Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2002-12-09 11-25-02 / 12-9-02 I Seal Beach, California December 9, 2002 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Councilmembers Antos, Campbell, Doane, Yost Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Dancs, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Chief Sellers, Police Department Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I The Council, by unanimous consent, adjourned to a workshop session in the conference room at 6:31 p.m. for review/ discussion of revisions to the Municipal Code. The City Attorney noted that Title 7, Peace, Morals, and Welfare, and Title 8, Traffic, were presented for review. He mentioned that most of the provisions are identical to what exists in current Code, the intent was to streamline and consolidate those provisions, the comparison table shows that it is virtually the same. I With reference made to page six of forty-six, Animals, selling or giving away of puppies or kittens being evidence of breeding, it was stated that is not necessarily so, rather lack of responsibility to have an animal spayed or neutered1 to that the City Attorney responded that according to the Police Department breeding has not been allowed in this communitY1 the Police Chief offered his interpretation as being a litter for profit1 comment again was that just because there is a litter of puppies or kittens it is not necessarily evidence of breeding1 mentioned also that there is a residence in College Park East where their dogs are bred consistently, the neighbors do not like it. Suggested that the wording of "c" is not entirely correct, clarification was that staff wants it known that if one is selling or giving away a puppy or kitten they need a permit to do so, staff will clarify the language further. page five of forty-six, non-domestic animal permit, the previous page defines wild and non-domestic animals, the language of subsection two reads 'keeping the animal is not necessary for education or research purposes,' pointed out 12-9-02 that there are people who own birds for which a permit is obtained from the Department of Fish and Game, obviously the bird is not necessary for education or research purposes but is basically a wild bird, and based upon the Code language it would likely be necessary to seek a non-domestic animal permit however it could be denied because of being deemed not necessary for education or research purposes; if it is felt that the language gives too much power to Animal Control this would be the time to change the wording; it was noted that some birds are required to have a permit, some are not, there are some birds that can not be touched as they are protected. It was mentioned that under existing Code that finding would have to be made before a permit could be issued, the proposed language makes it a grounds for denial, and under current Code unless it is used for education or research purposes one can not have such an animal, the proposed language is one step towards allowing such animal but gives Animal Control the discretion to deny a permit request; the language is at the discretion of the Council. I The issue of protected animals should be looked at however to see if there are some that preempted from regulations; mentioned again that there are some that require Fish and Game permits to have birds of prey, raptors, falcons, etc. With regard to non-domestic animals, it was noted that what is being seen is that people are obtaining half breeds, half shepherd or husky, have wolf, people think they can be tamed but that is not necessarily so, this could present a problem, explained that if the animal falls under the non-domestic I animal provisions Animal Control has the discretion to deny a permit; there was one such half breed at the Animal Care Center, in that case there was a swap of animals with either Colorado or Utah, there is no awareness of any such animals recently; half breeds have become somewhat of a designer thing. Mention was made that there are also young people who have lizards and snakes that have been bred in captivity, they are not domesticated, there is no prohibition against keeping them, where do they fall; stated that it is believed they would be considered a non-domestic animal; staff offered to do some additional research of exotic animals; it was mentioned that Palos Verdes has a problem with peacocks. Page seven of forty-six, section .0458, states that no owner of a cat shall enter onto another persons property, to that it was said that that is not enforceable and should be repealed; to that caution was voiced in that at some point enforcement authority may be needed in Leisure World should cats running at large become a problem; the Attorney suggested that when the Code amendments are presented for final adoption at that point the Council can determine whether or not to delete that provision. with reference to entering another persons property it was mentioned that Leisure World is a co-op so there is no specific property owner; again stated that the subsections 8 and C are unenforceable, this was referred to as the 'cat leash law.' I with regard to pages nine and ten of forty-six relating to cattle and hogs, fowl and rabbits, goats, horses, mules, etc., it was suggested that the language be changed to read 12-9-02 I 'no farm animals in the City' inasmuch as the community lives in close quarters, there are no estate sized lots~ mentioned that at one time there was a horse on the Weapons Station to which it was pointed out that the City has no control over the federal government~ it was said that if there is no law prohibiting the keeping of such animals then it is not a violation~ a suggestion was understood as requesting a consolidation of the four sections, that could be done~ request was to just say 'not permitted in the City,' there is nowhere in the City where such animals could be kept, and there is no control over the federal government~ it was mentioned that occasionally a circus comes to town or other events that include animals, to that it was pointed out that a provision of the Code addresses those occasions~ it was clarified that fowl would be chickens and roosters, not doves, etc.~ there appeared to be a consensus to combine the four specific animal sections. I Harmful Matter is unchanged, Parking Lots the same, for Noise the County Code was adopted therefore no change, page fourteen of forty-six the most current hours are reflected, Miscellaneous Offenses, Alcoholic Beverages, Glass Containers, Anaheim Bay Regulations, are all basically the same, Discharge of Sanitary Waste is new. No changes to Daytime Curfew, no changes to Public Nudity, or Gaming. There needs to be a discussion with the Development Services Director for clarification with regard to page twenty-three of forty-six, section .060, which provides that one could drill on land that was annexed to the City after 1956. with regard to section .050 relating to Damage to City Property, it was clarified that that would include damage to park playground equipment. As to Oil Drilling it was explained that part of the Hellman property and the Naval Weapons Station were annexed to the City, it had remained a part of the County unincorporated area for a long time because there was oil drilling activity, when the annexations took place that is when the oil production ordinance was adopted that governs controlled drill sites, redrilling, deepening of wells, etc. To the same subject it was noted that College Park East was annexed in 1965, the policies state that no oil drilling is allowed yet that does not exclude the Bixby Ranch Company who has property within the City therefore technically they could drill a well on the golf.course if they wished to, Bixby maintains all of the oil rights~ suggestion was that the oil drilling issue be addressed at a later date after further research. I The Attorney advised that Wheeled Devices, Tobacco, Fireworks, Skate Park Facilities remain the same, the Parade provisions were revised to make them constitutional, there was a question on twenty-seven of forty-six as there are exemptions for such things as athletic events, social functions, funeral processions that would not have to go through the process to obtain a parade permit, there may be another category such as 'days of national remembrances', and attention was drawn to the hours to hold a parade. There was question as to when the oil drilling issue would be readdressed, staff offered at any time as desired by the Council, a time frame of February was suggested. 12-9-02 The Attorney reported that there was no change to Underground Utilities or to Water Wells, some definitions were deleted as they were repetitive. with regard to 7.40, Nuisances, the process has been streamlined and addresses certain Constitutional issues pursuant to court cases, the Loud Noise provisions were adopted about ten years ago; it was noted that Seal Beach is researching how much of the property near the Koury's Restaurant is actually in Seal Beach yet this City can not control the noise and Long Beach is not handling it; response was that that issue will be looked into to see what recourse there may be. I Title 8, most of these provisions were a duplication of the State Vehicle Code therefore have been deleted; with reference to page fifteen of twenty, Parking For Sale Vehicles, it was mentioned that there is a problem in the College Park East area with people parking vehicles for sale at Heather Park, Bluebell park, and Aster Park, it is becoming a traffic hazard and the residents object to the commercial nature, there can typically be four to five vehicles lined up, this is creating a commercial venture in a residential area, and it is not felt that it is a free speech issue; the response was that there is agreement with the concern however the courts do not agree, this could be looked at again given recent case law, which however there is not agreement with, nevertheless it is the law; inquiry was made if a limit could be placed on the number of vehicles, possibly only one at a time; to the question as to where the signs are placed, the response was some times on the sides, front and rear, that in itself is a violation; mentioned that Coast Highway adjacent to the Seal Beach Center is a common vehicle for sale parking area as well; the Attorney said this issue will be looked at to see if those provisions can be made tighter. I It was mentioned that a complaint has been received regarding a basketball hoop that has been in the street on Taper Drive in front of a fire hydrant for a considerable length of time; the response was that the Police Department has no authority, there is no Council policy as to how long something can encroach into the public right-of-way, it could possibly be declared a public nuisance but at this point that has not been enforced; comment was made that if the basketball hoop is in the street and the street sweeper goes by can it be ticketed, can it be confiscated; response was indicated that it can not be ticketed or confiscated, possibly a letter could be sent to the property owner advising that it needs to be removed from the right-of-way otherwise it will be taken away; it was again mentioned that the hoop stays in front of the fire hydrant permanently; the Attorney noted that Title 8 has been streamlined to remove current Code provisions that actually duplicate Vehicle Code provisions, that done so that as State law changes the City will continue to be in compliance. I It was requested that the basketball hoop situation, and possibly skateboard ramps that are setup in the street, be addressed as possibly a public nuisance in the near future. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. 12-9-02 ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 7:01 p.m. I Approved: ~cb) ~ ~<:~( p::. City Clerk I Attest: Seal Beach, California December 9, 2002 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:09 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Councilmembers Antos, Campbell, Doane, Yost Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Danes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Mr. Vukojevic, Deputy City Engineer Chief Sellers, Police Department Ms. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Yost moved, second by Antos, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. I AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilman Doane noted that there is a new restaurant in the City, the Kobe, it took considerable time for the facility to be remodeled from the previous owner, it is an excellent restaurant, this provides another opportunity to dine in the community and the revenue will help the City. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Larson declared the Public Comment period to be open. The Mayor mentioned that those present having an interest in 12-9-02 the zoning matter will have an opportunity to speak during that public hearing. Mr. Gene Stegman, 13th Street, said he wished to speak to three issues, legal fees, former Councilman Boyd, and the failure of the Council to act in the best interest of the citizens of Seal Beach. Mr. Stegman stated he had provided the Council with four exhibits, the first shows the amount of money the City spent on the RDA suit and settlement thereof, the taxpayers paid $126,724 relating to the lawsuit, at the beginning of October he had requested invoices from the City to show payments in this amount, what he received was a cover letter and invoices not from the City rather the City Attorney's office, the letter stated that the invoices were all legal fees paid by the City in the RDA suit, the total of the invoices was $13,238 which Mr. Stegman said leaves $113,000 unaccounted for, he therefore made a second request to the City to ask for copies of invoices along with canceled checks to show for what the money was paid, the City figures for the money dispersed to the office of the City Attorney was $18,529.75, that is $5,292 more than what the Attorney said was charged to the City. Exhibit three shows copies of the invoices and checks sent to him with corresponding invoice numbers on each check showing the amounts paid, the first check dated October 11, 2000 in the amount of $91,981, of that amount two invoices in the amount of $6,382 were covered, second check dated November 7, 2000 in the amount of $6,252, of that amount $1,704 was paid for the RDA suit, check three dated December 5, 2000 was for $58,650 of that $59.50 was for the suit, the last check, dated January 22nd was for $56,260 of that $5,092 was for the settlement, if one does the math and backs out the $18,000 the City said it paid for that suit and add the amount that it cost the City to get resolution, the total for the four month period and the money to settle the RDA suit was $221,642. Mr. Stegman said he had a problem with the bookkeeping, neither the stated amount charged or paid was truthful. He said Exhibit four, the settlement document, is the most disturbing, page four, paragraph seven says 'Line Housing and Richard Hall further represent and warrant that it and he have not created or given rise to any lien or other right by which any other party may claim all or any part of the lawsuit...', the agreement states that the City of Seal Beach is to be held harmless and indemnified against any third party suit, therefore this City has and is paying for the former Councilman's legal expenses where it has no legal right to do so. Mr. Stegman demanded that the City abide by the terms of paragraph seven, demanded that the City reverse its decision to pay the legal expenses of the former Councilman, demanded that the City immediately cease paying any funds for those expenses, that the City Attorney law firm return any money already spent for these legal fees, and that the City Attorney resign his position for a conflict of interest for his failure to live up to his fiduciary responsibility, the firm was paid $126,000 and he negated the settlement which he obtained for the City and is being paid to defend the former Councilman, the City is going bankrupt because of legal fees, the City Council responsibility has expired. Ms. Rita Brenner, Trailer Park, played a tape of previous Council comments relating to the Trailer Park purchase. Ms. Brenner claimed that in the news recently there was a correction by Hunter Johnson regarding the Park ownership position that said 'Line promises that in thirty- five years the Park will be owned by a nonprofit organization with residents serving on the board.' Ms. Brenner stated that a promise is not enforceable, is this a joke, an $8 million dollar deal was made based on a promise, the Park is I I I 12-9-02 -I already owned by a nonprofit organization with residents on the Board but that is not ownership, the people do not have authority to even change a light bulb, the former Councilman said the residents were going to own the Park, current members of the Council as well said the residents would own the Park, also that that was in writing, it is not, the Park purchase was said to be a good deal, the bond brokers made money, the former Councilmember made money, the Attorney was paid, Linc Housing received an $8 million property for free, the residents got the bill, while it was being said that the residents would own the Park Mr. Johnson just watched, permitted the Council to tell the residents falsehoods and made no corrections, almost immediately after it was stated that the residents were about to become the two hundred and first mobile home park owner, Hunter Johnson stated that Linc was the borrower in conjunction with the residents and facilitator to make this happen, then Hunter JOhnson, now owner of Linc Housing, received an $8 million property with no investment, used the Park residents, the City, taxpayers money, and the Council. 