Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2000-03-27 3-13-00 / 3-27-00 Approved: ~ Mayor Attest: I Seal Beach, California March 27, 2000 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Yost dedicated this meeting to the memory of Jack Haley. At the invitation of the Mayor, Ms. Marilyn Hastings stated that on March 25th an era ended when Jack W. Haley, icon of world surfing, passed on to surf perfect waves in an eternal endless summer, Aloha Jack. A moment of silence was observed in memory of Mr. Haley. Those present joined in the Salute to the Flag. It was announced that services for Mr. Haley will be forthcoming, the City will be participating in that Mr. Haley gave considerable to this community. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Yost Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow Absent: None Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Danes, Assistant City Engineer Chief Cushman, Lifeguard Department Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation and Parks Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Yost requested that Item "G", the Seal Beach Boulevard Sewer Replacement Project, be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration, and Councilmember Campbell requested that Item "M", the public hearing to consider renewal of the Edison Company pipeline franchise, be heard before Item "L", Zone Text Amendment 00-1. Councilman Doane noted that the new category of Announcements was not listed on the agenda. He was assured it would be added after the approval of the agenda. Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to approve the order of the agenda as revised. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried Councilman Boyd pointed out to the public that under the new meeting guidelines they are allowed the opportunity to speak on any item removed from the Consent Calendar, as has also been past practice. The Mayor noted that the public may 3-27-00 speak as well at the Public Comment period which is prior- to the Consent Calendar. ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilman Doane praised the recently published Seal Beach Directory, there is an article on the Naval Weapons Station wildlife Refuge of which many people are not aware, any business wishing to be listed may be, there is no need to purchase an ad, the Directory is free and available at City Hall, the Chamber office, the libraries, police substations, and pointed out that the substations would not exist had it not been for the efforts of Jack Haley. I PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Yost declared Public Comments to be open. Mr. Roger West said he is a thirty-three year resident. Mr. West expressed his opposition to rezoning a spot in the community to allow someone to convert a residential property into a business, claimed that the support for this effort has been through City administration to allow another business to locate in a residential area, the administration has been working on behalf of this applicant rather than for the interests of the people, the bed and breakfast issue to the point of deeming this to be historic preservation, a member of the audience even thinks the bed and breakfast is something that would be good for those residing on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. West said in the seventeen block long, three block wide community there is a public beach, a pier, lifeguard station and administration, an auto repair shop, City Hall, substation and police parking, senior citizen center, public library, the Red Car museum, a picture show, three commercial auto repair shops, a boat building yard, three gasoline stations, twenty restaurants, seven fast food outlets, two bars, three pubs, two beer bars, four liquor stores, a hotel, two motels, one bed and breakfast, a bank, convenience store, grocery store, video store, uncounted beauty shops, plus other commercial enterprises too numerous to mention, all of this amongst the residents of this small area. He said if commercializing another area is such a good idea why not do it on the north side of PCH, a bed and-breakfast can be anywhere with people coming and going, commercial vehicles, etc., maybe Leisure World would be an even better location. Mr. West said however there are other things coming, the Department of Water and Power property is being purchased by a group of local investors, the Hellman property is not totally resolved, and Boeing has announced that they will subdivide some of their property, to which he stated that if these deals are not curtailed now as well as this small matter of the bed and breakfast, thought needs to be given to what it will be like if these other developments occur, this scheme needs to be stopped, also, the people do not need an esoteric obtestation explanation of what spot zoning is or is not. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, said he met Mr. West some thirty years ago when the development of the Electric Avenue right-of-way was being fought, many of the same people are here again. Mr. Shanks mentioned being attacked with the question as to how he would like a bed and breakfast next to his home, to that he said he would not, his lot is fifty by one hundred and lot coverage is about forty-five percent, another member of the audience lives on Seal Way, there is no grass, and he would not like his house next to his home either, nor would be want the twenty-five foot lot houses. He stated he would not necessarily support the expansion of bed and breakfast facilities in the ocean side of the Pacific I I 3-27-00 I Electric right-of-way, recalled at the last meeting there were two R-1 7th Street property owners in favor of the bed and breakfast proposal, the Radisson is in favor, the apartment complex is not but that could be due to a parking problem that results from high rents which requires increased employment thus multi-vehicles. Mr. Shanks said he could not understand the resentment against this proposal, his feeling is that this could improve this area of 7th Street. He mentioned having been president of the Historical Society when the Red Car was obtained, it was first located on property of the Edison Triangle, then the right-of-way, the Red Car was disliked for a considerable time, finally it became something that the City was proud of, and offered that if the desire is to do away with everything old, then this proposal should be denied. Mr. Shanks said to him this is a reasonable project, to say City staff just jumped into this proposal is wrong because for years monies were budgeted to try to save at least the Krenwinkle house, this is trying to accomplish something, disputes like this are not uncommon in this town, the Council should go forward and get this done. Mr. Steve Hauka, 10th Street, expressed concern with the alley project that is to commence about April 1st, estimated to take about four months, that would be through July and it could very well run over that time frame, there will be no alley access to garages during the project, there will be need to park on 10th Street or designated lots, many people work difficult hours, get home late, it seems to be excessive to go four to six months without being able to use ones garage and possibly have to park blocks away, there would be concern with the safety of ones vehicles, carrying groceries or parcels for a long distance. Mr. Hauka requested that the Council try to ease this burden for the residents of 10th Street, maybe allow construction for two to three weeks then open the alley up to the residents for a period. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, said shortly a presentation will be heard by the representative of the bed and breakfast proponent, some ideas have already been heard as to what to do with the subject structure, whether it is historical or not. He recalled a presentation at the last meeting as to the status of the Hellman Ranch proposal, the current plan was presented as lower density, all want that, however he claimed that is achieved by taking away another more than eight acres of wetlands and sacred lands. Unlike the Department of Water and Power property, supposedly the crown jewel of the San Gabriel River Conservancy, there was never $4 million plus dollars available for that ten acre parcel, seventy percent of which is zoned open space with three acres zoned for the placement of some type of structure(s), that would be more than a million dollars an acre, that is never going to happen, the most reasonable development would be a hotel. Mr. Clewley questioned when the Conservancy will meet to discuss how the more than $2 billion will be spent, the more than $1 million per acre for the DWP property an example, but of greater priority is the Hellman Ranch property, this money needs to be obtained before it is spent in Long Beach. He said the concept of lower density on the Hellman site has met with resistance in the courts, there is an intrusion into the wetlands to do this, and Mr. Bartlett should now show what he is going to do for the Krenwinkle house. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, made a comment that the public has the right to speak to any subject under Public Comments. Ms. Corbin said she likes to see public workers recognized, yet a recent incident was not a sewer break, claimed that there was a valve submerged in mud and was left open, this was negligence, scare tactics. She acknowledged I I 3-27-00 that there is a need for new sewers yet said money has been raised twice for this purpose, where is the proposed increase going to go, the reason for wanting new sewers is not for the residents it is for proposed development. She too noted the presentation on the Hellman property moving forward, to that she questioned why the Attorney General set aside the judgment, it was because the project was moving down into the wetlands, the facts need to be presented. with regard to the bed and breakfast issue, she stated that the Proctor house has not been sold, why is the zoning being change for the entire of Pacific Coast Highway, cited Oakwood as a hotel, the City just not taxing that facility as such, everyone along the Highway will be affected by the B & B zoning, others will take advantage of that zoning. She claimed that the in-lieu monies and development fees collected have been diverted to the Main Street Specific Plan rather than to create parking, the Proctor house is an example where the City could buy the house and land to create parking, then rehab the house over time. Ms. Marilyn Hastings, Old Town, mentioned that she attended the previous meeting, there was considerable talk about violations of the Brown Act with regard to time for public comments, etc., thereafter she wondered if her rights may have been abridged as well, so she reviewed the tape and timed the speakers. The review showed that there were thirty-three speakers who spoke for one hundred thirteen minutes and twenty-eight seconds, that is one hour, fifty three minutes, and twenty-eight seconds, approximately one-fifth of the five hour meeting, one individual spoke seven different times for sixteen minutes and ten seconds, another spoke four different times for twelve minutes and three seconds, one person should be commended for speaking only seventeen seconds. Ms. Hastings said according to the statistics it can not be seen how there could be any violation of the Brown Act. There being no further comments, Mayor Yost declared Public Comments to be closed. I I COUNCIL ITEMS COMMENDATION - PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES Mayor Yost presented certificates of appreciation to Steve Stockett, Jeff Watson, Tony Febbrielo, a certificate also for Steve Barton who was not present, for their efforts to repair the sewer break, and the initial involvement of Bob Eagle for calling for response was recognized as well. The Assistant City Engineer reported this was first thought to be a waterline break however it was found to be a sewer relief line off of the force main in Seal Beach Boulevard south of Pacific Coast Highway, while repairs were being made the line was releasing raw sewage which in fact the crews were able to contain. It was mentioned that in the Southern California area this type of incident affects water quality as well in that when there is a break all too often it drains directly into the ocean rather than into the sewer system, there is no other place for the waste to go. I MELANOMA MONTH PROCLAMATION / PRESENTATION Mayor Yost dedicated this presentation to Diane Schmidt who passed away this past year from melanoma. Mayor Yost mentioned that he has become involved in a public awareness campaign of melanoma as a result of the cancer center at the hospital at which he works, the prevention of which has more to do with public policy than it does with medicine. He reported that in 1960 the risk of getting melanoma was one in six hundred, in year 2000 it is one in seventy-five, Orange 3-27-00 I County having one of the highest incidences of melanoma anywhere in the country, this disease is best attacked by decreasing the risk factors and early detection and treatment, the greatest risk is sun exposure in childhood, especially severe sunburns under the age of twenty, the disease often not manifesting until later in life. He noted that Australia has undertaken an effort to decrease sun exposure through public awareness and through the schools, the perception has changed in that a suntan is no longer beautiful, teenagers there are seen wearing a lycra suit from wrist to ankles and is body hugging, there is wearing of hats and sun screen, since this started in 1980 a decrease is now being seen in the incidence of skin cancer. There are hospitals in Orange County that are developing a similar program, presentations will be made, it is recommended that playgrounds and lunch areas should be shaded, sun exposure should be viewed as dangerous, natural skin color rather than a suntan should be the most desirable, explained that the characteristics of melanoma are recognizable in various ways, irregular border, varied color and textures, a diameter larger than six millimeters, and melanoma does not necessarily occur in the area of sun exposure. Mayor Yost concluded by describing some of the presentations that will be forthcoming. Boyd moved, second by Doane, to proclaim May, 2000 as "Melanoma Month." AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried I SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT - SURFSIDE Councilman Boyd mentioned that over recent years the City has worked with a number of agencies and organizations to develop some type of underwater structure to deter erosion, the Surfside/Sunset Beach area has been used as a model by the Army Corps of Engineers, this is a request for $7.2 million in this fiscal year to construct as structure as a demonstration project, the Secretary of the Army is responsible for protecting the coastline thus the Army Corps is responsible for this task, Congress will appropriate the money for demonstration projects, monitor it for a period of four years, and likewise appropriate funds to remove it if it does not do what it is meant to do. He noted the request is also for $8.1 million for the every five year Stage 11 sandfill for Surfside. Councilman Doane asked if this would be a submerged artificial reef, the response was that it is, through the Army Corps of Engineers. