash enclosure for commercial, staff says it can be placed in front of the compact spaces but it can not because the trash truck comes down the alley. He mentioned too that people will pull in to park their cars, supposedly they can then back out, if three of the spots are filled they do not know that when they enter, three can not be used because people are coming in from the opposite direction, staff says they can make a u-turn and back out, but because there is only three feet either way they will bump into the building, there are also four spaces in the back, someone comes down the alley to use those spaces, two compact and two standard spaces, if they are full what does the next car do. Mr. Miller said the alley is twelve feet wide, a car is six feet wide, other vehicles are eight feet, this is a one-way alley, the parking makes no sense. He I I " 4-8-02 I mentioned too that he owns the property next door, his property, the properties on either side, and this property is in a flood zone, when one builds in a flood zone the floor must be raised, in this case it is designed with no raised floor, when a floor is raised that in turn requires handicapped access, that has not been done, staff knows this can not be built on this lot. He noted that condition five states that if any of these lots are sold, each described as twenty-five foot lots, parking would need to be provided on- site on the remaining lot, so how could six parking spaces be placed on this lot, how can that be done unless the one lot is left open, but if that lot is sold something has to be torn down to provide the parking. Mr. Miller said this is not the kind of project that is being seen as a keystone project in the L/C zone. Mayor Doane stated that at the close of the hearing staff would provide answers to the questions of Mr. Miller, to that Mr. Miller said he wanted to interact with staff. I Mr. Richard Stupin, architect on behalf of the applicant, stated they have met with staff and have tried to determine what could be placed on this property, a thought was given to residential yet it was zoned L/C. He offered that most of the items brought up by Mr. Miller he did not really understand, they are three separate twenty-five foot lots. He mentioned that there is parking on the three lots, which is true, the way in which it is done there will be a deed restriction where none of the lots can be sold unless it conforms to the parking requirements which means it can not be sold unless it is all torn down and reconstructed, the deed restriction will tie the properties to the way it is now, so the parking will always exist. The garage wall was mentioned as being on the property line, in the L/C zone that was allowed, his is to the property line on both sides, so access to fire is restricted on his property, the L/C did not have a specific requirement for trash, with approval of the plans something will be worked out, it is not unapproachable, with regard to parking and backing out, the new homes, existing homes and apartments all back out, the accident rate in the area is not known but thought to not be high, the twelve foot alley was mentioned, they are setback thirteen feet which gives a twenty-five foot turning radius before parking, the flood zone issue will be taken care of at the time of the engineering plans, they have a civil engineer for the grading plans, it is not a problem to raise the floor if required, to that he said he believed all of Mr. Miller's concerns were addressed. I Mr. Greg Miller offered his speaking time to Mr. Walt Miller. The City Attorney stated that was within the discretion of the Council. Mr. Walt Miller said in reference to the twelve foot alley, granted there is a turning radius, his point was that two cars can not run in opposite direction down the alley, it is not a commercial alley, if there is a car inbound to park and another car leaving, the Coastal Commission will not accept that yet the City does, that is a real problem, a problem also with architecture, what kind, no one cares, anything goes, the cheapest way possible to build the properties. Mr. Miller stated that if one looks at the drawings they are not signed, there is no license, is this person a designer, architect, an engineer, putting a scale on the dental office it shows a handicapped bathroom with a five foot turning radius except that the handicapped person will need to go through a three foot door, through the doctors office to get to the handicapped restroom. This is an office 4-8-02 with the public going in and out, no supply rooms, this is an attempt to put something on a nineteen foot wide lot, the person said if this is a flood plain they will raise the floor, yet he had to raise his floor thirty inches, that means two and a half feet of rise on a handicapped ramp, where will that go, there is no way for a handicapped person to come off the street and get to this office at all, running a wheelchair into traffic backing up, the applicant said that the traffic backs up, it is a thirty-five mile an hour speed zone, there is parking that blocks the view of on-coming traffic, to all of this Mr. Miller said there are too many Code violations that are wrong, this should be set back in accordance with the lot size, it is not a twenty-five foot lot, it is a seventy-five foot lot, none of this will fit on a twenty-five foot lot with the required parking, it has been infringed on throughout. Mr. Miller stated this project should be redesigned, he favors building on the Boulevard but this project is not the proper answer, he would like answers and a legal opinion, staff is making decisions on twenty-five foot lots that are not twenty-five feet, it is a seventy-five foot lot, that is what it takes to build on this site the way it is laid out, to have anything less than full compliance, including the setbacks is wrong. I Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, objected to having speakers for and against