1 Mr. Ray Ebabin, College Park East, stated that in a newsletter from his Council representative and an October news article in the local paper it was stated that plans will be reviewed by the Council in January for the Old Ranch Tennis Club facility, the plans mentioned speak of demolishing four courts and the fitness center, leveling the property demolished to build a tiny tot lot, a BMX bike park, and other activities. Mr. Ebabin offered that before the Council goes forward with that type of plan it might be well to take into consideration what may be in the best interest of the total community as the financial aspect of the proposal. He noted that the tennis facility has been a good neighbor and asset to the College Park East neighborhood for over thirty years, the facility as designed is optimum as a tennis facility, therefore before demolishing what amounts to about a half million dollars of City assets in order to put in some amenities that may not prove to be useful, he would believe that the wisest course would be to take the facility as it stands when turned over by Bixby, operate it as efficiently as possible under a contract with a concessionaire who has the opportunity to make the facility a positive asset that contributes towards revenue, his feeling is that the existing facility, which is the finest facility within twenty to thirty miles, has great promise and can be an asset to the entire community. He suggested that before courts are demolished and its entire character is changed as well as that of the College Park East neighborhood, it should be operated as it exists from one to three years, monitor its progress, if there are not results then the Council would have the opportunity to consider what it ought to do, to demolish at the outset a half million dollars of valuable assets which the City could not afford to replace if a mistake is made, and spend additional funds to build new amenities on the site, it should be given a chance. Mr. Ebabin offered that if it turns out that a skakeboard park, tiny tot lot, etc. is needed, then why not put those across the street at Bluebell Park or if there is both public and private play available at the Old Ranch Tennis Center then the tennis courts at Heather are no longer needed and it would make sense to put something else in, it would be much more cost effective and a win/win situation for everyone. He stated that the wrong premise is being asked upon going into this decision, it should not be said that there is a new facility and then determine what is going to be done with it, 1 12-9-02 instead it should be accepted, try to optimize its use, and if problems arise it is at that point that it could be looked at further, he would caution against making a mistake at the outset, show some wisdom for a win situation for everyone, his feeling is that it will be a better outcome for the entire community. Ms. Linda Copeland, Trailer Park, said as has been said the residents were told they would own the Park, Councilman Yost has stated he may step down from the SBAHC, it is assumed that Hunter Johnson of Linc Housing is now being seen in his true colors, she would therefore ask that the Councilman not step down now when the going is tough, asked for his help, show the strength as the community leader that was elected, fight for the residents, make all parties tell true, help the residents find a voice in recognition of their property, properly organized elections, help the people attain what they were told in that they would own the Park, the people are looking forward to the pride of ownership that had been spoken of. Ms. Copeland said also that Linc was to have transferred the Park to a nonprofit called SBAHC, upon checking it does not exist, and asked how a title can be transferred to a corporation that does not exist. Ms. Helen Tearing, Bolsa, requested to speak to a future item, the Grace Community Church, stated she was appalled by letters in the local newspaper, one suggested that perhaps the Church be torn town and ten to twenty houses built on the site or that it could move to the Boeing or other property, another implied that it could be another Crystal Cathedral, to her the suggestions were incredible. Ms. Tearing said she enjoys living in Seal Beach, she attends church and special programs at Grace as well as the other churches, a church is a great asset for a community, she does not believe that Grace has any idea of building a glass tower, they just want to expand, what better use for the City than to have a place for people to meet together and have church property, a church does not pay taxes but the quality of life that a church brings to a community certainly should be retained, Grace has been in the community longer than she, it would be nice if their need for parking and expansion were taken seriously without exaggerations or implying that building houses is a more worthwhile use of the property. Mr. Ed Lanahan, Trailer Park, said in the beginning the one hundred twenty-six homeowners in the Park were told that if they agreed to double their space rent from approximately $250 to $500 per month the residents could purchase the park, the residents agreed, that was a lot of money for some people who have only about that amount to live on monthly, they are provided assistance as they should be, that thanks goes to the City. He said the concept was that the residents with the assistance of the bonds would purchase the Park but it did not happen, someone else got the Park, at the due date of the bond payoff the residents will have nothing although the residents will have bought the Park totally for Linc Housing, at the end of the thirty years Linc will own the Park, they have offered to sell it to the residents at thirty years, why would they want to sell the residents a Park that the residents have already paid for. Mr. Lanahan said therefore the residents have nothing, what is needed is a legal document to assure that this situation does not exist in thirty years, Councilmember Campbell was delighted when the residents bought the Park to do with what they wanted, that was believed, but the residents do not own the Park as it is in Linc's name, that is something that he does not understand, the question is who, when and why did Linc get the Park, where did their signature come from, how did they I I I 12-9-02 I get the Park and replace the one hundred twenty-six residents or as said new Park owners, who authorized that, there were closed door sessions where the documents were signed, the Park residents were unaware or they would not have allowed it to happen. The reason the Ball/Linc deal did not work in Capistrano is because the residents did not want it, this City does not need Linc, those one hundred twenty-six homes in the Park are as important to the Park residents as are the homes of those on the Council, that is all they have, the people are merely asking the Council to consider and do what is honest, fair and right for the homeowners in the Trailer Park. Ms. Sharon Wilkins, Old Ranch Townhomes, across from the tennis facility, said she would like to take the opportunity to invite the Council and residents to the facility for an open house community day on December 28th, there will be a guided tour, free tennis lessons for adults and children, refreshments, two tennis demonstration matches, and asked that people come to observe what a beautiful facility this is before making plans to change it. I Mr. Gary Eaves, Driftwood Avenue, owner of Woodstock, said he wished to address the encroachment issue relating to the Main Street sidewalks, consideration of not allowing signs, benches, different obstructions on the sidewalk without a permit, most of the discussion at a prior meeting seemed to focus on the permit fees, appearing to be a fund raising effort. Mr. Eaves made reference to Planning Commissioner statements that the City owns the sidewalks which have a property value, Councils, Commissions, and Managers all come and go, yet in fact it is the people who own the sidewalks, any property in the name of the City belongs to the people, this City has taken on a bedroom community attitude for many years, the issue in addition to parking meters and other issues that have come up lately is that sometimes in making decisions for a City there is a lot of responsibility and politicians get confused with the big picture. He recalled that the City did fairly well on their meager budget in the early 1970's, homes were going for between $20,000 to $40,000 now they are between $700,000 to a million but the City is broke. With regard to parking meters Mr. Eaves said if someone driving down the street wants to stop to have coffee or visit a store they will need to have $1 or more worth of quarters to park yet most likely they will just drive on down the road, the same with the signs and benches, most of the businesses on Main Street paid for the seating out of pocket, but now he hears that those things need to be permitted and regulated as they are a public safety hazard, however there are seventy or more newspaper racks that must then not be a hazard, also when the City permits something it is then bought and the purchaser also buys into the liability, and, to place a bench, etc. it is proposed that the cost will be between $150 to $180 to just site where the object can be placed. Mr. Eaves suggested that things be looked at with a little more common sense, also, those that are opposed to parking meters will continue to fight them and hopefully the Coastal Commission will see it that way as well, his business was once in Belmont Shore and he had the opportunity to see what the meters did, there are very few of the older businesses left. Mr. Monty Bershire, six year Trailer Park resident, said his belief is that when the purchase started it was done with the best of intentions, there was no awareness that the former member of the Council had dealings with Mr. Hall, but the process did not go as had been thought, he would request that consideration be given to bringing everyone together to resolve just a couple of things I 12-9-02 to get things back on track with the initial intention, no real estate transaction can be accomplished with a verbal promise, there needs to be something in writing, this is a big thing for the people who live in the Park, the people feel that they have are now paying a lot more money to buy the Park for someone else. Mr. Bershire said he would appreciate any help possible to resolve the issues. Mr. Mark Lupesco, 7th Street, said the single most scarce commodity in Old Town is parking, it is depleted, Grace Community Church has announced plans to enhance their facility, at present for those who live between 10th and 6th streets there is no parking in front of their homes because of the parking for Grace Church, church attendees drive the streets and alleys and use every parking space that is available, even on the limited one hour side, every space in the 8th Street lot, the library lot, and anything else that is available, the residents of the area are in a nightmare. The plans to greatly enhance their mega facility will compound this situation even more, there is no parking plan, there are no parking spots, they can not be allowed to park in the beach lot because that will just take the beach goers up onto the streets, they have already filled the 8th Street lot. Mr. Lupesco said he is not against a church, they are a valuable asset to a community, realization just needs to be made known that they have outgrown this little quaint town with no parking, they need to realize that they are on a valuable piece of property, they can sell it, move to the Boeing site where parking and everything else is not an issue, and what greatly exacerbates the parking situation is that there is no parking enforcement on Sundays, in conversation with parking enforcement during the week it appears they have quietly been told to stay away from 10th to 6th streets on Sunday mornings, however laws for parking need to be enforced 24/7, also, yesterday he took a photo of a car from which persons were walking towards the church, the Grace Church is passing out residential guest parking permits to their patrons, and to that he asked that the holder of the particular permit be looked into and how the church has obtained such permits. Ms. Joyce parque, 6th Street, said it is all about money, salaries, pay increases, and retirement funds that the City can not pay for, there is not enough revenue coming in therefore the City will tax the small businesses on Main Street, make them pay for whatever the City can not pay, there is already a deficit and there are budget amendments that come to Council for what was missed previously, with the bed tax measure not passing the City is at $590,579, all of this can not be paid for, yet she can not believe that there is consideration of imposing parking meters and bench fees on the small businesses on Main Street. Ms. parque stated that the City was supposed to do things to improve the quality of life for the residents, they have not, the people will end up paying a twenty-two percent utility tax, the City is going broke, the Police Department costs $7 million this year, the City Manager contracted out landscaping and the building department, she would like to see him contract with the sheriffs, the Dana Point population of thirty-seven thousand paid $159.60 per person for the sheriffs, Seal Beach pays $280,000 per person, contract for attorney services as well. Ms. parque said on October 21st she requested Agency and City bills for legal fees yet she has had no response, personally she does not like an attorney that wears several hats. Ms. parque was informed that the City does contract for legal services. She claimed that the reason the City is in debt, and will be in worse debt, is that the Redevelopment Agency takes money away from the General Fund, if the Department of I I I 12-9-02 I Water and Power land is developed the City will receive no money for the General Fund, nor any revenue from fourteen of the houses on the Hellman land, also, who is going to pay the $680,000 penalty for not producing low to moderate income housing. Mr. Bob Giardini, Old Town, said he wished to speak against the expansion of the Grace Community Church even before they submit plans, he can not believe that they are increasing their members from approximately twelve hundred to eighteen hundred every Sunday, that is four hundred seats times three services. Of surprise to him is that every business has to provide parking yet Grace Church has none, at present the residents can not leave their homes before 1:00 o'clock, if they go shopping or to another church they can not get back into a parking space or into their garage, and yes the church is valuable property, he does not want them to leave Seal Beach, there are other locations in Seal Beach because they have outgrown this facility, the land is likely worth about $3 million that could be developed and likely with homes that pay taxes. Mr. Giardini read portions of a recent news article regarding a Santa Ana Baptist Church that had moved to a new five acre site in that their membership grew from about one hundred to eighteen hundred members, similar numbers for Grace but on a half acre, the other small churches in Old Town fit nicely into the community as they are no