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter directed to Congressman Rohrabacher relating to these requests. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "D" thru "K" Doane moved, second by Boyd, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except Item "G", removed for separate consideration. D. Approved the waiver of reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading was 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 3-27-00 ordinance or resolution. E. Received and filed the Monthly Investment Report for January, 2000. F. Approved regular demands numbered 26893 through 27087 in the amount of $506,412.13, payroll demands numbered 06800 through 06931 in the amount of $138,780.74, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I H. Approved the plans and specifications and estimate for the construction of Seal Beach Boulevard Median Improvements, project Number 706, and authorized staff to initiate the public bidding process. I. Adopted Resolution Number 4793 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 reading of Resolution Number 4793 was waived. J. Proclaimed April, 2000 as "Fair Housing Month." K. Approved the proposal of MuniFinancial, Willdan & Associates, to provide Special District Administration for Street Lighting Maintenance District Number 1 (Surfside Undergrounding). I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "G" - PLANS / SPECIFICATIONS - SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD SEWER REPLACEMENT - PROJECT NUMBER 814 As an update with regard to the status of the sewer system, the Assistant City Engineer stated that there are immediate needs, the manhole project is about ninety-eight percent complete, this was the replacement of manholes from westminster Avenue to the connection point at the Rockwell pump station. Presented for consideration is the sewer main line replacement, the cost of which if $1.4 million, the design is complete, the request is approval of the plans and specifications, allowing staff to advertise for bids. He showed pictures of the manholes replaced, each totally corroded by sulfide gas and sewer pipe that was found corroded and collapsed while another project was in progress. The sewer project will replace the existing line from Catalina to the area where the manholes were replaced with a gravity line, this line serves a good portion of town, Old Town, Bridgeport, Surfside, it is the primary line that takes all of the sewage to the pump station, the possibility of complete failure is increasing. Along with the sewer replacement AHRP funding will pay for the paving of Seal Beach Boulevard from Road A to Westminster and from Westminster to Beverly Manor Road, the sewer replacement needs to be completed before the paving, if the project is not done before the overlay it is possible there would be an additional cost of $225,000 to cut the roadway open again and I 3-27-00 I replace it with asphalt, this also decreases the life of the paving by about five years. He mentioned that this is brought forward now before the hearing on the sewer rate study, staff does not want to continue managing by incident, there have been about three recent sewer breaks, the breaks are going to continue until the entire system is upgraded, breaks also force action on an emergency basis, when breaks occur or the line clogs the water can not be turned off so all of the sewage needs to get out of the line and will flow into the ocean, there are not enough pumps to remove the sewage, the cost of repair is double to triple plus the fines imposed. The Assistant noted that this is part of the Capital Improvement Program, it is not limited to the force main, there are pump stations that all need to be replaced or upgraded, the Orange County Sanitation District has a program to replace sewers, that will be done in Old Town. The Assistant reminded that there will be a public hearing on April 24th, and May 8th to consider a sewer rate revision and the adoption of the Sewer Master Plan. I To a question posed by Councilman Snow, the Assistant explained that AHRP means the Arterial Highway Restoration Program through which the City receives money to pave arterial streets, the Program is administered by CalTrans, and that AKM is the firm that prepared the plans. To a question of Councilman Boyd, the Assistant explained that the existing force main will be removed, there is a buildup of sulfide gas up the hill, it will be replaced with a gravity line, this will alleviated the decayed manholes and pipe structure, the sewage is pumped up the hill and then at Catalina it will be gravity flowed to the pump station so that the gas will not be trapped, the section being replaced is the one most likely to be degraded, the force main is about eighteen inches, the existing lines were installed about 1972, at that time the sewage was pumped from the City's treatment plant into the San Gabriel River, then it was determined to have the County treat the sewage through the treatment station at Westminster and the Boulevard. With regard to the age of sewer lines in College Park East, it was stated that although they may be somewhat older they are gravity lines that last longer, yet some need to be replaced because they are too flat and restrict flow, Old Town has a mixture of lines that range between sixty to seventy years old, some original lines, College Park East and West were developed in the 1960's so they too are original lines, some of the West lines are part of the Los Alamitos Water District. There was question as to whether work on the Bixby project will impact any of the lines from Lampson to the south, the response was that it should not, again those are gravity rather than force lines. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to approve the plans and specifications for the construction of the Sewer Main Line on Seal Beach Boulevard, Project Number 814, and authorized initiation of the public bidding process. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING / ORDINANCE NUMBER 1457 - PIPELINE FRANCHISE RENEWAL - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Mayor Yost declared the public hearing open to consider renewal of a pipeline franchise with Southern California Edison Company for a term of twenty-five years. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications 3-27-00 received either for or against this item. The City Manager reported that this is a request of Southern California Edison for Council approval of a franchise amendment to allow Edison to assign the franchise to another company, this item was presented to Council previously however there had not been adequate time for staff to finalize the details, that has now been done. There were no comments from the audience relating to this item, Mayor Yost declared the public hearing closed. I Councilman Snow made reference to Section 8, sub-paragraph (c), and in looking at the map outlining the pipeline he could see nothing in the subject paragraph that relates to any liability for injury or damages to residents of the community in the case of a rupture or explosion of the line, whereas subsection (b) speaks to the costs of repairs to public property. Mr. Jerry Dominguez, Edison representative, explained that the subject line is used for low sulfur petroleum, not frequently used now because of the generating stations in Long Beach, Alamitos and Huntington Beach, which they no longer own, yet have been operated by natural gas for some years, low sulfur petroleum is not what is considered an extremely volatile fluid, however Southern California Edison, like any other pipeline owner, would be responsible and liable for any damages resulting from the operation of the line. He noted that under Public utilities Code Section 6291 the obligations are extremely stringent with regard to these types of pipelines, violations could constitute forfeiture of the franchise to the City, a suit by the municipality can forfeit the franchise, the utility is obligated to comply with all rules and laws for the operation of a pipeline within the State codes. Mr. Paul Phelan, general manager in charge of fuel pipelines was introduced and stated that Edison far exceeds the standards required by the State Fire Marshall's office and any local ordinances with regard to maintenance and repair of a line. Councilman Snow again pointed out that nothing in the franchise addresses citizens that may be subject to damages should a line burst. Mr. Dominguez offered to provide Councilman Snow with a copy of the PUC Code which states distinctly that the grantee is liable to the granting municipality for all damages resulting from a failure, etc. Mr. Dominguez mentioned that several years ago there had been a problem with this line, a large portion was replaced along Westminster Boulevard in Westminster, Seal Beach, and Huntington Beach, to his knowledge there has never been any catastrophic instance of failure, explosion, or anything remotely similar. He pointed out also that the ordinance allows for a variety of uses of these pipelines, that is typical for all oil companies, this particular line has been used for low sulfur petroleum transfer. It was confirmed to Council that a twenty-five year franchise term is typical, also that there has been some revision to the fee structure, it is currently about $1,300 per year and will go to about $5,300 per year. Mr. Dominguez thanked the staff for working with Edison on this item. I I Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to approve the introduction and first reading of Ordinance Number 1457 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH GRANTING TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, A FRANCHISE, FOR A TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEAR TERM TO CONSTRUCT, LAY, OPERATE, TEST, MAINTAIN, USE, RENEW, REPAIR, REPLACE, MOVE, CHANGE THE SIZE AND NUMBER OF, AND REMOVE OR ABANDON IN PLACE A SYSTEM OF PIPELINES AND APPURTENANCES, FOR THE 3-27-00 PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING, TRANSPORTING, CONVEYING AND CARRYING GAS, OIL, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, WATER, WASTE WATER, AND OTHER SUBSTANCES, ON, ALONG, IN, UNDER AND ACROSS PUBLIC STREETS, WAYS, ALLEYS AND PLACES WITHIN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1457 was waived. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a brief recess. The Council reconvened with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order. I CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 00-1 - RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE Mayor Yost declared the continued public hearing open to consider Zone Text Amendment 00-1 to establish a Residential Conservation Overlay Zone. The City Clerk certified that notice of the continued public hearing had been advertised as well as mailed, the Council received in their agenda packets copies of communications received at the March 13th meeting, that thirteen communications and a petition containing approximately five hundred fourteen signatures had been received since the last meeting in support of the ZTA, two communications, a petition having approximately thirty-three signatures received since the last meeting in opposition to the ZTA, a petition just received in opposition having signatures of fourteen persons, one letter in opposition, a letter from the adjacent property owner of the 7th Street lot proposed for a bed and breakfast facility posing thirteen questions to the City Council, copies of all communications received prior to this meeting provided to the Council. The City Manager reported that this item is basically a consideration by the City of relocation of two of the older houses in the community toa new site on 7th Street, a tradeoff to allow the future applicant to operate a bed and breakfast facility in one of the houses, these houses' are the Krenwinkle house on Central Avenue and the Proctor house on 10th Street. In the past the City has budgeted funds to relocate the Krenwinkle house to a site uncertain then with the Hellman development plan it was proposed to be located on the State Lands site then with the golf course project no longer viable due to a court decision in another jurisdiction that opportunity no longer existed, that prompted consideration of how to salvage one of the few remaining older wooden houses in the community that a number of people have supported for preservation. At this same time the City became aware that the Proctor house property was being offered for sale which brought about the prospect of losing another of the older houses, this a quaint and architecturally significant home. The applicant approached the City with the idea of placing both homes on a vacant lot on 7th Street, the question then became whether this was worthy of bringing forth to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration, however given the sense that there was a desire in the community by a segment of the population to save some of the few remaining houses in the City before they are demolished for construction of new houses, that seemed to warrant bringing this matter forward. He said this was not anticipated to be a controversial matter, it was felt that taking the two houses and placing them on a new lot on 7th Street adjacent to the Radisson Hotel, a sixteen unit apartment complex, and two houses that have been converted into offices would not be a sensitive area for a bed and I 3-27-00 breakfast use, this however required enabling legislation because in Seal Beach the Zoning Code does not recognize bed and breakfast facilities even though there is the Seal Beach Inn and Gardens, legislation was then drafted with the intent of allowing these two houses to be moved to the specific site on 7th Street. Upon this being prepared for Planning Commission consideration the staff became aware of people expressing concern with regard to precedent, that the City was changing course and that the Zoning Ordinance of the City, primarily residential, was being changed, a violation of something that had been hard earned, at that point it was removed from Commission consideration and meetings were held with about seventy residents to explain the purpose of the issue, at that point the scope was narrowed as it was being heard that