an issue, some people just want to speak to the item. Ms. Corbin stated she would like to see the applicant be able to do something with his property, yet does this meet the Code, maybe the plan should be sent back and redone, something about the plan just does not look right, Mr. Miller could not build because of the stringent conditions, there must be a level playing field. She said whether they decide to proceed with this or not, possibly something can be learned, the way things are approved, things that do not meet Code, the City needs a real engineer, and made reference to Los Alamitos where she claimed they combined the positions of City Engineer and Development Services Director, someone who has the talent for both, to her that makes sense, and apply the Code equally to all people. I Dr. Medhat Raouf stated he was the applicant, he owns the subject three lots, the previous owner had planned to build on one or all lots, he obtained the property approximately four years ago, since then he has tried to achieve his goal of having his dental office at this location however found that no financial institution would loan on the L/C zoning, he then canceled the project for a time then placed the property on the market for sale for about two years, he found however a sale was not workable for the same reason, the L/C zoning, so he had the idea to have a second office here, he had planned to demolish the property, he has tried to keep peace with everyone, comply with everyone, at one point Mr. Miller said this property had been used for everyone to park, he had an idea to try to make a project out of the property to just cover expenses by landscaping the property and not let it be used by the public, at that time he did not know that would hurt another neighbor, in response to that he said he told Mr. Miller that he had given verbal agreement for that neighbor to park on the property, evidently that raised an issue but he could not imagine that this would make Mr. Miller unfriendly to him and object to his project, he even went forward with the L/C zoning to gain his acceptance, it was his last thought that he would even object to the L/C, Mr. Miller is trying to make the three lots into one lot, it is not, he made certain with the City that they are three I 4-8-02 I lots, he is not certain what else could have been done, he is doing everything to be in compliance with the Codes, to make everything move smoothly, he needs to get something good out of his investment other than to have the gardener every two weeks for the sake of Mr. Miller. Mr. Raouf said no matter the decision, he is in need of doing something with his three lots. Ms. Seretta Fielding, Seal Beach Boulevard, said the discussion is again the 200 block of Seal Beach Boulevard, it should not be commercial or L/C but that is what it is presently. Ms. Fielding said by the words of Mr. Miller it was said that the alley is not a commercial alley, as time has passed this property has been neglected and overlooked, the applicant is trying to do a project that is a good project, will certainly look better than the vacant lot, this project will eventually make the Boulevard look better, it may not be perfect but it is the best that can be done with all that there is to deal with, that is the L/C on the Boulevard, the residential overlay has not emerged as yet even though back in 1983 the Planning Commission recommended a residential component. Ms. Fielding again said this project is basically all the applicant can do with this property, there are no options, no one is looking at the 200 block properties because there is no money available under the L/C commitment, she would hope, since he is financing his own project, that consideration is given this project. I Mr. Walt Miller said what he has heard is that Dr. Raouf has good intentions to build something, he too wants him to build something, he just wants it to be the start of something that works on this street, something that is in compliance with the Building Codes, something that will give continuity, the fact that he has had the property for a while, has to make payments on it, do the landscaping, that gives no one the right to do something other than comply with the Codes. Mr. Miller said he is merely asking that the project be redesigned so that it complies with the L/C designation and it is not an impossibility, one of his suggestions was to put diagonal parking down the center of one lot and make the alley two way, people can then park and exit by means of the alley, because as designed the project will not work. He said the setback is not workable, it is not a twenty-five foot lot, there are three twenty-five foot lots, he is awaiting an opinion as to legality, if one takes one twenty- five foot lot which is to accommodate a dental office with a residence above, he would defy that it complies with the Code, the remainder of the lot(s) are needed to build this, this can not be built as a twenty-five foot lot. Mr. Miller questioned again if the representative of the applicant was licensed, made reference to his own preparation of plans, the plans for this project needs to be done by licensed architects and engineers, it has not been but should be before the City approves it because this will be the first project built on this street, his project was thought would be first but it is not because it has been chopped back, from an emotional standpoint something should not be approved that does not comply with the ordinance. It has been said that the L/C can not be built on but it can, his project could have been built, this project could be reconstructed and built on the L/C as it is, single family residences are not needed on Seal Beach Boulevard, what is needed is multiple apartments combined with visitor serving retail, there is an entire Boulevard with an ocean view, three story possibilities, this will bring people into town that can not afford the $700,000 plus houses