where near that size. With regard to the photo of the parking sticker, Mr. Giardini cited it as stealing someone's parking space, if their identity is known they should not be allowed to buy more than one sticker for at least five years as a penalty, people will be looking for more tags, what kind of neighbors is the Church making for themselves, what kind of book is being taught its members and children about honesty. I I Mr. Eddie Montana, merchant, said he has been conducting a survey of the people who come to his store, Seal Beach in itself is a unique, quaint, historic town, there are very few like this town, his survey is in regard to the signs that the merchants put in front of their businesses, the reason they are put out is to catch the public eye, when the public knows they are open the store gets more business. Mr. Montana deemed this to be a loving, warm town, as a merchant he puts his time and energy into keeping it that way for the public, all that come here, to him the signs are a small addition to what is felt to be a great little piece of property on the sidewalk, the merchants need the signs. As to parking meters he mentioned that they were taken out in the 1970's, people were happy to see them go, his opinion is that it is not a good idea to put them in, he provides quarters from his store for the parking lot in the 100 block of Main, all merchants will have to do that with meters, there are some hazard issues that should be looked at as well. With regard to the signs he does not mean to say the businesses with them are being discriminated against but they have been there for some time, he is aware that there is a policy with regard to those types of signs yet it has not been enforced for several years, maybe this could be looked at further, possibly, regulate the size, but keep the advertising going so that the merchants can stay in business. Mr. Roger West, Electric Avenue, stated he is tired of hearing the Main Street businesses complaining how hard it is for them here, they want to use the sidewalks for their business, yet the sidewalks are owned by the citizens of the community, not by the businesses, they are a thoroughfare, not for them to use, 12-9-02 some put their merchandise out on the sidewalk, some on card tables that look terrible, some put clothing racks onto the sidewalk where customers try on their clothing, that is trash, and if the businessmen in this town can not make a living without functioning that way he would invite them to go elsewhere, they do not contribute that much in taxes to make a difference anyway. I Mr. John Hermstad, Crestview Avenue, said his comments relate to a project next to his residence at 1545 Crestview, his concern for considerable time has been with the grade of the property, he has contacted the City many times, they have been cold in their treatment of him, staff has said the grading plan is to Code, that it is a valid grading plan, that everything meets Code, if there is a problem with the west wall, a regular six foot high block wall, the owners intent was to backfill to the top of the wall, compact it and leave it be, it is not a retaining wall, never was, the wall is starting to tip, the wall is not to Code. Mr. Hermstad said he also spoke with his Council representative, he should have insisted the project go before the Planning Commission, he feels that the City has deprived him of his rights for such consideration as well as his neighbors, his request would be that this be looked into, his preference is that the project be stopped and evaluated by the Council. Mr. Hermstad said he has been accused of saying bad things about the project which he claimed he has not, he has no concern with the height or what it will look like, just the finished grade, again stating that the project is not to Code. Councilman Yost said if Mr. Hermstad has evidence that it is not to Code then that should be brought forth and it will be looked into by staff and the attorney, also, as a result of his complaints the Council has enacted a grading ordinance that is now part of the City Code. I Mr. George Springowsky, Ironwood Avenue, said he too wished to speak to the tennis facility, this is a fine facility and it looks as if it will fall into the hands of the City, to him it is astounding as to why one would want to tear down part of it, nothing has been provided as to the financial data for the operation or proposed operation of the facility, he has reason to believe that this facility has operated as a membership club in the past, has been revenue producing for Bixby Ranch, it could be operated in this manner by the City to provide recreation for all members of the community and produce revenue yet it seems as if considerable money is proposed to be spent to tear it down to build something that could easily be built somewhere else with no thought given to the cost of operating the facility, which is costly, where are these funds going to come from, why is the proposal being discussed without providing some financial data. Mr. Springowsky asked that the Council look at the proposal carefully, the conversion and operating costs, and use good judgment to move ahead, if this can be used as a revenue producing facility then take that revenue to build other recreational facilities within College Park or elsewhere in the community, to him that would seem to be the logical course to pursue. Mr. Chi Kredell, Seal Way, stated in 1976 a building code was adopted that reduced duplexes on twenty- five foot lots to single family residences, at the time the Chambers and outside were full, there were also certain building codes that were imposed that would prohibit the enlargement of nonconforming buildings, after the passage of these building codes there were no exceptions, then gradually the Planning Commission and City Council made exceptions, for I 12-9-02 I some time it has been out of control, it seems that the Planning Department and City Council have been working against District One for twenty years, usually the Commissioners representing the Hill, District Three, backs Old Town, but the current appointee works against District One, he has gone against decisions for the District and has spoken for rezoning the area, the residents do not want that. District One is the most expensive area of the City so why does the Council feel this is the playground for games, why would anyone want to put subsidized rent in this area, District One does not want to be treated differently from other areas. Mr. Kredell asked who wrote the measures for the increased hotel tax and which member of the Council wanted a vote on low rent subsidy in this community. The Mayor responded that it was the public who wanted it, they asked that it be put on the ballot, they did not want rent control, they wanted it on the ballot to guarantee that there would be no rent control, and explained that rent subsidies and rent control are two different things. Mr. Kredell stated also that he feels sorry for the employees of the City, they are being run out of their jobs, he believes that over thirty employees have been lost in the last two to three years, as an example, people who worked the beach for fifteen or so years were moved to Public Works, they did not want to leave the beach, then two good workers from Public Works were moved to the beach, why, is it the intent of the Council and Manager to have everything contracted, and with regard to legal costs, the lawsuits under the prior City Manager likely cost as much as a million dollars, personal lawsuits out of City Hall by employees. He mention also that there is wrought iron extending from the retaining wall along Seal Way, and then the tree at the end of Seal Way is dead, it should now be removed because the liability is there. Councilman Yost suggested that if Mr. Kredell has a problem with the District Three Planning Commissioner that he take it up with the Commissioner directly. Mr. Kredell responded that it does no good, suggested also that the Councilman consider resigning, charging that it is he who continues to get the City in debt, the Council should keep an eye on the finances. Ms. Laura Brecht, 6th Street, stated she has been a thorn to many, particularly the former District One Council representative, yet there was some merit to her reasoning. Ms. Brecht made reference to the upcoming Fair Political Practices Commission meeting of December 13th and read the agenda statement relating to seven counts of Government Code Section 87100 conflicts alleged to have occurred as a result of governmental decisions in which the former Councilmember had a financial interest having been made in closed sessions regarding a law suit filed against the Redevelopment Agency by developer Richard Hall and failure to disclose the source of income on the year 2000 Statement of Economic Interest, to that Ms. Brecht noted that the former member of the Council pleaded guilty to the counts which carry a $25,000 fine. Ms. Brecht mentioned having spoken before the Council relating to such conflicts at which time the former Councilmember stated he had no conflict yet at that meeting abstained from voting on four items relating to the Trailer park, and that same day he had represented the Park owner on another issue in Anaheim. She stated that the former Councilman will be prosecuted by the District Attorney as well. Ms. Brecht said there have been occurrences that to her are somewhat threatening, there needs to be active citizens like herself to point out problems, one needs to be courageous and not be afraid, she would hope that there are more citizens active like herself that will come forward when it is seen that I I 12-9-02 wrong is being done. She said it is hoped that the residents of the Trailer Park will own their Park in a period of time, that they have success with their civil suit as the lawsuit will be easy once the civil suit is over. Mr. Jack Dampman, Bayside Drive, said he wished to add his support to those who have spoken about the tennis club, he is a member, plays at least three times a week, a fine club, he does not support I tearing down a portion of that facility, if the million dollars is received from Bixby his feeling is that it would best be used for facilities elsewhere in the area, possibly more centrally located, also, if a portion of the facility is torn down that will take a sizeable portion of the $1 million. Mr. Dampman said he hoped that people will think carefully about what is going to be done with the facility, and encouraged all to attend the open house on December 28th. Mr. Arnie Wilkins, Old Ranch Road, said he had approached the Council some months back with regard to preservation of the street trees along Aster, he presented some solutions, the Council, with the help of their area representative, saw fit to act on the suggestion relating to the maintenance of the trees by the City, expressed thanks to the City and invited all to view their beauty in the spring. Mr. wilkins recalled the offer by the Bixby Company of the Old Ranch Tennis Club and $1 million during their negotiations to build the numerous commercial buildings that appear on Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson, the facility will become the property of Seal Beach by 2004, the use of the property has been a concern of the residents as well as the planning committee formed by the Council representative, the concern of many with the committee is with some of the ideas that have come I forth for such things as a dirt bike park, skate park, tot lot, etc. Mr. Wilkins said he was present to represent a group of Seal Beach residents who will offer suggestions for the use of this valuable property and they are prepared to backup their verbal suggestions with a written plan, an outline of the plan is that the facility be renamed as the Seal Beach Tennis Center, in order to maintain the new Seal Beach Tennis Center to current and surrounding area standards as well as related government requirements it is suggested that the remaining $900,000 available from Bixby, $100,000 already spent for a feasibility study for an amphitheater and wading pool which was then determined to not be affordable, to bring the Center up to government standards, seek out a quality, independent operator to run the internal and external needs of the property, open the club to the public, and as far as the necessary need for operating income it is proposed that in-lieu of the private membership, currently $120 per month, Seal Beach residents would pay a low hourly fee for court use, non-Seal Beach residents could pay a higher fee for court use, a Seal Beach Tennis Center's mens and womens club to be formed and a monthly fee paid, the club to include children and teen age programs at a lesser monthly rate, with the balance of the $900,000 it is suggested that I money be used to improve Bluebell Park, just adjacent to the Tennis Center, an area that is in need of an upgrade, it could include a quality tot lot park, no dirt bike or skate park however. Mr. Wilkins stated they are willing to work with the Council representative and the Council. Mr. Bob Henan, resident and President of the Chamber and Business Association, said it is wonderful to have an audience, a meeting where people can air their differences freely without repercussions. This being a beach city, Mr. Henan offered that it has a unique character, that should be preserved and not become a cookie cutter city like some of the more 12-9-02 I southern Orange County cities. With regard to the signage, Mr. Henan cited the sidewalk lifting as more hazardous than any sign could be, he has heard from the Chamber members that when they do not have signs out their business drops significantly, it is believed that they would not object if the City came back with a uniform code for the signage that would be acceptable, but to do away with the signs is thought could be very detrimental to the income of the business owners who are the entrepreneurs, he is uncertain if the people who object to the signs do any shopping in Seal Beach or go to the malls. With regard to the Car Show, Mr. Henan stated that a majority of the Chamber members reached a compromise to locate the parking of the cars somewhat off- center of Main Street that will allow emergency access also so the businesses will not have cars in front of their stores, the sidewalks will have access and will not be detrimental to those wishing to access the stores. Mr. Henan said for all of the people in the City that attended the Chamber sponsored Christmas parade and enjoyed it, he would extend an invitation to come back and shop. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, made reference to copies of the annual Statements of Economic Interests of the Mayor and City Attorney, said amazingly Old Town pays the highest trash bills then at Christmas the refuse collector distributes a bottle of champagne to the Council, the Mayor pays a quarter to a third the refuse fee of the rest of the City, yet receives this gift, which should be delivered to Council at home, not City Hall, adding that bids were not solicited for this refuse company as well. Ms. Corbin spoke in support of the former Council representative, and inquired if anyone is looking into other conspirators. She stated that the Council has a duty to start cutting the budget, all of the residents and taxpayers can take the Council to court to recover the individual assets of each for failure to reduce the expenditures to the revenue the City has. Ms. Corbin said the Council and the Attorney should retain an attorney for their individual capacities, the Attorney is protecting his interests, not the Council, everything is secret, there has been no vote to have this City Attorney, he does not list spousal income, the Council is supposed to look at the warrants but do not, fraud is the misrepresentation of fact, the Trailer Park is interstate commerce, they should go through the federal courts. She wished the Mayor enjoyment of the champagne and Disneyland. Mr. Dave Dunton, 1st Street resident and Main Street Cycle owner, suggested one last try with the sign and parking meter issues. Mr. Dunton said he was uncertain if any of the Council have tried to run a small town business, it is tough, the small town merchant is an endangered species, double trouble is the loss of parking access as well as having to pay for placing goods on the sidewalk, not the kind of economic activity that can be supported at this point, at one point the merchants could take a little extra taxes and pass that on to the consumers but that is just not doable any more. Mr. Dunton requested that the position of the City be softened and possibly reconsidered. I I Mr. Bruce Bennett, 4th Street, said he noticed that the City is now allowing parking on both sides of the Electric Avenue lanes, recalled that the fender of his car being about where the bike lane would be because there were several recreational vehicles parked on the left, it was dark, not well lit, and then a couple of bikes appeared in dark clothing and unlit, in both directions that is somewhat of a problem. Mr. Bennett suggested that possibly a couple of 12-9-02 problems could be avoided by using Internet Access for the Council and Planning Commission agendas, if everyone has the capability of typing an agenda in Word that can then be converted to HTML and posted on the Internet, if the intent is to get information to the public for their input then it would behoove the citizens to have that information and it likely adds nothing to the City's cost, therefore issues such as are on this agenda could be aired before they become a problem, his feeling also is that the Redevelopment Agency should have its agendas posted, possibly other major issues as well, as an example, the tennis court matter, post the pluses and minuses. Mr. Bennett mentioned that in the public arena there is something that is seen all the time, not in the private arena, the public corporations have to disclose risks, the pluses, minuses, the risks, many of the issues the Council has voted on have risks attached to them as evidenced by the lawsuits, in the items he has seen he does not believe there has been a sheet stating the items of risk and what the impact may be, that should be essential to everything that comes before the Council, if an issue has not been looked at well enough to see the risks then it has not been looked at well enough at all. Mr. Bennett noted that most every issue deals with parking, whether it goes back to converting duplexes to single family houses or not, each member of the Council should talk to their Planning Commissioner, when conditional use permits, special permits, etc. are looked at, think parking, if it is a minor change that is fine, if a major change it is a parking impact, if there is to be error then error in the way of no change. Mr. Bennett urged that the Council take time with the issues, bring it before the Council if it is felt there is an urgency, this is and has always been an active City, air the issue to reduce the problems, residing here since 1963 there have always been problems, but when they were aired by taking time to let the people talk them out before taking an action they were generally resolved, not. to worry if only two things get passed in a year. Mr. Dennis Dill, Dogwood Avenue, said he would like to comment on the Old Ranch Tennis Facility from a little different perspective, he has two children, one in college, one in high school, both attended the camps at Old Ranch, learned to play tennis, be good citizens, they were supervised, had good lunches, and the cost was low. The courts are also used by the Los Alamitos High School team, they are clean courts and the children are having great fun, there is a need to have more of the High School kids use the courts, there are thirty-seven youth on the tennis team, only nine get to play, they need to establish a Frosh team, the Tennis Center would be an ideal place to have the Frosh team play. Mr. Dill said he has looked at the plan of the committee and he sees holes in it, if the area is used for a tot lot that will create a safety hazard as kids will run across the street to other parks, noted that Cerritos did some similar changes in a park and in just a year they are closing the park, skateboarding and other things they put in are on the decline, the skateboard store in the City is going out of business too. Mr. Dill mentioned that the junior members of the Tennis Club only pay $30 per month, $1 a day to play tennis in a safe and clean environment, concluding that the tennis courts should be kept as they are. Mr. Bill Vermulen, 10th Street, said he bought a duplex and converted it to a single family home, the people in this area are trying hard to keep the zoning single family, requested that the Council vote to deny the requested CUP, he did not believe that a request such as this was possible to enlarge the buildings and with less than required parking. Mr. I I I 12-9-02 I Vermulen recalled attending one of the parking committee meetings at which Councilman Antos had done a survey of the merchants and it is believed that eighty percent were opposed to parking meters, evidently their vote does not count. He spoke in favor of the down zoning and no parking meters. There being no further comments, Mayor Larson declared the Public Comment period to be closed. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:46 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 9:00 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "A" thru"V" Doane moved, second by Antos, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented. A. Approved the waiver of reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Counci1members after the reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. B. Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned and regular meetings of November 12, 2002. C. Approved regular demands numbered 39874 through 40181 in the amount of $2,124,387.41, payroll demands numbered 18109 through 18380, 927733, and 927736 in the amount of $330,721.00, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I D. Approved a sixty month agreement with PFE International, Inc. for a mailing machine with document folding and insert capabilities, authorized the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City, and Adopted Resolution Number 5080 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT, NO. 03-14, FOR MAILING SERVICE LEASE AGREEMENT" and Adopted Resolution Number 5081 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT, NO. 04-02, FOR MAILING SERVICE LEASE AGREEMENT." I By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolutions numbered 5080 and 5081 were waived. E. Accepted the resignation of Ms. Patricia Smissen as the District One representative to the Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation for the unexpired term ending July, 2004. F. Received and filed the Monthly Investment Report for October, 2002. 12-9-02 G. Denied the claim for damages of Kenneth E. Conrad and referred same to the City's liability counsel and adjuster. H. Adopted Resolution Number 5082 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACTS OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ON THE 5th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2002, DECLARING THE RESULTS THEREOF, AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5082 was waived. I I. Received and filed the Annual Report for Seal Beach Community Facilities District No. 2002-1 (Heron Pointe) pursuant to the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act. J. Adopted Resolution Number 5083 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT #50092, CITY CATCH BASIN FILTERS, PHASE II, ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ASBURY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5083 was waived. K. Adopted Resolution Number 5084 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT CIP #50093, CITY PLAYGRUND IMPROVEMENTS, ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ORTCO, INC. AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5084 was waived. I L. Adopted Resolution Number 5085 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT, NO. 03-16, TO INCREASE GRANT REVENUE IN THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE FUND." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5085 was waived. M. Awarded a Professional Services Contract for the Advance Traffic Management software to BI Tran Systems, Inc. as the most responsive consultant, CIP #50011, and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. Adopted Resolution Number 5086 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT, NO. 03-17, FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE LOW EMISSION VEHICLE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5086 was waived. N. I O. Adopted Resolution Number 5087 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE BATTERY BACKUP GRANT PROGRAM ENTERED INTO BETWEEN CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION AND THE P. I R. I I S. 12-9-02 CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5087 was waived. Adopted Resolution Number 5088 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT CIP #49885, CONSTRUCTION OF MARINA DRIVE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN MLADEN GRBAVAC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5088 was waived. Q. Approved the agreement (002-129) with the Orange County Flood Control District for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Authorized Inspectors for an initial term of two (2) years, renewable for an additional three (3) years. Adopted Resolution Number 5089 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING REVISIONS TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND THE ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION AND REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH;" Adopted Resolution Number 5090 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING REVISIONS TO WAGES AND BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES AND REPEALING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATES SPECIFIED ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH;" Adopted Resolution Number 5091 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING REVISIONS TO WAGES AND BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT AND MID-MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES AND REPEALING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATES SPECIFIED ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH;" and Adopted Resolution Number 5092 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING WAGES/BENEFITS FOR PART-TIME WINTER CREW LIFEGUARDS EXCEEDING 1,000 HOURS PER FISCAL YEAR." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolutions numbered 5089, 5090, 5091, and 5092 was waived. Adopted Resolution Number 5093 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT, NO. 03-15, FOR COST SHARING OF McGAUGH GYMNASIUM FLOOR MAINTENANCE FOR THE 2002/03 FY" and Resolution 5094, BUDGET AMENDMENT 04-3 "FOR THE 2003/04 FY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolutions Numbered 5093 and 5094 was waived. T. Adopted Resolution Number 5095 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING AN AMENDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE WHICH INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE 12-9-02 THE STANDARD CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PREPARED BY THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION, AND REPEALS RESOLUTION NUMBER 4356 AND RESOLUTION NUMBER 4511." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5095 was waived. U. Approved the agreement with Ruby's Diner, Inc. for lease of the restaurant at the end of the Seal Beach Municipal pier for the term of ten (10) years with two additional five year options. I v. Approved lease agreements for third party tenants of the Old City Hall building as follows: Track III/The Q Agency - recommendation is a direct lease with Track III/The Q Agency owner Mr. Brad McKinzie for a period of three years from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2005; Ned's House of produce, four year tenant - recommendation is a lease extension of five years for the period from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007 with Ned's House of Produce owner Mr. Thad Schamberger; Bill L. Knight, electrical contractor - recommendation is to extend the occupancy of Bill L. Knight on a month-to-month basis for a one year tenancy from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003; I Micki Sangster, hair salon, four year tenant - recommendation is a five year lease extension from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007 with Micki Sangster owner of Hello Gorgeous; Retha Evans, Professional Development Courses, Inc., month-to-month tenant since October, 2002 - recommendation is a three year lease agreement commencing with October 1, 2002 and expiring September 30, 2005. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried CAR SHOW - SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION - APRIL 27. 2003 Councilman Doane moved to receive and file the staff report. He mentioned that the concern he had was not valid, and thanked the Chamber of Commerce for a job well done. Councilman Yost seconded the motion, and he too thanked the Chamber for listening to the residents and doing their best to work with them. Councilman Antos noted that there was an issue that came up relating to the Car Show where a petition was submitted, his understanding is that staff requested that the parties meet to resolve their issues, is it then understood that there has been resolution for this format at least as an experiment. The response was that that is what this is, it is in response to merchant complaints that their customers could not get to their businesses or park in order to reach the business, this provides for shuttles to transport people from remote parking to the businesses and it moves the cars away from the sidewalks to allow more thoroughfare and patrons to reach a I 12-9-02 I business, this was the compromise reached. The Mayor noted that it was once said that since it takes so long in advance to reserve a position for the show that it may carryover to 2004 and asked if that were so. Councilman Doane mentioned that the spaces are sold a year in advance. Vote on the motion to receive and file the staff report. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried I MAIN STREET ENCROACHMENT POLICY The City Manager noted that some changes were made to the Policy that staff would like to review with the Council. The Director of Public Works stated that the intent of this item is to establish regulations for sidewalks on Main Street, a sidewalk is a place to walk, place to gather, and the aesthetics of a downtown are determined by what trees, benches, and planters are placed within them, a minimum sidewalk is generally about five feet wide, Seal Beach has twelve foot wide sidewalks which leaves seven feet to place such amenities. The reason for this, Council has received complaints from some residents and business owners relating- to the nature of what was taking place on Main Street, during the budget hearings staff was requested to look into the concerns, in August a draft policy was presented to Council, in October public outreach questionnaires were distributed to the businesses, he and the City Manager attended a Chamber of Commerce meeting and held an additional meeting in November, the responses received were provided the attendees with the packet. The Director said one of the things that came forth from the November meeting, which is somewhat separate from the Main Street Encroachment pOlicy, was the temporary signs, currently there is an ordinance in place that does not allow the City Engineer to issue permits for such signs, staff received verbal opposition as well as requests to cleanup the area of the signs, that leaves the Council a decision point to either enforce the existing ordinance or to refer it back to the Planning Commission to revise the ordinance that exists. He noted that some of the public comments received have now been included in the Policy. The Director explained that initially a rental charge was proposed, that was looked at as a self-enforcing mechanism, currently there is a rental charge for such things as dumpsters in the public right-of- way of about $1 per day, there were a number of public comments against a rental charge, therefore the recommendation is that there be no rental charge and instead that an application and inspection fee be adopted, the intent is to bring the application and inspection fee to Council in January as well as possibly an after-the-fact grandfather clause at no cost for what currently exists, then for any new encroachments charge the application/inspection fee. Another point is that there was no desire to standardize aesthetics, there was no real consensus as to how things should look, some people want standardization, some do not, there were comments as to the unique character of the town, staff is currently