a concern was that applications might be . forthcoming for bed and breakfast facilities throughout Old Town, in fact a newspaper printed a map showing where old homes might seek such use, the scope then narrowed to where the only location this could occur would be at the specific site across the street from the Radisson hotel, it was felt that addressed the concerns however it is understood that there is either a misunderstanding of the intent or possibly objections based on principal and concern with precedent. The Manager noted that at the last Council meeting a full public hearing was conducted, when a vote was thought to be forthcoming amendments to the proposed Ordinance were introduced, at that point the Council requested that the matter be continued to allow time for review of the proposed amendments, in so doing this item was re-noticed to allow the public to be present. This process creates a definition of a bed and breakfast zone, confines that to the particular area across from the Radissonhotel, if this were to be approved the City has control over further applications that may come forth under this Overlay Zone, and it is anticipated for these two older homes that the Planning Commission, through the Conditional Permit process, would have review of the specifics and detail of the project as well as the City Council should it be brought forth on appeal. Mayor Yost stated he wanted the public .to have the opportunity to review and make comments on the proposed amendments, some significantly change the proposal. I I The Director of Development Services explained that there are two separate location criteria under the Zone Text Amendment that would need to be met for any future application, any prope.rty would need to be within a five hundred foot distance from the centerline of Pacific Coast Highway, also that the property be within three hundred feet of any existing hotels or motels that are within a five hundred foot distance of the centerline of Pacific Coast Highway, the only existing facility that meets both criteria is the Radisson Hotel, the properties on the easterly side of 7th Street, westerly side of 8th Street and a portion of the Bay City Shopping Center. To a question relating to a property at Landing and Seal Beach Boulevard, the Director explained that the structure is no longer motel use therefore it would not qualify, .that property also thought to be more than the five hundred foot criteria. The Director explained that the Planning Commission held public hearings on this matter; made a recommendation to deny the request and not allow bed and breakfast facilities within the community, however a zone text amendment is a legislative action, the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the Council which is the final decision making body. He noted that a number of revisions were presented at the last meeting, they have been I ~~ ~- 3-27-00 I reviewed with the project proponent to determine which would be acceptable from his standpoint, also from the standpoint of staff, those that would be acceptable and those that may cause problems, Attachment 1 to the staff report details the proposed revisions. The Director noted that the first proposal acceptable to the project proponent was to change the applicable year of construction from 1930 to 1925, the second was to delete language in the 'Intent' portion of the ordinance that read 'the City of Seal Beach as a tourist destination,' third was to identify the size of the parcel as 50 by 100 feet in depth where the ordinance required a fifty foot frontage but did not specify the depth, fourth was to eliminate future applications for a conditional use permit to allow the sale of beer and wine to guests of the bed and breakfast facility, fifth would be to provide that the owners unit parking be within a garage area, sixth, to limit the credit for the closing of existing driveways and stipulate that that would only apply to a maximum of one parking space, seventh would add a section to require compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, eighth, add a section whereby the owner could not seek any property tax abatement, that somewhat of a future provision should the City adopt some type of historic preservation program and a tax credit, ninth would add a section to limit the size of an addition to no more than fifty percent of the existing structure, that a change from what was discussed at the last meeting which was a limitation to twenty-five percent, fifty percent seems to be more reasonable based upon evaluation of a number of bed and breakfast ordinances from throughout the country, and last, a new section to limit any other use of the bed and breakfast property and the facility thereon to single family residential purposes. with regard to the expansion of up to fifty percent, the City Manager stated both the Krenwinkle and Proctor houses are anticipated to be below twenty-five percent, the staff recommendation is to not allow anything over twenty-five percent. The Development Services Director proceeded with a review of proposed revisions that the proponent felt were unacceptable and that staff feels would make the process detrimental to allow the two units to proceed with any consideration at this time, the first would be to add language to require the structure to be on list designated by the City Council to be of local or regional historic interest or significance, however the City has no designated list at this time, to develop such list can be a very time consuming and costly process, therefore it was felt this proposal was not appropriate, the second was to eliminate a section that would require the owner, owner/operator, of the bed and breakfast facility to reside on the premises, in the opinion of staff it is felt that that provision is important to ensure that the property is maintained and operating in a manner that does not become detrimental to surrounding land uses, it is felt that can best be accomplished by the owner being on and responsible for the property, third is to revise the parking requirement for two off-street parking spaces for the operator, review of the forty-some bed and breakfast ordinances show a requirement of one space for the owner unit and one per guest room, possibly ten to fifteen percent of those require two spaces for the owner unit, it is the opinion of staff that one space is appropriate, the fourth would require a development agreement for the operation of a bed and breakfast facility, yet under State law a development agreement provides vested rights to the owner of the property over and above what would accrue to the property under a conditional use permit process, in the mind of staff it was I I 3-27-00 felt that gives away more rights to the operator/owner of the property than would be appropriate, to that the recommendation is to not apply a development agreement should the ZTA be approved, it is felt the CUP process allows the City to condition the property and correct situations should they occur, and last, to eliminate a section that would delete certain exceptions to current development standards, primarily with regard to height and setback issues, and again, upon looking at a number of bed and breakfast and historic preservation ordinances a large majority of those basically grandfather in an existing structure because of the potential adverse effects to the structure of having to lower a roofline or cut off a portion of a building due to ,setback requirements that did not exist when the building was originally constructed. As an example, the Director noted that the Proctor house does not sit on a slab foundation, rather a raised foundation with utility lines running underneath the house, therefore the house would need to be set back onto a raised foundation, when that is done the house would be about twenty-six and a half to twenty-seven feet above grade, the height limit in the area is twenty-five feet, that is in regard to the roof of the structure. The Director mentioned that the other issue would be the setbacks for the Krenwinkle house, four feet instead of five feet sideyard setbacks due to the width of the house which is thought to be about thirty to thirty-five feet wide. He pointed out that those are the types of issues that the Planning Commission would be looking at when reviewing a specific application, and make recommendations as to whether it is felt those specific types of exceptions are appropriate given the neighboring properties, architectural style of the building, and alterations to the building that might be proposed by the project applicant. The Director stated that if the Council feels that any of the provisions that staff feels are unacceptable are felt should be imposed, staff would then recommend that the Zone Text Amendment be denied, those conditions are felt to be inappropriate and make the concept unworkable in the community. The Director noted that the issue under consideration is whether or not to approve some sort of implementing mechanism for future consideration of projects that would allow relocation of older homes within the City to the particular area described for the conversion to bed and breakfast facilities, if it is felt the City should not encourage that type of a use in the area indicated then the Council should deny the application and deny the Zone Text Amendment, if it is felt that type of a program is one that the City should have available if there is no other way to save some of these homes, then staff would recommend approval of the Zone Text Amendment, which in turn would allow the Planning Commission, under public hearings for a zone change, to physically apply the provisions of the Zone Text Amendment to a particular property, subject to a development plan for that property with conditions applied through a conditional use permit for a specific application. The Director stated the options for consideration, uphold the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the Zone Text Amendment and not allow bed and breakfast facilities within the community, approve the staff recommendation to approve the Zone Text Amendment with the revisions that were acceptable, or, revise the ordinance to include all of the changes proposed, including those that staff has recommended against. In response to a question of Councilmember Campbell, the Director confirmed that a bed and breakfast facility could not be placed adjacent to an existing single family residence, it must be on a lot of at least fifty feet I I I 3-27-00 I in width, that width of a lot is necessary to realistically provide the parking, also, one of the issues that were heard clearly in the public information meetings was that bed and breakfast facilities may be fine in the City but the people just did not want them next to their single family home, and described again the area proposed which houses the Radisson Hotel, a repair garage, lawyers office, a boat building facility, a flower shop and other commercial uses along Marina Drive and Pacific Coast Highway, this particular location chosen because of these existing land uses. Councilmember Campbell noted that in looking at the existing land uses it appears that this proposal applies only to the lot in question, for another to qualify under the regulations it would be necessary to tear down an existing structure, inquiring if this ordinance could be narrowed even further to just this one lot. The Director said this has been discussed at length between staff and legal counsel, it was felt there was an issue of providing a reasonable number of locations in the community to avoid a special privilege, it was felt that this area, although it may not realistically have an immediate possibility of having another bed and breakfast with old homes being moved into the area for future use, it is felt the area is appropriate for such use as opposed to the more traditional single family residential areas of Old Town. Councilmember Campbell inquired as to how many homes in the City would qualify under the 1925 scenario, to that the Director responded he could only provide a guesstimate as at this point there is no definite study, and referred to a past walking tour of Old Town compiled by the Womans Club showing about fourteen to fifteen older homes in the City and indicating all having been constructed before 1925, if there are others there is no way of knowing at this point. Councilmember Campbell surmised that these homes have been maintained or restored and people are living in them otherwise there is an older home waiting to find an owner and an available lot, to that the Director responded he was not aware of that in the foreseeable future. Councilman Boyd said one of the things he found of interest in the provisions that were unacceptable to the project proponent and/or staff was the purpose and intent, Section 28-850, referring to historic structures located within the City, and that with the ever increasing pressures of modernization, locally significant historic structures are threatened, to that he mentioned his proposed change that the year of construction be reduced from 1930 to 1925 and that those structures be designated by the City Council to be of local or regional historic interest or significance, to that staff indicates they are against that proposal because adding that language would effectively eliminate any structures from being considered at this time as the City presently has no adopted list of designated historic structures, in his thinking the proposed ZTA then says that local historic structures are threatened yet it is not known which structures, so, how can a ZTA be proposed to preserve them. The Director responded that the way this is defined at this point is that any existing house in the City built before 1925 is assumed to be a locally significant structure, whether that would remain or change in the future should the City go into a detailed preservation program and identification of structures is unknown, that is now the initial criteria. He noted that staff has contacted a number of cities that have gone through the historic significance process in recent years, Pacifica as an example spent about three years and $150,000 to determine what structures in that community were of local significance from a historic, cultural or historic nature, I I 3-27-00 that community considerably different than Seal Beach in that they have many 1880 to 1910 beach bungalows and large beach homes, the cost and time involved for those types of studies can be substantial. He said that if there is a concern to try to have a mechanism in place to allow for preservation of two structures that at this point seem to have the potential to be lost to the community it was thought that something needed to be in place fairly immediately rather than wait for the identification process and risk the loss