just built, the need is for upscale apartments, that is what the street is all about, the I 4-8-02 direction that should be followed, there should be a plan that works, this is a start, but this needs to be redone to comply. There being no further comments, Mayor Doane declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Boyd mentioned that the recorded grant deed does show three lots, to which he sought clarification that each of those lots, under the L/C, could have one residential and one commercial unit. The Development Services Director noted that the issue of a twenty-five versus a seventy-five foot lot was addressed in the staff report, pointing out that the assessor maps do not always recogniz<< legal lots, if a person owns adjacent properties side by side and for tax purposes requests that they receive one tax bill for the multiple lots the assessor will show them as one assessable parcel, that does not necessarily mean that the rights of the individual lots that comprise that assessable area have been given up. The Director confirmed that in this particular case that is the situation, there are three separate twenty-five foot lots that the applicant owns side by side, the individual gets one tax bill for all of those lots, assessor maps do not establish legal parcels, parcel maps, tract maps, and lot line adjustments define legal parcels. I Councilmember Campbell excused herself from the meeting at 9:50 p.m. To an out of order comment from the audience, the Director confirmed that these lots are not being subdivided, the lots were established in about 1916, the parcels remain as they were subdivided at that time. Councilman Larson voiced his understanding that these parcels will be deed restricted so in effect it will be a seventy-five foot lot, the lots can not be sold by parcel. The Director confirmed a comment of Mr. Miller that a lot could not be sold separately unless the owner determined to remove a building, also, with regard to the comment of not being able to provide parking on the twenty-five foot lot designated for commercial use, he explained that the Zoning Code allows parking for a commercial use to be provided within three hundred feet of the property on which the building sits, that is a provision of the Code, does not require any separate review by a commission or Council, in fact as an example, if Dr. Raouf owned a lot in the 300 block of the Boulevard and was within three hundred feet of a lot in the 200 block he could provide the parking within three hundred feet in the 200 block and meet the parking requirements, in this case his parking is being provided on a lot immediately adjacent, the City has required an affidavit of non-severance to be recorded on the properties that in essence says until parking is provided elsewhere in accordance with City requirements none of these parcels can be sold. Councilman Larson said his question was if consideration had been given to requiring a parcel map to make the lots one parcel, in response the Director said that that would be an option of the property owner to make such request. He explained that the City Code allows development on twenty-five foot lots in the L/C zone subject to certain conditions, the applicant has met those conditions. Councilman Yost offered that he is a believer in the L/C zone, he does not believe in doing away with commercial, once a property is designated residential you can never get the commercial back, but that is essential to the City, the Boulevard has an exit from the 405 Freeway, the busiest freeway in the world, a business on such street should find some way to survive. He mentioned however some concern with I I 4-8-02 I the appearance of being designed as though the street will be residential, the garages that extend to the property line and the third story, if this were an R-1 zone that could not be done, his question then is if this were zoned R-l rather than L/C, a possibility that has been looked at, one could then not put a third story on the rear half of a twenty-five foot lot. The Director offered that until the City determines if it wants to allow only a residential use on a lot in that area, and not knowing what the ultimate development standards would be, it would be difficult to respond to the question. He explained that the Code, as it exists today, allows the garage to be built on the property line in this particular situation, as mentioned in the staff report, the ordinance that adopted the L/C zone clearly indicated that the garage could be put on the property line, however when the ordinance was transferred into the Code there was a secretarial error that deleted the footnote in that particular Code provision, that is why Council has been provided a copy of the actual ordinance in the agenda packet that was adopted by the Council, which clearly indicates that the garage can be on the property line for the residential use, with regard to the Fire Code issues there are specific provisions in the Building Code that deal with structures that are built on a property line and have to meet certain Fire Code requirements. Councilman Yost inquired about the ADA accessible issues, have they been completed, the response was that the staff report sets forth responses to the appellants issues, the flood hazard compliance and ADA accessibility will be reviewed at the time formal construction plans are submitted for the building plan check review process, at this point this is basically a concept plan which is all the City requires for a Minor Plan Review, this project, if approved by the City Council, would then go to the Coastal Commission as a concept plan for their review and if approved then formal construction plans are submitted, to the City to go through the plan review proCeSS, it is at that time that all Building, Fire, and Mechanical Codes, ADA accessibility, flood plain issues, etc. are dealt with. The Director confirmed that a project can not go through