recommending that there not be standardized aesthetics otherwise staff will become somewhat of a defacto art source, therefore if the encroachments, whether it be a bench, planter, or whatever, meet the location standards they would be approved through the encroachment permit process. Another issue is the temporary encroachments, initially they were proposed to be handled under a special activity permit, similar to a sidewalk sale permit, the special event policy allowed up to six events in any given year and that would be I 12-9-02 the recommendation of staff for temporary encroachments. As to outdoor dining the public response was evenly split, that would be allowed only if directed to draft a separate ordinance for that encroachment with a recommendation for a public hearing. The Director noted that the last and most basic issue that staff is desirous of instituting is location standards, sidewalks are basically a five foot walk zone, Main Street sidewalks are twelve feet so five feet should be free for pedestrians to walk through, also allow an aisleway for a car, that allows a person exit their car without walking to the back of another car and enter upon the sidewalk, a clear distance from infrastructure, light poles, trees, etc. is also wanted, ingress and egress from buildings was looked at to assure that they are clear and meet the UBC, the height of encroachments was looked at as well, an example would be the hanging of a flag or other item from a building, in that case there would need to be enough clearance to do so, about eight feet. I Councilmember Campbell made reference to page three of the staff report, item 3, relating to temporary encroachments...not to exceed more than six times per any calendar year, to which she asked if that meant six times on an individual basis, not events designated by the City, staff responded in the affirmative. With regard to item 2, standardization of aesthetics, Councilmember Campbell asked if there would be any type of benchmark. The Public Works Director referred to pictures at the end of the staff report of basic standard benches as well as the wrap-around benches mentioned during a prior meeting, benches come in a number of styles, the intent is to not stifle creativity, as an example one restaurant has cantilevered benches, those would not fit into any standard that the staff would suggest yet they would not be encroachments that would not be allowed, there could also be a wood bench with iron railings, there could be concrete benches, there were comments from the public that they did not want a Council policy for certain things and did not want street furniture to be cookie cutter. The Director suggested that there could be some criteria such as designate certain benches as allowable then let people bring forth something of their personal choice. Councilman Antos noted that the Public Works Department and the Planning Department have been working on the newsrack issue, according to information provided in the past there would be locations determined to be acceptable, and inquired if staff will be doing the same thing with this proposal, look at Main Street and determine the areas that would be generally acceptable for benches, etc. as opposed to waiting until someone approaches the City. The response was that it was not the intention of staff to designate locations along the Street, there are businesses that have already placed benches and there are other businesses that have not expressed an interest in having a bench but could. Councilman Antos asked if benches would be located in such a way that they would be interspersed so that they do not become in effect outside dining or where a business comes in and wants to put benches on both sides of the walkway which again becomes defacto dining. The Director responded that it looks as if with the twelve foot width of the sidewalks there could not be two benches facing each other because they would need to be eighteen inches from the curb face and in front of the bench up to two feet of space would be needed, then the five feet of space would need to be maintained, however there is nothing in the policy that would prevent someone from having three benches in a row provided they met the five foot I I 12-9-02 I criteria. Councilman Antos said whatever criteria is adopted by the Council he would like to see some maximum limitation on concentration of benches in any area, he would not like to see the ADA area of walkway be the only open area along the Street and when people park in the stalls there is no way to access the vehicles. The Director said the standards could be adjusted, the criteria is for two feet on each side of the stalls to allow the public ingress and egress from their vehicles, therefore benches could not be lined that would block car access, there could be curbside benches provided the stalls were not blocked or access from the parking space onto the property. Councilman Antos inquired if staff is looking for a general Council policy as to what to do about things that do not have permits such as the A-frame signs, outside displays, etc., noted that there are existing policies and ordinances that prohibit them, he would see no reason to change that, he could also see a problem with regulating them if there were a proposal to change current Code, from his point of view he would support enforcing the current ordinance requirements. As a point of clarification with regard to comments made during the Public Comment period, references were basically to sidewalk sale types of activities, Councilman Doane said from his reading he felt it meant there would be a limit of six events per year overall, not an individual activity, rather a planned activity of the Chamber or someone else, the objections he heard seemed to be that some businesses are being conducted that way now and all of the time. The Director of Development Services confirmed that they are and there are no permits for such activity, what is being suggested is that under a special activity permit an individual business could make application up to six times a year. Mayor Larson offered that it seems there are three different Main Streets, there are the people that have been here for forty years that think it looks one way, what it looks like to people walking the Street with fresh eyes, the third is what it will be when an encroachment policy is adopted, his preference would be that it return to what it was forty years ago, a nice homey, informal Street, however with the option that if the Street starts to look too sterile the policies can be changed. Councilman Antos agreed. Councilman Yost said he is somewhat torn on this issue, he has been contacted by people who are unhappy with the current sidewalk sale atmosphere of the Street with card tables, etc., on the other hand there are those who compliment the town as a 'beautiful little place', some of the things that exist are what gives the area its charm, some of the more tasteful A-frames for instance that draw people to businesses that may be somewhat hidden, to him that adds to the homey feeling, having the different styles of benches adds to the same type of feeling, it would be nice if some of the current practices could be cleaned up to some degree, the card tables with merchandise as an example is somewhat of a problem, yet he would not be all that anxious to change the atmosphere, possibly there is some compromise, his preference would be to keep Seal Beach the way it is, maybe some small changes, and acknowledged positively the statement that to make only two changes a year would be fine. Councilman Antos stated that there is no way to control the A-frames, and since there has basically been a policy of ignoring them unless there is a complaint, the number of such signs have grown, the Public Works Director has 1 indicated that the proposed policy would be that if someone wants to have a flag, a banner, or sign that is elevated about eight feet, put it up in the morning, that would not obstruct people walking down the sidewalk as it would be affixed to the I I 12-9-02 building, yet the A-frames are there and continue to grow in number, similar to the newsracks. Councilman Yost noted that it is said that the economy is improving, he has not seen that, and he would not want to put people out of business or make their cost of doing business greater. Councilman Doane expressed his opposition to anything that takes away from the merchants ability to do business, yet with good taste. Councilman Antos moved to support the proposal of staff, with the option of reconsidering after a period of time if the Street becomes sterile looking, and direct staff to enforce the ordinances relative to temporary structures within the public right-of-way. Mayor Larson seconded the motion. I Councilman Yost moved a substitute motion to continue this issue for a period of two months. Councilman Doane seconded the motion. To the question of for what purpose, the response of Councilman Yost was to obtain more information, learn more about the proposals, suggesting too a town hall meeting in the Council Chambers for some resident input in addition to the meeting that was held with the businesses to possibly develop some compromises. Councilman Doane expressed belief that the Council is somewhat in agreement as to benches, etc., possibly separate out the A-frame signs to which there seems to be the most objection. Councilmember Campbell noted that there are five issues with which people seem to have concern and with a variety of opinions, they may need to be dealt with one by one. Councilman Antos stated that the only way he would vote to continue anything relative to the A- I frame signs is if a definitive report, with court cases, from the City Attorney as to the liability of the City if those signs are allowed to remain. Mayor Larson noted that the two month period would put the issue past the holiday season which would be important to the businesses. The Mayor restated the substitute motion to hold this item over for a period of two months. The maker and second of the motion accepted an amendment to direct the City Attorney to prepare a report relative to potential liabilities associated with A-frame signs, etc. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-16/ HEIGHT VARIATION 02-5 - 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE - GHAZARIAN Mayor Larson declared the public hearing open to consider the appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 02-16 and Height variation 02-5 relating to 1210 Electric Avenue. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, reported receipt of two written communications, one dated November 10th, another submitted at this meeting, I copies of which were provided the Council, also noted that additional communications had been presented directly to the individual members of the Council. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, this being an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a major addition/remodel of a nonconforming fourplex structure located at 1210 Electric Avenue as well as an accompanying Height Variation application to allow a covered roof access 12-9-02 I stairway to the roof deck proposed for the second story addition of the major expansion. The Director reported that the Planning Commission considered this matter under public hearing on November 6th, after deliberations determined to approve both the Conditional Use Permit and the Height Variation on a four to one vote, the Council packet contains a copy of the appeal, as well as the two adopted Planning Commission Resolutions, Commission staff report, minutes, and letters submitted to the Commission. The Director noted that as part of the appeal there were a number of issues raised to which staff has provided a summary table of a brief overview of every minor plan review or conditional use permit approved for expansion of nonconforming residential structures between 1985 and the present, a second summary sets forth the various ordinances adopted by the City from 1978 to current time, the initial ordinance shown is prior to the down zoning of the Old Town area to show what the previous densities allowed, goes through all of the various density standards for the Old Town area, also the various amendments to the nonconforming expansion provisions of the Code adopted between 1978 and current time. The Director explained that the Planning Commission approved the major expansion to the single story unit located at 1210 Electric Avenue, the house subject to the proposed expansion was constructed in the mid-1960's, in 1969 approvals were granted to construct the attached three unit apartment complex and four garage spaces that are provided on the property. He noted that the provisions of the Code relating to nonconforming expansions at this time have two different processes that an applicant can pursue, the minor plan review under which the size of an addition is limited to one hundred forty-four square feet, if someone wishes to add more than that to a structure they can apply for a conditional use permit under the major expansion provisions, that is the type of application now before the Council. The Director explained that the proposal is to convert what is presently a three bedroom, two bath, single story home that has three apartment units attached thereto to a two story structure that would have two full bedrooms and two baths upstairs, a full bath downstairs with a living room, family room, kitchen on the first floor, the Council has been provided with the proposed plans for the project that shows the existing floor plan, proposed floor plan, and building elevations. As apparent by the appeal, the Director noted that there were a number of people that were concerned with the approval of this application by the Planning Commission, the Council is now in the position of either affirming the decision of the Planning Commission or affirming the appeal which would overturn the Commission decision therefore deny the addition to the property as proposed. The Director mentioned that the Planning Commission, when it considers conditional use permits and height variations applications must make specific findings as set forth in the Code, the findings for a CUP set forth in the staff report which the Director read in full as they relate to the expansion of floor area of the unit itself, there are specific findings that need to be made as well for the height variation also set forth in the staff report and read in full, in both cases relating to the subject property the Planning Commission made findings in the affirmative on all of those issues. The Director advised that after the public hearing the Council will also need to make findings either in the affirmative or negative on the same issues, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions to either affirm the decision of the Planning Commission which would allow the project to proceed, or to affirm the appeal that I I 12-9-02 would overturn the Planning Commission decision and not allow the project to proceed as proposed, or, approve the project with conditions other than those approved by the Planning Commission, if that were to be done and depending upon the condition(s), they may need to be referred back to the Commission for a report if they are conditions that the Commission did not consider or discuss during their hearing on the matter. Councilman Yost inquired as to how many parking space are on the property. The Director responded that there are four units on the property with one parking space per unit currently, the Code requires two parking spaces per unit to be a conforming property, the property is nonconforming due to parking, due to density as there are four units on the property, the lot size would allow two units, and it is nonconforming due to the setback on the 13th Street frontage of the property, there is a garage structure that has a driveway access at the corner of 13th and Electric, the garage structure being located closer to the property line than Code currently permits. I Mayor Larson invited members of the public wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name for the record. Mr. Chi Kredell, Seal Way, extended an apology to Councilman Yost if his previous comments appeared to be abrasive. Mr. Kredell expressed his support of the appeal to reverse the approval by the Planning Commission. As a long time resident of the community said he was instrumental in the 1969/1970 efforts to increase the parking requirements in Old Town from one to two spaces per dwelling unit, if that