of those homes before that is completed. Councilman Boyd said that is his point, locally historic structures are those residences constructed prior to 1925, that does not necessarily mean it is a structure that has been in Seal Beach since 1925, the language is ambiguous should it come to a legal challenge, in fact a structure could be moved to Seal Beach from another area. Councilmember Campbell asked why the construction date was changed from 1930 to 1925 and what structures would be caught in that five year period, the response of Councilman Boyd was that seventy-five years seems to be the norm for designation for historical purposes. Suggestion was made that the designation then be seventy-five years rather than 1925, concurrence was indicated that that could be, however it was also mentioned that 1925 was a turning point in the City's history, the growth of the City, south of Pacific Coast Highway, took place during that first ten year period. In response to Councilmember Campbell, Mr. Chris Verhulst stated the home he restored previously was built in 1936. I Mayor Yost invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. The Mayor stated that the two persons that spoke to this issue earlier in the meeting would need to postpone further comments until all others have spoken, also, the Council indicated they did not support a thirty minute in favor and thirty minute against format. Mr. James Cook, 8th Street, stated he resides within three hundred feet of the proposed project, the Council has been provided petitions containing over five hundred signatures in support, about half each from Districts Three and One, approximately seventy signors are within the three hundred feet, which indicates that the people most affected are in favor of the project. Mr. Cook mentioned an ad placed in the local newspaper, paid for by Concerned Citizens of Seal Beach, in his opinion it would be better to show names of actual people. He said there is talk about higher density than current zoning, this proposal is not higher density, there will be seven bedrooms, two single family homes would have more than seven bedrooms, this project will cover only forty percent of the lot, two single family homes could have seventy-five percent lot coverage, there is talk of higher height limits, it is not, this is an existing older building, whether or not it is historically significant according to the standards of some, instead of cutting the building down it does exceed the height limit by about one and a half feet, and that is not the entire building just a portion, the way the' one home is proposed to sit on the property it can only fit with a four foot setback, again that is because it is an older home. with regard to height limits in this community, Mr. Cook said they should actually be measured from the flood plain rather than the curb height, as an example had his home been three feet higher when it was built, making it twenty- eight feet, he would not have had two feet of water inside during the floods. Tandem and perpendicular parking, it has both, Mr. Cook pointed out that it is a bed and breakfast, will not have one hundred percent occupancy, it is also done I I _../~. . 3-27-00 I that way because the looking and viewing of the house is set to the front on 7th Street, parking could be done without tandem but it would look like the apartment complex next door, this property will have a nice, appealing look from the front, with regard to parking spaces, there will be credit for one and an existing six with the tandem parking, there is also an off-alley approach that is large enough for two more vehicles even though they are not allowed to be counted as spaces, thus there is actually room for the parking of eight cars. Mr. Cook stated this project is a benefit to the community and the area of his home, repeated the number of signatures on the petition in support, and requested Council approval. Mayor Yost noted the repeating of prior comments and suggested that only new information or opinions be forthcoming. Mr. Dave Bartlett, representing the proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Verhulst, owner of property located at 308 - 7th Street, said this is not a political or personal issue to him, rather it is principal and commitment, he made a commitment to the Luraschi family to help find a location for the Krenwinkle house, he is trying to accomplish that, it is felt the land use regulations proposed are reasonable and go above and beyond what is typically allowed and required in other communities, up 'and down the coast of California bed and breakfast facilities are allowed in beautiful communities, areas such as Santa Barbara, Solvang, San Diego, Laguna Beach, in fact a recent news article focused on an old bungalow saved in Laguna, it was eight hundred square feet built in 1925, one story, and after renovation it was twenty- two hundred square feet and three stories, and received an award for historic significance, that because the National Historic Register provides that fifty percent of a structure may be added onto, and it is said that a structure only has to be fifty years old to be considered for the National Register. This location meets all of the criteria, the conditions proposed by staff are sensible, sound, professionally written, objective, the modifications proposed are more to do with political positioning, in his opinion the project should be judged by the facts. He made mention of the number of signatures on the petition gathered by the proponent, reference also to and quotes from several of the letters in support of preserving the older homes and the bed and breakfast use. Mr. Bartlett made reference to the example of bed and breakfast use in the City, the Seal Beach Inn, which does not even involve older historic houses, it is a hotel located in a residential area, does not have the parking, and over time that area of the City has improved because of that use, what is now nice, surrounding homes that used to be apartments. Mr. Bartlett mentioned that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, less density, is a lesser lot coverage, all of the technical issues such as the General Plan, CEQA, setbacks, lot coverage, etc. have been dealt with, and if the statements of those in favor of this project are listened to it is felt the Council will vote its approval. Ms. Beverly pierce stated she has not been to the previous meetings, that because she has respect for the Council and eventually the Council does the wise and correct thing. Ms. Pierce stated however her concern over the past few weeks, one the newspaper ad to which reference has been made, there is a lot of information, the five points of the ZTA have already been explained, it restricts and makes impossible things that reference was made to in a door flier. Ms. pierce said her concern stems from being a past director of economic development and housing and community development for a city and is presently the owner of a consulting firm for government. The flier says if one I I 3-27-00 lives within five hundred feet of Pacific Coast Highway the zone change might affect ones property, not unlike the newspaper article with no signature, the same picture was included, in her opinion this is inflammatory, especially since she lives at the other end of Old Town. Ms. Pierce stated that all of those who signed the petition own homes here, they do care, and are behind the Verhulst's and the historical preservation he is trying to do, it is understood too that the Council is in a difficult position, trying to please everyone and cover every angle, sometimes it is not possible to please everyone but it is always possible to show respect and honor for one another, it is difficult to see the personal attacks that the Council has been subject to. Ms. pierce made reference to another newspaper article and stated it is her belief that no one is in anyone's pocket, especially those who donate so much of their time and energy to help the City, those who work here will never be millionaires, and she can now return to her home knowing that it will not be necessary to attend more meetings because again it is believed the Council will do the right thing, which is to approve this bed and breakfast. Ms. Joy Lohrke, Marble Cove Way, forty year resident, attended Zoeter and McGaugh, lived on 16th Street, and in her high school years her family moved to and lived in what is being called the Proctor house for nearly thirty years. Ms. Lohrke said there has been a lot of misinformation at these meetings, she was present to hopefully correct that, stated she is a co-owner of the Proctor house, she and her three sisters are presently trying to market the house and the two lots that it resides on, a package sale of all three. Ms. Lohrke said it appears that the ZTA is being passed because it is thought.to be a way to preserve and restore the Proctor house, yet there is no arrangement or agreement between the owners and Mr. Verhulst, no agreement to move the house, to give the house to him, or sell or lease the house, neither he or his attorney has made an offer, a picture of the Proctor house continues to be shown as being relevant to the ZTA, but there is no relevancy to that issue at all. Her understanding is that the ZTA will allow Mr. Verhulst to move any house of at least seventy-five years and convert it to a B & B, if it is the intention of the Council to base the merits of the Zone Text Amendment upon the verbiage of the ZTA that is fine, but if in the judgment of the Council the intent is to pass the ZTA simply to save this so-called historical Proctor house, then the judgment is being based on something that is not there. Ms. Lohrke again stated that the house and the two lots are for sale, it has not been sold, as many people want to believe, she would urge the Council to make their decision based on the salient facts and merits of the Zone Text Amendment, not on the belief that this will somehow save a one hundred six year old house. Ms. Marilyn Hastings, Old Town, stated her belief that with the statements made by the prior speaker, the entire Zone Text Amendment is moot. I I Mr. Chris Verhulst, proponent, said he and his wife are the owners of the property at 308 - 7th Street, it is they who made the proposal to the City for a bed and breakfast, it is correct that the Zone Text Amendment deals with the ability for a project to go forward and exist in Seal Beach, at this point there is no criteria, stated that an appraisal has been done on what is technically the Clor house, the Proctor house prior to that, appraised at $550,000, that basically the value of the land as it is two building lots, there were a couple of people interested in purchasing the lots to construct two custom homes, he spoke with one of them, they I -. :~ 3-27-00 I were not interested in the house, anyone that has seen the house can come to the same conclusion that the underlying land dictates that at some point in time the house will be demolished if someone does not move it onto another lot. He explained that it is the Krenwinkle house that started this whole process, it is available, ready to be moved, a couple of weeks after this came up someone contacted the City to see if they could demolish the Clor/proctor house, it was found to not be on any historical registry, therefore the response was that if someone were to purchase the property there would be nothing to prohibit razing the house and building two custom homes, so it can be seen that this is a unique situation where a purchaser of the property will not be willing to wait for a zone text amendment that will allow the preservation of the older homes, it will be torn down. Mr. Verhulst said it is known that the Krenwinkle house is ready to be moved onto the 7th Street site whether it be front or back, the Clor house is an option and may be the most handsome with its architecture, another option is the Ord house at 10th and Central, a house as well at 2nd and Ocean, that built in 1906, four buildings that are large enough and old enough, nice looking buildings that would lend themselves to being relocated to the area in the community that is being designated by the Zone Text Amendment and converted into a bed and breakfast as a vehicle to preserve the history of Old Town. He stated that plans have been drawn in terms of moving forward with the project as one needs to know what they are looking at, neither the Proctor or Krenwinkle house is a hinging point to this item, the Zone Text Amendment will create and enable, at a later date, a method to save these older historic buildings in the community. Mr. Verhulst said it was he and his wife that walked the petition on weekends and evenings, the project and location were described, the general response was that it is a great idea, there has been considerable misinformation, distorted and half-true information, again, there was great support from Districts Three and One and the immediate area. Mr. Verhulst encouraged adoption of the Zone Text Amendment to create a vehicle to save any of the four remaining houses that are large enough and significant enough to be converted to a bed and breakfast and saved. Mr. Victor Grgas, twenty year resident, noted talk about Old Town as if there were something old left, soon it will be the Old Hill or Old College Park East because there will be nothing left that is old in Old Town, the fact that the Proctor house is for sale should tell one something because no one will buy that house to preserve it in place, it will be torn down and two new custom homes will be built as has been done with every other double lot in Seal Beach for the past twenty years, he knows because he bought one of them, and he has not seen one house preserved in that situation, they have all been torn down including probably the most historical house in the community, the Stanton house, it too sat on a double lot, gone in an instant. He offered that the worst thing that could happen to the Council some five to fifteen years from now is to look back and know that those houses could have been saved but they were not, hopefully Mr. Verhulst will be able to find one of those four houses that will work on this site, without legislation, the ZTA, these houses will be history. Mr. Grgas encouraged a vote in favor of the Zone Text Amendment, and cautioned the Council to not do what the City has already done, look back and say they wished they had done this. Mr. Michael Gould introduced himself as the architect for the project, confirmed that the percentage of addition to an historic building is fifty percent, this I I 3-27-00 project is well within that percentage, to the parking issue a request was heard earlier for an additional space for the owner, this project shows six spaces on the site, the nine foot zone at the rear of the property allows another