Coastal Commission until there has been approval granted by the City. Councilman Yost repeated a question from the audience as to whether this property is currently in the flood zone. The Director stated he could not answer the question, that will be determined by the Engineering Department at such time as the grading plans are submitted, assuming there is a project eventually. In response to questions posed by the appellant, the City Attorney stated that the legal question was on the issue of parking which has been answered by the Director, however restated that for residential properties there needs to be parking on-site, his understanding is that they do have parking on-site for the residential portion of this project, for commercial properties there can either be parking on-site or within there hundred feet, the project proposed complies with all of the City's parking requirements in the Code. Mayor Doane noted the comments of Mr. Miller relating to vehicles backing out to which he made a suggestion that there be diagonal parking into the alley, however questioned the accuracy of the mention of a one-way alley. The Development Services Director responded that the alley is not posted one- way, it is twelve feet in width, the Code requirement when new buildings are constructed is that parking areas at the rear of the properties must have a twenty-four foot turning radius to back out, this project meets that standard, in this situation even if there was angled parking going to the alley at this point in time there is no prohibition of someone I I 4-8-02 going either direction in the alley as they exit the property, if that vehicle is confronted with another vehicle moving in the opposite direction that is the same situation as currently exists for each person who backs out of their garage. Councilman Yost asked if there are other commercial enterprises along Seal Beach Boulevard that use the alley for their commercial parking. The Director recalled that to be Mr. Miller's property, the bike shop, the child care with spaces for either residential or commercial, and a member of the audience added the copy store and insurance office. I Councilman Boyd noted that the applicant submitted a Minor Plan Review to the Planning Commission, it was approved, an appeal was filed, and it is consistent with the provisions of the City Code, therefore moved to approve Resolution Number 4999 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING AN APPEAL, SUSTAINING, THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND APPROVING MINIOR PLAN REVIEW 02- 1, A REQUEST FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW qF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 233 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD." Councilman Larson seconded the motion. By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4999 was waived. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Boyd, Doane, Larson, Yost None Campbell Motion carried CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report was presented. CITY MANAGER REPORT No report was presented. I COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Yost said he was quite disappointed that the Orange County Fire Authority did not allow this city to continue the fire fighting roll for the volunteers, reported that he has requested the City Manager to look into other options such as going with Long Beach or Los Angeles County, it is important too to log all of the time periods when the truck is not present in Station 44, also possibly send a letter to the Fire Authority to put them on notice that should there be dangerous situations they will be held liable under the contract for any loss of life or property as a result of the decisions made, there is a precedent in Orange County in that the City of La Habra contracts with Los Angeles County for fire services, under the ten year Fire Authority contract the City is somewhat protected from costs in the short term, his concern is with services. with regard to the Hellman property, Councilman Yost said he has had telephone conversations this week with the wildlife Conservation Board and the Hellman's, the wetlands issue should be on their May agenda, if not it will be August, the money is in tact, the appraisal is complete and accepted by all parties, the one outstanding issue is the Edison right- of-way where the power lines once ran through the property, the title for that property is the remaining issue, hopefully this property will be in the hands of the Wildlife Conservation Board by the end of summer. I CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. 4-8-02 / 4-22-02 ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council to adjourn the meeting until Monday, April 22nd at 6:30 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. I ~~ y lerk and ex-offic' he City of Seal Beach Approved: ~~ yo Attest: Seal Beach, California April 22, 2002 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor ProTem Larson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor ProTem Larson Councilmembers Boyd, Yost Absent: Mayor Doane, Councilmember Campbell Councilmember Campbell arrived at 6:32 p.m. Boyd moved, second by Larson, to excuse the absence of Mayor Doane from this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Boyd, Larson, Yost None Campbell, Doane Motion carried Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the City Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda, to confer with the City's labor negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 with regard to the Orange County Employees Association, and to confer with legal counsel regarding one case of anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b). By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:34 p.m. The Council reconvened at 6:44 p.m. with Mayor ProTem Larson calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the first item on the agenda relating