had not been done then the Old Town area would now be an unbearable place to live. The Planning Department is now using the conditional use permit to dismantle the protections that the people worked so hard to put together over the years, if this application is not stopped the worst nightmare will come to pass. Mr. Kredell again stated his support for the appeal, also, if there is an existing building ordinance why deviate from it, the height limit on a two story building is twenty-five feet, now the covered roof access structures are another twelve feet, some look as large as a penthouse, they are destroying what the people worked so hard for. Ms. Geri West, Electric Avenue, appellant, complained that she received the agenda item only this afternoon by mail, she would have been willing to pick it up, this is the staff report that the appellants were to answer. Ms. West commenced reading the sixteen reasons for the appeal of the Planning Commission decision and the appellant comments to the staff comments regarding same as follows: Reason #1 - A conditional use permit is not automatic based upon precedent. The decision of the Planning Commission must be based on whether it is consistent with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission must consider every aspect of the proposal. It must consider all other alternatives, for example, the possibility of increasing the size of the residence by using portions of the other units, increasing the amount of parking provided by the elimination of one or more of the other units or parts thereof, or other combination and considerations. There is no evidence on the record that any of these were considered by the Planning Commission. Appellant comment on staff comments: In viewing the tape of the proceedings, not only did the Commission not consider all other alternatives as they must but they considered none. I I 12-9-02 I Discussion of 'whether the criterion of compatibility with rather than detrimental to, surrounding uses and the community in general' was negligible. The balance of the staff comments are all eyewash. Reason #2 - A conditional use permit is entirely up to the discretion of the Planning Commission. In reviewing the tape of the meeting it can be seen and heard that when asked, the City Attorney sitting as advisor to the Planning Commission on November 6, 2002, so advised the commissioners as follows: He said 'In this case you definitely have discretion.' Three times he repeats this advice when asked by members of the Commission for his advice as to the aspect of their responsibility and their ability to reach a decision without reference to precedent. The evidence recorded on tape of the deliberations of the Planning Commission sitting in judgment ignores and/or refused to understand and/or deliberately ignored the advice of its own legal advisor. Appellant comment on staff comments: Eyewash and boilerplate. I Reason #3: Seal Beach City Code - Section 28-2407.B2. Inspection - any person requesting approval pursuant to Section 26-2407(A)(3)(a) or (b) for any building which was constructed prior to 1965 shall request a special investigation of the subject property prior to filing such an application. The Building and Safety Division, after the investigation request is made and fees paid pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, shall inspect the subject site and building, including but not limited to the wiring, plumbing, structural integrity, roofing-and condition of the walls, ceiling, floors and garage. 1210 Electric Avenue, according to a title search of the property, was built prior to 1965. There is no evidence that this mandatory special inspection was applied for or by the applicant, nor was it provided to the members of the Planning Commission to assist them in their deliberations. This is evidenced by, among other things, the discussion of the fact that no one either on the Commission or the staff was able to provide information as to the contents and/or condition if the garages on the site. Appellant comment on staff comments: How pathetic can staff get? The members of the Planning Commission are to follow the dictates of the ordinances of the City of Seal Beach. The Code clearly and unambiguously states a fee must be paid and a request made by an applicant before an applicant can apply for a permit of this sort, for a mandatory special inspection as respects to properties built prior to 1965 as was 1210 Electric Avenue. No fee was paid. No mandatory inspection as described in the Code was made and submitted. Therefore, the application was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. Thus the approval of the Planning Commission for an illegal application must be reversed by the City Council. The members of the City Council swore an oath when they were seated that they would uphold and support the laws of the City of Seal Beach, of the State of California and of the United States of America. Not granting this appeal would be in violation of the oath each of them swore. If you do not a court appeal will reverse your decision. I Reason #4 - The Planning Commission must be provided with any and all information available to make a reasoned decision on this Conditional Use Permit. By not ordering the mandatory special investigation and providing the Planning Commission and the public with a copy of the resulting report, the 12-9-02 Department of Development Services erred grievously in their duty to provide all necessary information to allow a reasonable decision to be made on the facts. By not requesting and paying for this special investigation prior to filing of the application, the provisions of the Seal Beach Code have not been followed by the applicant and the application is not valid. The approval of the Planning commission of the application and their vote on the resolution is null and void thereby. Appellant comment on staff comments: pretty sad and boilerplate. I Ms. Teri Mewes, 12th Street, continued the reading of the Reasons for Appeal and Appellant comments on staff comments as follows: Reason #5 - Inappropriate citations of properties in support of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. a) Previous property approvals: Staff cites the three apartments attached to 1210 Electric Avenue when these were built in 1969 and the conditional use permit approval permitting the enclosing of the dining room in 1977. No other previous property approvals are cited and the property itself is inappropriate to be used for the purpose at hand. b) The other properties cited are not appropriate to the issue as they are both single family residences. c) Height variation: The cited property is not similar to the subject property. The staff provides inadequate information to support the decision of the majority of the Planning Commission. Appellant comment on staff comments: Staff offered the property itself and none other as previous property approvals. Hello? Also, why didn't staff also include the approval of the plans for 1210 Electric Avenue when it was originally built. Was this deliberately left out because it would show that the building was built prior to 1965? Staff's provision of more detailed summary of previous approvals granted by the City only underscores the inadequacy of the information provided at the time of consideration by the Planning Commission. This information was not provided then and properly should not be considered now, therefore it is irrelevant. I Reason #6 - It is stated by the applicant in his application that four parking spaces are provided. Testimony before the Planning Commission and evidence provided by the property owners in the immediate vicinity show this is an erroneous statement on the part of the owner because the owner allows two spaces to be regularly and consistently blocked over long periods of time by an automobile parked sideways in front of the double garage on 13th Street. Appellant comment on staff comments: More boilerplate. Had the inspection of the garages been made at the time of the special investigation as required per City Code, the information as to the available of the four garages for use would have been available along with all the other information required. Additionally, as of December 7th there are eye witnesses willing to testify that three of the garages were full of clothing and miscellaneous goods when viewed by them. I Reason #7 - The use of a conditional use permit in the manner being utilized by the City of Seal Beach is an abrogation of the City's responsibilities to the citizens who supported the effective downzoning of their own properties by supporting in public hearings the changes in garage requirements. 12-9-02 I Properties in the area were downzoned with the property owners support and assent to the economic disadvantage of the owners of these properties then and today. This was done by the city with the assent and support of the property owners as they were promised by the city that this would alleviate parking problems and retain the residential character of Old Town. It was the intent of the change to discourage the upgrading of the existing nonconforming structures so that as their economic life expires, new conforming structures would replace them. Today the city is abrogating its compact with these property owners. The proposed conditional use permit and those similar are extending the economic life of nonconforming structures, thereby compounding the density and parking problems rather than easing them as promised. Appellant comment on staff comments: It is interesting that staff submits their ordinance summary for the years 1974 and 1993. Why didn't they go back to 1969/1970 which is when the requirement for one garage per unit was increased to two garages per unit and which was referred to in the statements and appeal. Was this deliberate or due to laziness on the part of the staff. I Reason #11 - The addition of a second story at 1210 Electric Avenue plus the addition of the non-habitable architectural feature resulting in the increased height limit to beyond the maximum allowed will adversely effect the view of the surrounding property owners on or near the greenbelt. It will adversely effect the environment increasing the massive appearance of an already massive building which is not compatible with the surrounding area. Absolutely no landscaping is provided to alleviate the existing stark bareness surrounding the three units attached to 1210 Electric Avenue in 1969 and none is being proposed by the owner or required by the Planning Commission. Appellant comment on staff comments: More boilerplate. One can go by and observe that former landscaped areas have been cemented in providing even less landscaping than was there in the past - probably when the units were added in 1969. Only two single family residences could be built on the property were the entire building demolished. Take a look at the building on the opposite corner west and see which contributes more to the appearance of the neighborhood, the Mewes property and the one next to it on the corner or the property in question. I Ms. Mewes urged support of the appeal of the Planning Commission decision. Mr. Warren Morton, Seal Beach, retired building contractor, stated that he has reviewed the proposed plans. Mr. Morton claimed that roof access should not be allowed on legal nonconforming income property, this has not been allowed on any legal nonconforming income structure in the area, the setbacks for the structure are nonconforming and therefore the conditional use permit should not be approved, in addition to inadequate setback along the alley the existence of a block wall along the alley property line runs the entire length of the property, the result is that there is no space provided by the owner for the required trash containers within the confines of the property, all trash containers are continuously and regularly placed within the alley right-of-way creating a hazardous and unsanitary situation, the conditional use permit should not be approved unless the hazard and unsanitary conditions are eliminated. Mr. Morton stated that the Commission public hearing was improperly terminated before all testimony was taken and the Chair refused to allow further testimony. The granting of 12-9-02 this permit to increase the size at 1210 Electric and allow the exceeding of the height limit by seven feet will change the scenic views from existing surrounding restrictions of the greenbelt, granting of this permit to increase the size of 1210 Electric and allow the exceeding of the height limit by seven feet will change the scale of the building and will worsen the already out of character building in the general I area of the project, the proposed result of a substantial alteration of the present and will establish longtime plans in the area. Mr. Morton stated the proposed project will result in the obstruction of scenic vistas and open views to the public and will serve only to increase offensive sight to open public views. He said the curb cuts on Electric and 13th Street allows vehicles to park on the sidewalks, another reason to not approve this CUP, the proposal to add almost two thousand square feet to the second floor will make this apartment almost three thousand four hundred square feet, plus the roof deck, the total living area on the thirty-two foot lot will be almost seven thousand four hundred square feet. Mr. Morton pleaded that this addition not be allowed to be built. Mr. Roger West, Electric Avenue, thirty-five year resident, expressed his support of the appeal, and said in 1969 and 1970 he worked with many others to increase the parking requirements in Old Town from one car per dwelling to two cars per dwelling, he personally owned property on which he could have legally built seven units, go three stories in height, after the change the most he was allowed was two units or a duplex, he took the downgrading economically to make Old Town a better place to live, he gave up economic rights on his property for the betterment of the community as a whole, his request is that the Planning Department not be I allowed to subvert that effort by the continual use of the conditional use permit to chip away a space at a time. Mr. West noted that the application of Mr. Ghazarian requests to add one thousand nine hundred fifty-two square feet to the residence, in Resolution 02-40 approved by the Planning Commission he stated that they approved one thousand seven hundred fifty-two square feet to the second floor, four hundred ninety-seven square feet for a covered roof deck and four hundred square feet to the first floor, that is a total of two thousand three hundred eighty-six square feet, to that he questioned exactly how much he is adding, have the plans been checked, also, pointed out that even at only one thousand seven hundred and forty square feet almost twice as much is being added as the square footage he has at 1301 Electric or the Morton's have on 13th Street. Mr. West said that this wife, who has been a real estate broker in Seal Beach for over thirty years has said that the average dwelling unit south of Pacific Coast Highway is less than one thousand square feet, this means the applicant wants to add the equivalent of two dwelling units to 1210 Electric Avenue. Mr. West requested support of the appeal. Mr. Chris Mavis, 12th Street, mentioned that as the District One Planning Commissioner stated all one has to do is stand on the greenbelt and it can be seen that this property is already I overbuilt, also stated that if this project is allowed there will be a huge walled corner, staff stated that the project should be appropriate for the characteristics and integrity of the neighborhood, in his opinion this project does not support the characteristics and integrity of the neighborhood or the greenbelt, this is evident by the owner's plans that contain no upgrades to the landscape or blending of the project with the existing stark units, it is obvious in this instance that the discretion of the Council is necessary to save the aesthetics of the neighborhood from the invasion of 12-9-02 I an absentee landlord who has exhibited and continues to demonstrate his lack of concern for the characteristics and integrity of the neighborhood, if this project proceeds the Council will be condemning the residents of Old Town to overcrowding for decades to come. Mr. Jim Caviola, Ocean Avenue, stated that a conditional use permit is an exception, in this case it is taking the exception and eating the rule, the rule is ten percent, the community has had to deal with buildings that