space for a total of seven, said this is a wonderful project and he wished to publicly add his support. Ms. Stephanie Cook, 8th Street, expressed her support for the project as well, stating that it would be nice to have a bed and breakfast in their area, mentioned that her family would stay there when visiting and they would not require a parking space as they would be picked up from the airport, the businesses can be accessed by foot, in talking to some of the business people they support the B & B however some could not sign the petition because they do not live in Seal Beach. She encouraged approval of the ZTA, the project proposed would do nothing but improve 7th Street, the apartments are not the greatest, and on her street some residents pose problems, a bed and breakfast would be much more pleasant. Mr. Tom Blackman, Beryl Cove way, forty year resident said he has seen many changes, the majority of which have been for the good. Mr. Blackman mentioned that the Council has several responsibilities, one is the beautification of the City, that recreation facilities remain for public use, the beautiful beach, the greenbelt, the library, all of the different things that have been done over the years, one can look around at the financial state of some cities, the Council is also the guardians of the public purse, State, federal and County governments are not going to rush to financial aid for Seal Beach or for beautification, for moving a house, or for establishing a bed and breakfast facility. Mr. Blackman stated that bed and breakfast inns add to the quality of life in a community from several standpoints, recalled stores on Main Street going bankrupt because there was not enough business, that is not happening now but anything that can be done to support those businesses is worthwhile so long as it does not hurt the community or the residents, this project will preserve some beautiful homes that is felt do have historic value, and support of this Amendment can facilitate the saving of two homes in Seal Beach. Mr. John Reed, 8th Street, a recent resident, said when he first heard of this proposal his belief was that it did not stand a chance, his experience where he lived previously is that whenever someone wants to do something new or change something the people shut things down, however what is impressive to him is that this proposal has gotten this far, he has not attended the meetings, and his feeling is that a bed and breakfast is a great idea, the property was previously a boarded up house and garage, an upscale bed and breakfast would be good, people coming into the City, in fact they learned about the City by coming here on vacations and visits'. I I Dr. David Rosenman, 8th Street, said he never got a petition, his feeling is that the gathering process was flawed, beware of things that show up without people behind them. His comment to Councilmember Campbell was that she never opposes her Planning Commissioner and by deferring to the Councilmember in whose district this would be could be setting a precedent. He too is amazed that this issue has, gotten this far, recalled the proposal to do a historic building parking variance for BJ's, when things like that are done or when something is rushed through the City gets in trouble, this is one of those. Dr. Rosenman said he has stayed at bed and breakfasts, at all but one the owner(s) are in residence, that is part of' the charm, and he would take exception to the recommendation of staff that the owner(s) I " 3-27-00 I need not live on site. Dr. Rosenman predicted that the Planning Commission will have difficulty with this matter in that they have already voted against it, therefore if this is not denied in total it should be sent back to them to work through before the Council takes an action. Ms. Marilyn Hastings, Old Town, expressed her amazement at this issue, there has been an investment of staff and City Attorney time, this something that is based on a false premise, this should be sent back and re-evaluated. Mr. Jim Caviola, Ocean Avenue, made reference to page three of the staff report that set forth the proposed revisions that are unacceptable to the project proponent, to that Mr. Caviola claimed that the City is the proponent of this matter, revision of Section 28-850 to add language to the Purpose and Intent Section, that the structure be 'designated by the City Council to be of local or regional historic interest or significance,' that is found to be unacceptable by the proponent. He said it has been said that a special building code was going to be used, from the City he obtained the Code which is called the Uniform Code of Building Conservation which would make one think it means restore, it does not, rather it is what is necessary to make something qualify under the regular Building Code, there are definitions specific to that Code, that for a historic building or structure is one that has been designated by official actions of the legally constituted authority of the jurisdiction as having special historical architectural significance, the section that is going to be used does not apply as this building has never been designated, then, the title and scope of that same Building Code, Section 106, change of occupancy, half way through that Section, states 'the change of use or occupancy shall not exceed in height the number of stories in an area permitted for new buildings except as permitted in this Code', thus far it has not been known that this Conservation Code does not apply to this project. Of particular concern as a citizen is that the Council has no more respect for him than the Planning Commissioners as both do the same job, volunteer time for the benefit of the citizens. Mr. Caviola made reference to page sixteen of the staff report, Section 4(a), states that the Planning Commission found that ZTA 00-1 is not consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan, the amendment is inconsistent with existing provisions of the General Plan, and (b) the text amendment would be detrimental to the orderly and planned development of the City, then in Section 7 of the report it states that based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Council determines that ZTA 00-1 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the General Plan, accordingly the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, the amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. Mr. Caviola also referred to page three of the staff report to the Planning Commission and noted that the Commission suggested additional citing criteria for applicable Residential Conservation Overlay Zones to specific properties, to that it was said specific properties could not be found. He objected to this consideration. Mr. Charles Antos, Seal Beach, cited the issues as being the Zone Text Amendment and whether or not to have bed and breakfast facilities in the City and preserve the older homes. He said in his opinion the ZTA is spot zoning, if bed and breakfasts are wanted somewhere in town it should be by a Conditional Use Permit process, if churches can be cited anywhere desired then why not bed and breakfasts, through a CUP there is a finding as to whether the use is compatible with the I I 3-27-00 neighborhood and surrounding uses of the area, it is not necessary to go through a contrived plan of so many feet from the center of Coast Highway and so many feet from a certain land use, also, if the desire is to preserve these old homes they will not all fit in an area of two blocks. Mr. Antos stated that if bed and breakfast facilities are approved, there was a proposal to limit the length of stay, that would eliminate the corporate clients and the grandparents, if the idea is to have this business succeed then do not impose a stay limit. with regard to the Krenwinkle house, it was offered to the City, it is understood that the owners were to pay some $10,000 to have it moved for possible museum use, however should this house go to private ownership it would seem that the only fair thing to do would be to return that money to the current owners. Ms. Paula Shears, Electric Avenue, expressed her opinion that this will set a precedent, in years past the town was downzoned, she owns property in town and appreciates old homes, she built the two Victorian homes across from St. Anne's Church, the Krenwinkle house is not particularly attractive, the one at 10th and Electric is, the house will be at the back of the lot so it will not show anyway, and this proposal will crowd the lot. She said it would be nice if some of her properties were rezoned for hotel use, noted the statement that a bed and breakfast facility could not be located next to a single family residence and to that stated that her apartment tenants are just as particular as the home owners. Ms. Shears expressed her objection to this proposal, she did not understand the City supporting it, said she has never received similar consideration for 'construction, and all of the variances does not make sense. Ms. Wendi Rothman said she lives in Seal Beach and she too would like to find a good way to preserve these old historic homes. Ms. Rothman expressed concern with the Zone Text Overlay, the first is Code enforcement, offering that there is an old game that is frequently played in this room called pretend, applicants come before the Council and ask for special privileges, to get them they pretend to do what the Council would like to see to win approvals, they convince the Council that they need quaint restaurants, lots of sales tax dollars, or restored old homes, then the mask comes off and it is seen what was intended all along, that is what happens when bad decisions are made, she cited as an example the liquor license granted to papillions as a fine dining establishment which today is a bar, another example would be the person who sought a higher height limit with the promise that there would be retail sales tax coming from the first floor of that property and thus far there is nothing there that would generate any sales tax from that property. What can be done about this pretending, nothing because there is no real Code enforcement in this community, we can not collect the money owed the City by Ruby's, what is the City going to do when the seven or eight bedrooms are not successful as a bed and breakfast, ownership changes, it is not a success, it will be eight bachelor units, that will be an upzoning of Old Town, that would be totally against all of the people who worked so hard years ago and the residents who allowed their properties to be downzoned for the betterment of Seal Beach., Ms. Rothman objected to discriminatory treatment of tenants in the community, apartments are their home and they have the right to enjoy the quiet of their neighborhood. She stated that this proposal for a bed and breakfast can not be enforced, all five of the Planning Commissioners denied this proposal, urged the Council to stand by their decision, claiming this is a dangerous project. Mr. Kurt Stable said from a previous I I I 3-27-00 I meeting he understands that the Council is concerned about preservation of older homes in Seal Beach. Mr. Stable said he has done considerable research since that time, reported having talked to officials at the Governor's office of Planning and Research, California office of Historical preservation, and the designated historic preservation officer for the National Parks Service in Long Beach, this in an effort to get expert opinions. One issue is the California Environmental Quality Act enacted in 1970 to maintain a high quality environment now and in the future, stated the Act does apply to projects, Zoning Amendments, Conditional Use Permits, etc., he is uncertain as to whether this law has been adhered to, his belief is that this qualifies as a project therefore something called a negative declaration should be prepared or an environmental impact report, he is not certain that has been done, there is also no enforcement except by means of litigation or threat thereof. Mr. Stable said he does not believe anyone wants to tear down old homes, he personally likes old architecture, if these homes are historically significant, which to his knowledge has not been proven, then they should be subject to the standards to restoring and preserving historic homes, in that case one should look to the Secretary of the Interior who sets the standards for restoring such homes, the standards cover the process of preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction, the question is then if the City is going to preserve these homes why has it not adopted these standards, also why has the person proposing this project not, volunteered to abide by these standards, if they did they would be eligible for substantial federal tax credits, in his opinion the reason the proponent has not volunteered this information or to follow the standards is because this project as proposed is not historic preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction that meets commonly accepted guidelines. with regard to historic significance, in an effort to have consistency in determining whether local properties are significant the City should adopt standards outlined by the California Office of Historic Preservation which provides continuity and standardized evaluation, to that he asked why the City does not want to add language that designates a structure to be locally or regionally historically significant. Mr. Stable said the City has realized this is not restoration and does not comply with guidelines established by State and federal historic preservation agencies. Ms. Geri West, thirty-three year resident of Electric Avenue, said her understanding is that the side setbacks would be four feet, to that she made reference to her remodel in 1988, two separate lots, where they were required to double the side setbacks, six feet to put the two lots together, asked when that changed, the ordinance number and date, and why does this applicant not have to setback six feet. The Mayor responded it is ten percent of the lot size, five feet for a twenty-five foot lot. Ms. West mentioned that they have lived in two houses that were built before World War II, they exist, have been remodeled but maintained as built, pointed out that she has been in this community longer than anyone on Council and has testified each time that properties have been downzoned, when people say what a great town this is she tells them that this did not just happen, thousands of hours have been spent before City Councils, hundreds of hours trying to save the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way, a former Councilman who spoke earlier did not support that, a member of the Historical Society said they were very careful to not support this project, they only support historical buildings in general, I I 3-27-00 many members support that but not at any cost, there are members present that do not support the proposed project in fact feel it is a subversion of restoration. She read a letter from Mr. Rene Bolen that posed a number of questions to Council. To the question as to when tandem parking was no longer allowed, Ms. West offered that it was 1978. Ms. Barbara Antoci, long time Seal Beach resident, said these proceedings are unbelievable, asked what the discussion is all about, there is no Proctor house, there is no Proctor overlay, the Council has gone over the line, this entire subject is moot, it is the Mola gang that is for this. Ms. Diana Yacoby said they are the owners of the property at 301 - 7th Street, the metal building, and came to the meeting not certain whether she was for or against the project proposed, yet while hearing the comments and given that they do not live in Seal Beach she did have questions. She asked if the overlay has any affect on the underlying zoning, could other properties within the three hundred feet become bed and breakfasts, if they were to demolish their metal building could an older home be located on that lot as a bed and breakfast, also, does the ZTA restrict bed and breakfast facilities to the preservation of old homes only or could a new bed and breakfast facility be built with wood, stucco, tile, etc. The random responses were that a bed and breakfast facility would be allowed on their lot, her other questions would depend upon which version of the proposed ordinance may be adopted. Ms. Yacoby asked if someone would be overseeing such use to assure that the old structure actually qualifies, the response was that it would be approved through a Conditional Use Permit process. Ms. Yacoby said she could not imagine any other use that would be better at the proposed location, at least for them, a single family home would not be all that compatible, she would not like to see someone going through all of this and then suddenly someone can build just a regular building and it is a bed and breakfast, taking on the appearance of a grocery store. Mr. Roger Yacoby stated that there will be no parking on their property by anyone other than a person who rents or works there, there are no plans to lease spaces to anyone. I I Ms. Fanny Bolen, Seal Beach, expressed her belief that the Council is preparing to vote to change the zoning where it took so many years to have it reduced to R-1, that is a reason that they bought their building on 7th Street, that it would remain residential and the value would not change but get better. They never thought that there would be a bed and breakfast next to their property, apartments should be treated the same as residential, agreed that there should be more respect for apartment tenants, questioned why bed and breakfasts are in demand for this location, what makes it so good. She noted a comparison was made to the Seal Beach Inn, it is beautiful, has a courtyard, one side is an alley, the other is a fifteen foot setback, in this case instead of being five feet it will be four feet, when putting two lots together then it should be ten feet, in her case there would be a lot of noise coming from the bed and breakfast and impacting her tenants, stating she has good tenants and wants to keep them. The height of the building will be about thirty-five feet at the back of the lot, imagine that height being next to you. 'Ms. Bolen said if bed and breakfasts are wanted then why didn't the City put a nice one on Seal Beach Boulevard where the Shore Shop was, there would be plenty of room to make a beautiful courtyard, maybe locate all of the old houses there, she too is for preservation, it is also commercial where there would be no need for this process. I 3-27-00 I She mentioned that there used to be a motel at 4th and Marina, why did that change, likely not doing good business, then it turned into apartments, her concern is with what will happen to the bed and breakfast next to her building if this does not work, it will likely turn into apartments, she is not against that because she has one, but they are nice lodging, these would be small, a small bath, rented to young people or people who create problems. Ms. Bolen asked that the Council think about this project before voting, and do not change what has already been changed. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, said the language of the ZTA has been tightened up to the point that it can not be described in any way other than a special privilege, there will be no other similar considerations", it is for this location only, there is no historical preservation or conservation. Mr. Clewley offered that he thought he read that the Historical Society supported this project, if the majority of the members are so interested in preserving the Krenwinkle house then let it be moved to sit atop the Red Car, it is believed that this fits the criteria of the overlay zone, if it exceeds the three hundred foot circle of the Radisson somewhat then possibly the ZTA could be expanded to include the Red Car site, in fact the Historical Society could provide the restoration. Mr. Clewley said there are other possible uses of the site once the bed and breakfast fails, it could be professional offices, a museum, or whatever, given the number of revisions proposed this matter needs to be sent back to the Planning Commission, the same Commission that would need to approve the CUP, yet it does not matter what the Commission approves as it is up to the Council, the Commission is routinely ignored, why not abolish the Commission. Ms. Rebecca Staple, Seal Beach, stated that since the beginning the individuals proposing this project have advertised it as a B & B that will restore two historically significant houses, however tonight when it is time for voting they have specifically eliminated the wording in the amendment that would make this project historically significant, why would they take that out of the amendment, it is so they do not have to following the guidelines for restoring historically significant homes. She would propose that a representative of the City call the Office of Historic Preservation to speak with individuals who are expert in CEQA and historic preservation, they have indicated that if the City requests so, they will come to the City and offer their guidance, at no cost, as to how to effectively start a proper preservation program. Mr. Chi Kredell, Seal Way, expressed his opinion that the Council has slighted the Planning Commission, they recommended a no vote, it is uncertain how this matter got this far but the blame must be placed on the City Manager as it is he who did the negotiation with the proponent. He mentioned that one of the reports cite other uses as professional offices, museums, etc., to which he said that area does not want or need. Mr. Kredell made reference back to 1979 when the area was downzoned, at that time staff said that no one would ever build a single family home on a twenty-five foot lot, within a year eighteen were built, in about five years there were a couple of developers who said the Council at that time did the right thing as the developers were making more money on single family homes than they had on duplexes. He said the Council should take in to consideration what the people have said, they do not want the area rezoned for higher density, the opinion is not fifty/fifty in Old Town, it is much greater to keep the zoning single family, this needs to be returned to and considered by the Planning Commission, they should not be bypassed, it places the Council in a bad I I 3-27-00 position. Mr. Bruce Bennett, resident since 1965, complimented the Council in that it may be felt that there have been personal attacks because people disagree with the opinions of the Council, but that is what it is all about, there are good people on both sides, knowledgeable people who are providing input. Mr. Bennett said his concerns however stem from the Planning Commission voting this matter down on a five to zero vote, his concern with regard to parking relate back to the original staff report, not included at this meeting but still believed to be part of the law, the Development Services Director confirmed that they are, certain resolutions likely to be changed, changed and probably be changed are two different things without having the text in hand for review, people have now been at four or more meetings relating to this issue, that is what this is all about. In looking at the parking there are a couple of issues, the revised staff report continues to state that the required off-street parking shall be provided within a garage for the owners unit only, guest parking spaces may be provided in a carport, driveway or open parking area, Mr. Bennett showed a drawing, which he deemed to be his power point presentation, of parking spaces two, three and four in the event this ZTA is approved, yet spaces one, two, and three are needed, those provided by means of tandem or perpendicular spaces, that coupled with one off-site parking place, maybe another space will be offered by a business in the area, the concept is the issue that is significant. He said that a comment of one of the proponents was that out of this redesigned structure the open space has been increased by forty to fifty percent, what does that mean especially to a resident or neighbor, instead of having a covered garage as a single family home would, it is an open garage, the open garage is being called open space even though it will likely be covered with concrete and most likely have cars on it, what is the consequence of backing two or three cars into the alley late at night to get one guest car out, has that been checked out with the Fire Department. Mr. Bennett requested that attention be paid also to the Public Use description and question if that is part of the ZTA as it does in fact use the word 'etc.' Mr. Bennett concluded that good decisions come from good discussions. Mr. Ron Bennett, said this is his sixth public meeting on this issue, stated he is not against bed and breakfasts but is for restoration, he does not feel those are the real reasons all are present or that people have spoken against this issue. He mentioned negative comments towards the City Manager which he countered that he is doing his job, yet he disagrees with him and feels he is off base on this issue, he was hired to make the City run, said he disagrees with the Director of Development Services as well but it is his job to get development done, he reviews the rules and tries to fit a project within the rules, in this case the rules have been rewritten for the project but that is his job, Mr. Bartlett is a lobbyist, he is doing his job, Mr. Vehulst is doing a good job too. Mr. Bennett said he is not angry with anyone but fells what is needed is some historical perspective, he came here thirty-three years ago, this town was redlined, the old firemen he worked with who were in real estate said not to invest here because you could not borrow money from insurance companies, this a depressed area, but to live near the beach this was all he could afford so he and family bought run down properties, fixed them up, kept what they could, sold what they could. He noted that in the 1970's there was a push to downzone, that was done by requiring more parking, the developers objected stated it would ruin property values, a builder started building homes, I I I , '".' 3-27-00 I many of them, obviously single family residences can be built where duplexes and triplexes were built before, historically the town has become better, when he moved here fifteen to twenty percent of the stores on Main Street at anyone time would be blank, no business, today it is full, as an example a vacancy he was aware of coming in a month he rented in two weeks, turning down three nail parlors and a beauty shop, rather there will be a high-end William Sonoma kitchen type store in the three hundred block of Main Street, yet he could have come to the City to try to get some of the mythical off- street parking to accommodate a beauty shop because he could make more money, however his personal preference is not to do that. Mr. Bennett mentioned the names of those who over the years have argued strongly for the downzoning, greenbelt, projects at McGaugh School, now there may be others. Mr. Bennett said if the ZTA is going to be passed it should be made realistic, require adequate parking, the proponent has used the example that two houses could be placed on these lots with four bedrooms each, eight cars each, therefore he will have less parking with the B & B, under the current plan if he operates as a homeowner with the Krenwinkle house, a three bedroom, three bath home, it would be thought it would generate at least two cars, at least require two spaces for the owners unit, eliminate the off-site parking that realistically does not exist anywhere in the City except as a smoke screen, there is already the potential of allowing this project with eight living units with a promise that only six will be rented, these houses should not be expanded, they should be allowed no more than ten percent. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, stated her opinion that this is inviting litigation, Leisure World, who would never allow this type of use, is always voting for intensification of use in Old Town without giving thought to the quality of life. Ms. Corbin charged that it was the Manager who has worked to get this through, he went to the proponent. She said what is wanted for the remaining homes is one hundred percent preservation, not one percent as with one particular home, when they are gutted that is one percent preservation, the City should buy the Proctor house and the land, money has been collected to create parking, that has not been done, buy the Proctor house and charge a $3,000 or $5,000 amount per space as the Coastal Commission has recommended, then restore the house at leisure or move it to the Scout House property, that could mean thirty parking spaces. She said this project concept makes no sense, the conditions will need to be changed after the fact as they are too restrictive, all Qf Pacific Coast Highway and Old Town is affected, and Oakwood is a hotel, they should be taxed. Ms. Corbin claimed that this project is special things for special people, has nothing to do with preservation, and there are now developers going to people who own the older homes and properties because of their value given the development of mini-motels in residential areas. Ms. Corbin offered that two things are being said, that this will only be one bed and breakfast yet old homes, from anywhere, could be moved into that area. Mr. Bartlett was advised that he would have an opportunity to respond. I I At 10:43 p.m. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to extend this meeting until 11:30 p.m. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried MS. Carla Watson, Catalina Avenue, thirty-six year resident, expressed appreciation to the Council for being attentive to 3-27-00 the opinions of the residents, and the commitment to the City of the Council and the staff. Ms. Watson said however she disagrees, there were a couple of issues and, names brought up, there are certain people who have visions for the City, a gentleman was heard from that has a vision in that he has taken his personal time to plant trees in the City, those are the kinds of people she wants to listen to because their vision is not for personal gain but for beautification, they are concerned about this project and she is concerned because they are. She recalled Mr. Bartlett mentioning certain names on the petition or from communications, one being Ms. Weir, their acquaintance stemmed from the Rough Water Swim, on some things they agreed, others they did not, to that Ms. Watson mentioned that she supported the greening of Bolsa Avenue and the greenbelt, Ms. Weir did not, that she probably agreed on nothing with Mr. Blackman except their position on Proposition 13 but he too opposed the greenbelt, Mr. Bartlett does not live in town, he proposes development, where there was once the Rum Runners and revenues therefrom there are now vacant shops, the Shore Shop is gone, he convinced the City that that was not appropriate property for commercial, it was changed to residential, and those monies have been lost, he proposed intensification on Main Street and supported Mola along with his friend Mr. Verhulst, he has and is entitled to a different vision for the City, to which MS. Watson said she does not share. Ms. Joyce Parkay, 6th Street, mentioned that the Proctor, house is for sale, it has not been purchased, then asked how this matter can be voted upon when the proponent does not own it. She noted that Councilmember Campbell asked why not just rezone the two lots, the response was that that would be a special privilege, that is why the zoning is the length of Pacific Coast Highway, that is why there will be commercial development, staff wants commercial in Old Town to increase revenue and then they can ask the Council for higher salaries. Ms. parkay said there is no way to protect all of the people in Old Town, this will spread to just about every street, there is an old house on almost every street, the Leisure World people do not understand that, there is a lot of commercial development in Old Town, once the commercial is allow it will not stop with one project, each person is responsible for pride of ownership of their property, what is wanted is a mandate of pride of ownership of what will be commercial property. Mr. Dave Bartlett made reference to the Proctor house and said this is not a false pretense, he reported that there were heirs of that house that sat in the City Manager's office with himself and Mr. Verhulst and indicated directly that they would like to see the Proctor house saved and incorporated as part of the bed and breakfast, the property is presently for sale. He confirmed that the testimony by the heir is correct, there is no signed document regarding the Proctor house, it is actually not part of this discussion, rather, it is whether the Zone Text Amendment will be allowed that could preserve either that house, the Krenwinkle or some other house, most everyone understands the basic economics in Old Town, the old houses are torn down and new houses put up, that is what will happen with the Proctor house unless there is a vehicle to save the older houses. Mr.' Bartlett stated he is not a lobbyist, rather, a planning and land use consultant, currently working with the City of Newport Beach on planning and land use issues, he does work for Hellman, he never worked for Mola, with regard to the comments relating to Mitchell Plaza, said it is fully leased, the Shore Shop was a failing commercial enterprise, the Council voted unanimously to change the zoning from commercial to residential, a I I I 3-27-00 I complete fiscal impact study was done that reported residential would be more beneficial to the City than the commercial because the location was not viable for commercial. He stated he is not a developer, he is helping to frame land use and planning issues. With regard to the parking, Mr. Bartlett said the power point presentation of Mr. Bennett looked more like what was approved for the Bob Griffith building on Main Street, that parking plan was innovative and unique, involved an elevator and an attendant and all parking on-site, the parking for the bed and breakfast involves one tandem space, tandem is a common use, with regard to the statement that people do not want this facility, Mr. Bartlett mentioned the petition with five hundred plus signatures of those who do want it. with reference to the denial by the Planning Commission, Mr. Bartlett recalled that they also denied the Bixby project which involved considerable commercial and major issues for the community, the project proposed is not that. Mr. Bartlett referred to the staff report where it states that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA because it will result in minor alterations and land use limitations, that the ZTA is ministerial in nature and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approval of the amendment will have a significant affect on the environment, also that it is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. Mr. Bartlett expressed his intent to clarify the facts given the amount of misinformation and personality conflict, this needs to be judged upon the facts, the ZTA provides for some of the houses to potentially be saved, this is not issues specific to the subject lot, those will come later, however if it is the desire to create the mechanism, then that would be accomplished with approval of the ZTA. I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 10:50 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:55 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order. I Counci1member Campbell noted the reference of Mr. Bennett to other uses such as professional offices, museums, etc., and asked if that language is still in the document. The Development Services Director explained that that language was in the resolution to the Planning Commission for consideration with the recommendation for approval of the project, it was meant to indicate that in looking at ordinances that deal with alternative uses for old homes that are intended for a use other than residential, that could be professional offices, museums, etc., the following sentence then reads that '...these uses would have the potential for creating impacts within the community greater than would be experienced by a bed and breakfast land use', however, the language of the bed and breakfast Overlay Zone allows only one use in that zone, only the bed and breakfast use, no other use is permitted, and confirmed that that language is out, it was only meant to clarify that it was felt certain other uses would be more detrimental to the community and should not be considered. Councilmember Campbell noted a concern that if the bed and breakfast were to be discontinued it could be used for another use, yet there is a provision that if the B & B no longer exists it would revert to a single family residential use. That was confirmed as correct. Councilmember Campbell noted however that the Krenwinkle house is to be residential use therefore the project proponent could move it to the residential lot without a problem, it is the Proctor house that some seem to have a concern, again, if it ceases use as a B & B then it 3-27-00 reverts as a single family residential use, to which she asked how many rooms are being looked at in the Proctor house. The response of the Director was that this proposal is not specific to any residential structure, it is a Zone Text Amendment that would allow a home built in 1925 or before to be converted to a bed and breakfast use upon future public hearings before the Planning Commission should the ZTA be approved, this is the implementing ordinance that would then allow the City to consider a subsequent specific request for a particular piece of property with specific structures, the ZTA has no specific relation to the Krenwinkle or Proctor houses. Councilmember Campbell stated her understanding that the changes under consideration were not before the Planning Commission, however there have been sub~tantial changes since Commission consideration, and inquired if there is a stay limit and is lot coverage discussed. The response of the Director was that there is a ten consecutive day limit in a thirty day period, the ZTA does not specify any lot coverage standards, the ZTA allows relocation of structures then the lot coverage issues would be considered by the Planning Commission at the time of the zone change request, conditional use permit or site plan request for a particular property, the Commission then has the discretion under the CUP process to determine if the project, including lot coverage, parking issues, etc. are compatible to the neighborhood and generally reasonable, the Commission could then approve the lot coverage as proposed, require reduction, etc. Councilmember Campbell noted the mention of other older homes in the City that could be moved to vacant lots in the downtown area, she could not see anyone moving houses from the Hill or elsewhere to downtown, it is expensive to move houses, there comes a break even point where it does make a difference, in this case what needs to be looked at is that a situation has been created where an opportunity has opened up, the price of land is perhaps prohibitive, personally she does not want to see the Proctor house demolished, the exterior is lovely, and the City has no business buying that house and getting into the real estate business. Mayor Yost said he opposes this proposal because it is an upzone, it is an increase of units, where there could be three or even one unit on a fifty foot wide lot so to him it is an intensification of use, the location is not the best of streets, if the apartment house as an example is legal non- conforming and if torn down it could only be replaced with one unit, if looking at the long term interest of the City his feeling is that it would be better to leave it downzoned, the ZTA also allows setbacks that would not otherwise be allowed, this would not be allowed to be built new with the setbacks without a variance, which would never be allowed, of concern also is what happens if this does not remain a bed and breakfast and then you have a large lot with six units in front and two in the back, what would that do to the area in general, so his inclination would be to deny this altogether, and so moved. Councilman Boyd seconded the motion. Mayor Yost said he is not opposed to bed and breakfasts or restoration, in fact if someone were willing to do a bed and breakfast with the Proctor house he would be willing to look at that, then imagine if someone wanted to take the Krenwinkle house and turn it sideways, jack it up, put a garage underneath, and put it on the lot behind the Proctor house, no one would allow that. His belief is that this proposal has ramifications beyond Old Town and for other districts, upzoning could take place in the other areas of the community, the Council needs to realize that this would have implications as a whole far beyond the Old Town area, I I I -~ .- 3-27-00 I again his preference would be to vote this down. The Mayor said he was somewhat saddened to hear the personal comments about this issue. Councilmember Campbell noted the mention of six units in the front of the lot and two in the back, and if the rear is the private residence how is that two units, the Code says it would need to be converted to a single family residence. The Mayor responded that the potential is eight units with eight bathrooms on property which otherwise would be two units, if that number of units are allowed the chances of problems in the future are huge, the same could occur in other areas. The Director concurred that Code enforcement is sometimes difficult issues, each situation is dealt with on a case by case basis and staff has been fairly successful in maintaining the existing ordinances. In this case it is felt the provisions proposed will allow the City to use a proper amount of discretion to assure that if a future use is thought of for a bed and breakfast facility that there are mechanisms in place to deal with that in a rational and reasonable manner. Mayor Yost asked how, if there is a possibility of eight units on a lot, that could be regulated, the response was that it would probably not be any more difficult than regulating some of the large, custom homes in the City, many having five or six bedrooms and often an individual bathroom for each, some homes on the Gold Coast are examples. Councilman Snow said regardless of the remarks directed to people in Leisure World, a resident for twenty- three years and during that time keeping up with the growth of Seal Beach, he has confidence in the staff and has heard from those individuals in support of this issue, and assured that that is the way he will vote. Councilman Doane made reference to the comments, letters, phone calls, about fifty percent for and fifty against, and he continues to favor the bed and breakfast facility at the proposed location. He offered pictures of what had been on the specific lot previously, stating this would be an improvement, there are like businesses in the area, he could not vote in favor of the Proctor house as a bed and breakfast as it is in the heart of a residential area, the area proposed for this B & B is not. He mentioned being accused of taking away the zoning that people worked for, that is not his intent, one person said they did not want to see Seal Beach as a tourist attraction, it already is, it is an attractive town, everyone is proud of this town yet one thing necessary to maintain the town is money, there will be some revenue realized from this project. Councilman Doane noted that the project proponent has been successful with bed and breakfast facilities, he would not favor such a proposal widespread throughout the City, the wording of the proposed ordinance has been framed very carefully and offers assurances, yet it is understood that from a legal perspective the wording can not apply to just one lot. Councilman Doane stated he would like to see this approved, he has listened to the comments, understands some of the concerns, yet in his opinion staff has answered those concerns, and he will support this ZTA. Councilman Boyd said he was not in favor of this proposal, his feeling was that it should have been denied at the last meeting, however he did propose a number of changes. Having read the staff report carefully, Councilman Boyd noted that it is written from the perspective that the City is the proponent of this proposal, the report states that the proposed revisions are broken into two categories, the first being those that the project proponent has indicated would not prevent a successful project and which staff feels would not be detrimental to the interests of the City, that is saying that the person who proposed this bed and breakfast, using I I 3-27-00 two historic homes to do that, has reviewed the recommendations and has said they do or do not work for him, the second category are those recommendations that the project proponent has indicated would render the project infeasible or that are against the advice of staff. Councilman Boyd said he is trying to base a land use decision on whether a bed and breakfast is allowed in a zone with some criteria, in his opinion if someone requested to move some houses on this lot to do a bed and breakfast, or, if someone requests to build a bed and breakfast, the answer would simply be no. He pointed out that the Council has denied persons from building a small thing like a cupola on the top of a house, that was an eighteen inch variance, in this case it is eighteen inches in height, and today he received a call from a resident suggesting that the City's zoning be revisited to not allow for subdivision of fifty foot lots, that would be another down zoning action, but there is a trend that people want to build bigger and nicer homes. Councilman Boyd said he is recommending denial, parking is one issue, his feeling is that it is not adequately addressed, he is opposed to in-lieu parking for Main Street and he would not support an in-lieu or off-site parking substitute program in this situation, it is unbelievable to think that someone would be allowed to build a single family unit and allow for closure of a curb cut at the front and then give a credit for one parking space, that would never be done here, whether that is standard in the industry is not known. It is presumed that the ZTA has been compared to ordinances of other cities throughout the country that have bed and breakfasts, they probably did not get to that point by the same process as this, it is also not certain if they used something like a zone overlay, an overlay being a zoning over the base zoning and if desired it can then be applied to a specific parcel. Councilman Boyd said again he does not support this proposal, it is not felt to be a good land use, bed and breakfasts may be a good idea but in another area of the City, the State Lands parcel as an example could accommodate an even larger bed and breakfast. Councilman Boyd offered that certain decisions are based on the market and the market in Seal Beach is $120 per square foot for residential land, and concluded that although this may be a good plan, to tailor zoning around one project to fit the needs of one individual he could not support. I I Vote on the motion to deny Zone Text Amendment 00-1: AYES: NOES: Boyd, Yost Campbell, Doane, Snow Motion failed Doane moved, second by Snow, to adopt Option Two, to approve amendments to the Code concerning the definition of bed and breakfast facilities and the establishment of the Residential Overlay Zone, as proposed by staff to the City Council on March 13th, further modified by staff based on the Council discussion of March 13th with certain amendments as proposed by Councilman Boyd. Councilman Boyd said the amendments do not fully reflect his intent, his feeling was that there needs to be as many protections as possible, therefore he outlined a memorandum to the Director of Development Services, this is where there is debate relative to the proponent, the motion was to approve the staff recommendation with a few amendments that he had proposed, also altered by the project proponents, the motion disagrees with some of the issues he brought forth such as locally designated structures, twenty-five percent of the parking to be off- I 3-27-00 site, he disagrees also with using driveways as parking areas. I Councilman Boyd moved a substitute motion to adopt Option Three, the Ordinance setting forth his proposed amendments. Mayor Yost seconded for discussion, and noted that Option Three includes the proposed revisions that were not acceptable to the proponent and against the advice of staff. Councilman Doane stated that approval of Option Three would kill the project. Mayor Yost noted that staff has said that if these revisions were adopted they would recommend denial of the project. The City Manager interjected that Option Three would either effectively kill the project, based upon what the proponent has represented to staff, or there are provisions added that staff feels would be inadvisable, an example would be the elimination of the provision that the owner need not live on the premises, the feeling of staff is that the owner should live on the premises. I Councilman Boyd restated his motion to adopt Option Three as amended to require'that the owner of record must live on- site, that the requirement for a development agreement be deleted which then requires that the applicant go through the Conditional Use Permit process at the Planning Commission level, that would then allow the moving of a structure or structures to the site provided that they were built by or before 1925 and designated by the City Council to be locally or historically significant, that there be no variances for height or sideyard setbacks, require that the owner have two on-site parking spaces, that the twenty-five percent off-site parking is not an option, and that the curb cut closure for a one space credit is also not an option. Mayor Yost seconded the motion. It was clarified that this is a substitute motion to that of Councilman Doane. Councilman Boyd explained that a yes vote would allow a bed and breakfast to be built however within the standards that have been applied to every other person who builds something in this town, no special considerations. The City Attorney advised that there could be no discussion on an amendment to a substitute motion. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Yost Campbell, Doane, Snow Motion failed The City Attorney clarified for the record that this ordinance as proposed is not spot zoning as was explained at the last meeting. I The question was called for on Councilman Doane's motion to adopt Option Two. Councilman Boyd pointed out that there has been a lot of time and effort expended to find a way to make this proposal work, his motion had been to allow this use but not allow the proponent to do as he wants. Councilman Boyd moved a substitute motion to table this item. Mayor Yost seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Yost Campbell, Doane, Snow Motion failed Mayor Yost questioned why one would vote for the proposed bed and breakfast use as this is not necessarily specific to this area, rather anywhere in the City. To the call for the question for the remaining motion on the floor, the Mayor 3-27-00 stated the call for the question would cut off debate, requires a two-thirds vote, that could be done if there is a second however it will require a four-fifths vote, otherwise discussion is allowed to continue. Yost moved, second by Boyd, to extend the meeting for an additional hour. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Yost Campbell, Doane, Snow Motion failed I Given the failure of the motion, the conclusion of the meeting to be at 11:59 p.m. Doane moved, second by Campbell, to conclude debate. The Mayor again reminded that the motion requires a two-thirds vote. AYES: NOES: Campbell, Doane, Snow Boyd, Yost Motion failed Councilman Boyd again noted the indication of the proponent that certain revisions would not work for him, and stated that a reason he is against this proposal is that there has been an effort to rid the community of apartments a little at a time, granted this proposal is not an apartment, but if one owns apartments that is ones business, that is how one makes their living, once the debt is satisfied it is a good living, the proposal at hand opens the doors to others, an example would be if someone comes to the City that owns a five or six unit building maybe built about 1921, a historic Seal Beach building, and they want to add possibly fifty percent to the building size and request the same parking considerations as granted in this B & B, this is the type of structure that is termed as legal non-conforming in Seal Beach, it does not conform to the building regulations but it is still allowed to exist, and even today one can add on to a legal non- conforming building, this request is to use a piece of land that does not fit the parameters of the current Building Code and look at a land use that is totally different from what has been done before, a situation where variances are being sought, Bixby asked that their land be rezoned but they did not ask for variances. In this case there is a request to use the proponents piece of land but that includes variances that members of the Council are not comfortable with. I The Mayor noted there is no motion to conclude debate, and inquired of the City Attorney if a motion to cut off debate is not a separate motion and requires a two-thirds vote. The City Attorney responded that that is correct, however the Council by a majority vote can overrule the decision to not call for the vote, that is a separate motion, upon getting close to ll:59 p.m. there are options that there has been adequate discussion and call for a vote, if that is suggested and the Chair denies, if there is no vote by that time the matter would be rescheduled to a date certain prior to the next meeting or for the next meeting. I Councilman Doane read a letter in support of the bed and breakfast proposal from Mrs. Barbara Blackman, supporting the restoration of two old homes as well. Councilmember Campbell suggested adoption of Option Two with a revision that the foundation for the Proctor house be lowered to eliminate the need for a height variance. Mr. ~"'...-.~ :;.' ".....-'......-_.~ 3-27-00 I Bartlett explained that if the Proctor house is moved to the 7th Street location it is approximately two feet higher than the height requirements set forth by the Code, the house does not currently sit on a foundation and it needs to be, therefore the integrity of the architecture would need to be changed to meet the height limitation, in most cities they allow some leeway to accommodate the building standards of the older structures. To a question if this could be done, Mr. Verhulst stated on the front house it may be possible without a height variance, on the back house it can not be done with the five foot setbacks, the Krenwinkle house is forty-two feet, the lot is fifty feet, thus the four rather than five foot setbacks. Councilmember Campbell moved adoption of Option Two with amended language to require the structure to be designated by the City Council to be of local, regional, or historic interest or significance. This because it appears that the Proctor house is considered to be historically significant. Councilmember Campbell then withdrew the motion. I Councilman Doane recalled a second agenda item from the last meeting dealing with historic designations, it was continued, yet why is that item not back on the agenda, the Krenwinkle and Proctor houses were included on the designation list, and asked if that item is significant to this. Councilman Boyd said he had suggested that the Council be the designating body, as in other cities, the Council has not made that determination as yet, and suggested that the ZTA could be continued until the historic designation matter is considered. I Councilmember Campbell moved adoption of Option Two with the elimination of the provision requiring that the owner of record be a resident of the facility. Councilman Doane indicated he could not support that amendment. Councilman Boyd expressed his belief that if someone wants to build a bed and breakfast they will likely be able to do so with this Council even though two members object, yet his feeling is that they should at least adhere to the Building Code. Mayor Yost again expressed his opinion that the Proctor house in its present location would be a good place for a bed and breakfast facility. Councilmember Campbell reminded that no one has been seen coming forward to restore these old homes, this is an opportunity to save two of them, yet the Council is just going to sit back and watch these homes disappear. Councilman Boyd offered that if the subdivision of fifty foot lots were not allowed there would be many more homes being restored, that would eliminate someone buying a fifty foot lot, demolishing the older home and replacing it with two single family homes, and yes, maybe that should be given consideration, the reason so many of the older homes are being demolished is because they sit on fifty foot lots which can be subdivided in half. Councilmember Campbell indicated that the long thin homes on the smaller lots are less than pleasing, noted that some thirty years ago there were traditionally four models of homes in an Orange County tract, however College Park East had a variety with seven models to choose from, as S & S went forward they built more two stories and less single story homes which makes for a stucco jungle, that is what the Old Town area is becoming, and this proposal is an opportunity to get away from that. Mayor Yost again questioned how much of this will be restoration when the old house is turned sideways and jacked up. Councilman Snow repeated his intent to vote in favor of Option Two with 3-27-00 / 4-10-00 no changes. To that Councilmember Campbell pointed out that the Mayor would not call for the question, continuing debate. The City Attorney confirmed again that any motion to conclude debate requires a two-thirds vote. Councilman Doane asked if that means that the person conducting the meeting, with a motion before the Council, is not required to call for the vote. Noting the hour of approximately 11:57 p.m., the City Attorney offered that if there is a motion to continue the meeting past 11:59 p.m. he would address the procedures further. I ADJOURNMENT As 11:59 p.m. passed, the meeting was adjourned. clerk Approved: ~ Attest: I Seal Beach, California April 10, 2000 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Yost Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow Absent: None Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Badum, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Chief Sellers, Police Department Chief Cushman, Lifeguard Department Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation and Parks Ms. King, Director of Administrative Services Mr. Dorsey, Assistant to the City Manager Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I