do not conform in Old Town, especially in this area where the densities are higher therefore CUP's have been allowed for small things, this project does not comply with the neighborhood as a CUP requires. He said in a 1985 example given by staff the required parking existed, the second example was a problem with a unit above the garage, what was done in that case was the addition of two tandem parking places to meet the parking requirement, in another example a four car garage was constructed, other examples of past projects are within the ten percent rule. Mr. Caviola said from his personal experience of owning two duplexes he was told he could add ten percent, he eventually sold one, built a house on the other and did away with the unit based upon the City Code, for twenty-four years he has watched the down zoning and the compromises that have been made, he understands CUP's, this is not the proper use of a CUP, if there is need to get rid of the CUP system it will hurt everyone, this is an example of someone coming into town and trying to use a CUP to add a whole house to a non-conforming house, a fourplex, lacking four parking spaces, if this is approved it will set up a system where almost every application will need to be approved to do whatever they want, yet for the long time residents who have helped with parking, overcrowding, non-conforming, allowing people to do small things to make things workable, that will disappear because this is taking the exception to the rule, this is unfortunate, and his feeling is that the Planning Commissioners just did not understand this project, and he supports the appeal. Ms. Gail Ayres, Central Avenue, stated she does not live in the area of the property however did look at the site and the proposed plans, she agrees that this would be an overbuild of this nonconforming property, she too was going to mention the wall and the trash receptacles however provided photographs of same. Ms. Ayres stated that she looked at the plans in detail, it was said they are deleting a bedroom and putting two bedrooms upstairs, her belief is that they are actually increasing bedrooms as there are a number of opportunities to add walls which could result in four bedrooms, it is known that that has been done, therefore if approved it is known that when completed the City will not have the ability to get back into the structure, therefore there will be a four bedroom, three bath home. She concluded that this project is too large and it does not conform to the property. Mr. Rick Peters, 13th Street, said he too just became aware of the development proposed by the developer/ owner, he could not come close to pointing out why this particular conditional use permit is out of line and should be denied by the Council, and in that he does support, as does the Council, keeping the atmosphere, ambiance, and character of this town, offered that owner/ developers who ask for conditional use permits do so with an economic reason in mind, that is known, it is a violation of the City Code, this would set a terrible precedent if approved. Mr. Peters said he spoke with a number of neighbors, they all support maintaining the property codes and the particular character of the east side of town, and requested that the conditional use permit be denied and the I I 12-9-02 appeal upheld. Mr. Tom Greeley, Seal Way, stated that he attended meetings regularly in the 1970's when there was the greenbelt consideration, etc., he then got tired of City politics. He recently tuned in the Planning Commission. meeting where this project was under consideration and the Commission was stating its desire to do something for this application. Being in the property management business, Mr. Greeley said this a numbers game, properties rent for between $1.50 and $2.00 a square foot in Old Town, for this addition of one thousand nine hundred fifty-two square feet, it is new therefore $2.00 per square foot, one can then figure how much it will cost to build and the value that will result, the Commission meeting was an invitation to come to the City and apply, there was no discussion of taking out one of the units, nothing with regard to landscaping, where are the cars going to end up, on the street. Mr. Greeley offered that he has nothing against this project, it is an owners unit, but he manages a property that has an owners unit but there is no longer an owner on-site, the building will go on forever therefore the owners unit will be rented. He noted that comments have been heard relating to the expansion proposal of Grace Church, the issue is parking with the residents, there is a lot of property south of Pacific Coast Highway that is single story, at this point he could likely recommend to people that they approach the City for a conditional use permit to add a second story, they will then make a lot of money. Mr. Greeley said in his opinion this is a larger question that the City should be looking at, someone said there should not be covered roof access structures for legal nonconforming units where there is more than one unit on a lot, that is not a bad idea, something that should be looked at, this is a broader issue than just this project, what do people want the City to look like, if every building south of PCH is maximized where are all of the cars going to go, it is a problem now and it will get worse, once the building is built there is nothing that can be done about it, there are some rather strange buildings constructed in this town, a few doors from his residence the owners of a property kept coming to the City about every three years requesting another addition of around five percent, there needs to be a better job done of watching things on legal nonconforming properties, the ten percent rule is probably good as there are some strange properties that need to be fixed up and upgraded, yet this massive two thousand square foot addition. Mr. Greeley suggested that the Council address some of these issues with the Planning Commission, what is desired as to how the town should look, if this project is approved it will then be on the list of precedents, what will be done with the next applicant. Mr. Greeley requested approval of the appeal, no on the proposed addition, then go a step further and look at the whole issue and develop some stronger safeguards. Ms. Mitzi Morton, Seal Beach, expressed her fondness for this community and her care of what happens to it. She mentioned that she too has four units on another street that are legal nonconforming, if this proposal is approved she too could come to the City for a conditional use permit to expand her property, yet she would not do that because she cares about her neighbors and City nor would she create the density that has been occurring. Ms. Morton noted that at the Planning Commission hearing what came up was that the applicant was reducing the bedrooms from three to two, they never discussed or asked questions relating to the blueprints which shows that the downstairs so called television room with a walk-in closet and full bathroom was designed so that it could easily be closed off and made into I I I 12-9-02 I a third bedroom, the library area upstairs could also be converted to a bedroom, she noticed too that the master bedroom is bigger than the one bedroom ground floor apartment. Ms. Morton questioned if the Commissioners studied the blueprints or if they can read blueprints, many questions should have been asked but there was not one, what the Commission has approved gives the applicant a special privilege to expand a four unit apartment building by over two thousand square feet creating a massive house with no parking, larger than new houses being built that do conform to the existing Code of today, the property owner also enjoys the privilege of having income from three units, and they were not asked to give up anything for this privilege, this was not the intent of Ordinance 1361 that covers major alterations of nonconforming income property to allow for such a massive expansion, there was no one who spoke in support of the project, only those who protested, eight property owners in the area signed two letters in protest however were not considered in the deliberations. Ms. Morton asked why the staff recommended approval of this massive project when they could have recommended denial, staff was not working in the best interest of the City rather for the self-interests of the applicant. Ms. Morton requested that the decision of the Planning Commission be denied. Ms. Joyce parque, 6th Street, with reference to the listing of other projects in the community, noted that one in her area is listed as a duplex which it no longer is, the owner converted the property to a single family house, enlarged the master bedroom and added a small balcony, another in her area is listed as four units to which she claimed that no square footage was added to that building, another is two decks on a condo and a single family house, another four unit building is shown for 8th Street, she talked to the owner who reportedly said he did not add on, just added onto the laundry room, a resident near her had a bungalow with a unit over the garage, he was allowed to convert the property to a two story house with a unit over the garage however was required to have four parking spaces, two for each unit, the majority of properties on the list provided by staff are for decks, balcony enclosures, laundry rooms, they have nothing to do with adding nineteen hundred square feet, and everyone knows that mistakes have been made, things built too high, on a property lines, etc. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, said her understanding is that blueprints are sent out because staff can not read them, she also has a friend that has a monitor who allegedly overheard the building inspector doing an inspection and informing the person to wait for the final inspection and then put a closet in, this was a room addition rather than a bedroom, to which she charged that all of the staff knew they were bedrooms. She stated that the agenda packet should have been delivered to the appellants a week prior to prepare for their appeal, suggested that staff did not properly present the facts, and this project is not allowed under Code. Mr. Bruce Bennett, 4th Street, noted that many of the people present have been trying for twenty to thirty years to get a concept for reducing density in Old Town, that has been sustained, there is Code on it, one has to go through a special permit process, this project is a large increase. Mr. Bennett said what is disturbing to him is that again information has been presented without the negatives, a concept showing the disadvantages, there is not an issue that does not have at least two or three positive and negative points, the Commission had only pluses, no negatives, it can be heard at this meeting that these are not comparable structures, that the conditional use permit is I I 12-9-02 designed for small additions not large additions. Mr. Bennett spoke in favor of the appeal. Mr. Daniel Hill stated he was the designer of the project, said he was hired by the owner of the property, the applicant desires to move to Seal Beach and retire, that is how the proposal for this project started, a visit was paid to the Planning Department as to what could and could not be done on the property, the application, plan, and actual floor plan was reviewed with Planning staff as to whether or not it was allowable, they then proceeded to prepare the plans, filed the application, and proceeded to the hearing at which the plans were approved. with regard to the size of the project, Mr. Hill said the owners plan to reside and retire at this home, they are adding approximately seventeen hundred square feet as the second story, about one hundred forty-seven on the first floor, typically if one is going to do a second story it is constructed over what there is on the ground floor, that increased the square footage to approximately three thousand square feet, the owners also observed roof decks in the immediate area and they chose to go with that type of design, everything seemed to be in accordance with the guidelines of the Code at the time of preparing the plans, paying the fees, and filing the application. with regard to the parking situation mentioned this evening, Mr. Hill said that Seal Beach itself has a parking issue, some of those who spoke at this meeting also have nonconforming properties according to current Code, in fact there is likely very few people who could comply with current Code as it relates to parking. Mr. Hill explained that with regard to the 1210 property there is seventeen hundred square feet being added, reducing one bedroom count, noted that one speaker mentioned adding a wall that would create more bedrooms, to which he said that is something anyone could do, that is not what is being proposed, look at the floor plan, the downstairs is completely open, upstairs the access to the roof deck goes to another area so those rooms would not work as a bedroom, there would not be a bedroom on the first floor where the family room, dining room, and kitchen areas exist, the bedrooms go to the second floor, to put a bedroom downstairs would not flow with the floor plan, on the second floor there is the master bedroom, a bedroom on the west wing, then there is the access to the roof deck, you would not make that into a bedroom, then there is what is called the library, a small study room going to the roof deck. Mr. Hill reminded that they have Planning Commission approval of the project, they came in good faith to the City for this project, they worked with the Planning Department, they would like to improve the look of this property, they plan also to enhance the units to the south of the home portion, if approved they plan a face lift, landscaping, and improvement of the entire site, it is not economically feasible for the owners to put this much money into 1210 Electric and choose not to enhance 159 - 13th Street which is next door. Mr. Rog Ghazarian, Seal Beach, stated that he wanted to respond to three of the primary issues raised by the appellants, first the parking issue, to which he said that the handful of people opposing this project argue that the current building has a parking problem and suggest that the proposed project would worsen that problem, to that he would respectfully disagree, the existing single family home is a three bedroom home, the proposed project will decrease the amount of bedrooms to two, technically his belief is that that will reduce the number of people that would reside in the home thereby improving the alleged parking problem rather than I I I 12-9-02 I making it worse, and that the project will make the property more parking friendly than it is even now. With regard to the height requirement, Mr. Ghazarian noted that those opposing the project state that the seven foot stairway will obstruct scenic views, to which he asked what scenic views they are referring to, if they are referring to the appearance of the proposed building itself then it is ridiculous, the proposed building will beautify the street, it will not in any way be an obstruction. It was alleged that the building is over built for the site, to that Mr. Ghazarian said based upon the appellants standards almost every other home in Seal Beach is overbuilt for its respective site, in this case the property owner has worked within the guidelines set forth by the Planning Commission and this project is comparable to many other completed projects on the same street, so why single out this project. Mr. Ghazarian offered that the Planning Commission is very competent, they have worked closely with them, and asked that they be allowed to do their job and not reverse the decision. Mr. Ghazarian reported that some of the appellants have approached the tenants by knocking on their doors which has almost become harassing, they have made issue of the use of the garages and that the owner has not policed what has been going on in those garages, to which he said the parking spaces are offered to the tenants but the owner can not police the activities in the garages, there are no illegal activities, they do not collect rent from outside parties, the garages are for tenant use. Ms. Sara Ghazarian, property owner, said she was not prepared to speak, however wanted to know if the Council was aware that the appellants have distributed fliers throughout downtown relating to their project. Ms. Ghazarian mentioned that they live in Bixby Terrace, own a six thousand four hundred square foot home, they are at the stage of planning to retire, that is why they plan to come to their property in Seal Beach and improve it to their living standards, they feel as if they are being harassed by the people of Seal Beach by distributing the fliers and contacting their tenants, her son lives on Seal way, owns another property on 12th Street, they have owned 1210 Electric for over six years, love Seal Beach, they feel they are being treated differently, a harassment. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 10:32 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:43 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order. Mr. Shawn Ghazarian said he has been a general contractor in the area for many years, has built a number of homes in the community, a seven plus year resident, acknowledged that there are certain parking problems and said he understands the concerns, noted that he built his home on Catalina, residences on 12th Street and the general area, it is he who convinced his parents to retire to Seal Beach, mentioned that they have spent thousands of dollars thus far yet the property has not even been touched as yet, he and his family worked with the City from the beginning, he personally always does things under permits, there is no intention of adding walls to make rooms, if things were going to be done illegally they would not be before the City Council, in his opinion the Planning Commission should be allowed to do their job. Mr. Jim Caviola, Ocean Avenue, said it is clear from the evidence presented by the Planning Department that there has never been a project such as this approved, not one example of such a project that has been allowed for an expansion without complying with parking, if this project is I I 12-9-02 allowed to go forward then it is open to all, in fact he may be the next to make application, people have lived with the code, trying to get along with each other, trying to work with each others differences relating to nonconforming buildings, it is clear that the applicants are well within the financial abilities to comply with the City Code, get along with the neighbors, and provide parking, if there were other examples he would be back peddling, yet staff has found no examples of a past ten percent expansion that does not comply with parking, the Code is the Code, lets not start putting in exceptions, keep the Code the way it is, not play games with exceptions that were put in place to help people, this is an abuse of that. There being no further comments, Mayor Larson declared the public hearing closed. The City Attorney advised that the staff report, letters, petitions, and testimony will be part of the record. Councilman Antos acknowledged that three members of the Council have served on the Planning Commission in the past, he has been a professional planner for thirty years, and looking through the list of approvals provided by staff starting with 1985, when this process was first in place, conditional use permits were used for the larger expansions, they were either legal nonconforming duplexes with required parking spaces, whether they be tandem or not, or in other cases as part of a request for a conditional use permit property owners were required to add parking to bring it up to Code or come close. Councilman Antos said in this particular case there were a variety of things that concerned him, upon looking at the plans there were some other things that could have been considered that were not, for instance there is a unit on the ground floor adjacent to and attached to the house, it would seem that by eliminating that unit there would have been an opportunity to go forward with enlarging the house without the second floor addition, etc., that would have then reduced the total number of units but increased the total number of parking spaces by one and maybe provide a two car garage for the unit of the owner. He said he felt that the Code was fairly clear in that, the required property inspection should have been completed and provided to the Planning Commission as part of their information for consideration, that was not done to his knowledge, also this proposal seems to be completely out of character with the neighborhood, there have been other additions where people have actually reduced units in order to convert a property and provide a larger living unit, these things appear to not have been considered, it is not known if the staff discussed that with the applicant, or asked about options, but it seems that what is being used here is the conditional use permit process for the major additions in lieu of a variance, because this is a nonconforming property that is being allowed to expand and extend its life for an extremely long period of time with nothing being done to try to bring it closer to conformity. Councilman Antos said no matter what comes of the appeal he would like to see the entire conditional use permit process looked at and possibly deleted if it is going to be used in this manner, his feeling is that this is out of character for the neighborhood and when one reads the definition of a conditional use permit it is that it is theoretically possible to have the CUP granted upon the finding that it is compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding land uses, not detrimental, it is not a situation that is a permit that conditions can be added to and automatically granted by right, in this case it appears I I I 12-9-02 I someone came to the City and said they wanted to do this and it appears it is being treated as a permit that could be conditioned as opposed to looking at its compatibility with the neighborhood. Councilman Antos expressed his opinion that this should not be approved, should not be encouraged anywhere in the City as far as this kind of major addition to nonconforming buildings that are this nonconforming. Councilman Doane said when things come up where the decision of the Planning Commission may be reversed, staff always provides memorandums and minutes from the Planning Commission hearing, he looks at the comments of his long time Planning Commissioner, one comment was that the parking spaces are still there and until an ordinance is adopted to prohibit using garages for storage that can not be regulated, the garages are there but not being used appropriately, there is nothing then that the-Commission or Council can do, also, in his opinion this addition would produce a decrease in density as the number of bedrooms would be decreased, that the design of the addition was compatible and it was not believed that the Commission had the prerogative to deny the request. Councilman Doane then inquired that if the Commission does not have the prerogative then does the Council, yet on the other side he too does not like this picture, the idea of the encroachment onto the alleyway, the cracked wall which certainly would be repaired, possibly what needs to happen is that the owners resubmit modified plans to take into consideration some of the objections, one being allowing for more parking even though the density, according to his Commissioner, has actually been decreased. He noted derogatory remarks with regard to the District Three Commissioner, yet he has observed that Commissioner for years, he has participated in hearings bringing positive input, and it is felt he and the Commission are doing a good job. Councilman Doane said he does not like to reverse Commission decisions, and he would invite comments from the members of the Council that have been on the Planning Commission as to their feelings about overturning Planning Commission decisions in that the Council is not as knowledgable as they with these particular issues. Councilmember Campbell mentioned that the Planning Commission sorts out all of the reasons they can, people then come forward and cite things that were missed, noted that in the City of Cypress they do not have a Planning Commission and consequently they have Council meetings that are terrible, in Seal Beach there is the Planning Commission, EQCB, Recreation Commission, etc. that get issues first and are able to sort out the good and the bad, that is the benefit of having a Planning Commission. Councilmember Campbell said she reviewed all of the materials, watched the tape of the Commission meeting, one question was if the owner was going to live there, the answer was yes, how many units on the property, it is understood there are four, how many of those units are permitted, it is understood only two are permitted, during comments it was said that a special inspection was required, staff said that a special inspection was not needed to be paid for, that the inspection of the Senior Building Inspector was sufficient, and is that correct. The Director of Development Services noted that when the City adopted its fee structure for applications part of the standard application packet is an inspection sheet that the building inspector fills out for expansion projects of nonconforming structures, in this case he did not take the formal sheet with him however came back with hand written notes providing the information that was set forth in the staff report, the - reason there are not more things required on this particular I I 12-9-02 building is that in 1998 the house was completely redone for plumbing and electrical, those are usually the main issues that come up with remodels, in that the plumbing and electrical services are usually about forty years old, that is not the situation in this case, the information in the staff report reflects the handwritten notes of the inspector that are in the file which can be read at any time desired, I the fee for the inspection is now wrapped into the general application fee. with regard to the covered roof access structure, Councilmember Campbell asked if there are any of those on legal nonconforming rental properties, does it matter that they are rental properties. The Director responded that as to whether or not they are legal nonconforming rental properties he did not know specifically, he would need to relook at the some two hundred or so approvals that have been granted over the years, he would tend to doubt it, the process allows a height variation request for any piece of property in the City whether it be single family, multi-family, commercial or industrial, and noted that the City has approved height variations on commercial properties. Councilmember Campbell said from the owners perspective she could not blame them for wanting to maximize their property, everyone is remodeling and no one wants to live in a small house, people are looking for better living conditions, they can not be faulted for that, however it is also felt that when there is an opportunity to make a situation better, namely making a building conforming, that that situation should be taken advantage of and give something back, it is not felt that is being done in this case. She recalled the comment of a former Planning Commissioner that his fear for Old Town was that eventually I it would be one big box, that is because people have property rights and as much as the City tries to be restrictive it is very problematic because people do improvements in increments, and when you look back you wonder how something got to where it is. Councilmember Campbell noted that the parking does not change as they are going from three bedrooms to two, however in looking at the intent to discourage upgrading of existing nonconforming structures so that as their economic life expires new conforming structures will replace them, that ties into the opportunity to try to bring some of this into conformity. She said that while on the Planning Commission they looked at variances and when considering granting a variance it had to be kept in mind that a variance would run with the land, that required thinking ahead as to what someone could do with a variance, one of the disturbing things is hearing people say that a wall could be added here or there, that becomes paranoia that they will turn it all into rental property, yet what happens if the owners decide to sell, the new owners have a family and look at the upstairs where the study could be considered for a bedroom as could the television room on the ground floor, people just do it, that is what people get concerned with, that is something to which thought needs to be given, I and in theory it is more bedrooms and more cars, that is a legitimate concern. Councilman Yost said he too does not like overturning a Planning Commission decision, and expressed appreciation for the kind words with regard to the District Three Commissioner who has considerable experience. He said on the other hand part of what makes Seal Beach charming is the density and the feel that it has, he has personally realized grief for not voting for a variance under appeal to grant more space on a property that was legal nonconforming because of not having enough parking, that has traditionally been his stand, he does not like adding a large 12-9-02 I amount of square footage because that square footage, although it may not increase bedrooms at the time, the building does not go away and can be modified in the future, having more square footage means more people can be housed, that in turn increases the density of the property and decreases the overall quality of life for those surrounding the property especially when it is minus four parking spaces already, that is very concerning, with regard to the covered roof access structure Councilman Yost said he did not have a great concern with that, it is basically necessary for someone to access their deck in a way that is safe and reasonable in its minimalist fashion. He said what is bothersome is the amount of square footage being added without parking, if this was to be done rationally it would require giving up at least a unit or something to that degree to at least make an attempt to get closer to compliance with the spirit of the community, that which has brought this project to the Council is what the community would like to keep, given his concerns he could not vote for this request and will support the appeal. Mayor Larson noted that he too has served on the Planning Commission, has been city attorney of a number of cities, he has written zoning ordinances, and offered that Seal Beach is one of the strangest, not bad, but it is presumed that at one time the City started with a good zoning ordinance that was specific as to what could be done, and then people decided they wanted something other than, his thought is that the parking is a problem but what is even more of a problem is that the legislature and the Governor signed a law that says in effect that cities have to allow mother-in-law units on the back of every single family home, that will have to be done, without a hearing, without any input from the public, that will be in effect January 1st, that is going to cause numerous parking problems, this will only exacerbate it, therefore until the City has a good answer as to how the new statute is going to work and how the new Master Plan is going to work and a new zoning ordinance that will need to be brought into conformity with the new Master Plan, the City should not be approving such large changes to the area, therefore he will be voting no on the project and yes on the appeal. Councilman Yost moved to sustain the appeal and overturn the decision of the Planning Commission. Councilman Antos seconded the motion. The City Attorney suggested that staff be directed to bring back to Council a resolution affirming the appeal and overturning the Planning Commission action. I AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING/PROPOSED ORDINANCE - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 02-1 - RETAINING WALLS By unanimous consent of the Council, this item was held over until a future meeting. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report was presented. CITY MANAGER REPORT No report was presented. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Campbell noted the Neighborhood Association's Holiday at Heather Park event was held this past Saturday with Santa, Girl Scouts, Public Works, the Fire Truck, 12-9-02 I 12-23-02 I 1-13-03 Police, and thanked all who helped. With regard to special event permits of $100, Councilmember Campbell inquired as to the fee to rent a portion of a park for a birthday party. The response of staff was that there are separate fees for rental of City facilities, parks, community centers, etc., the specific fee uncertain at this moment. ADJOURNMENT The direction of the Council was that the December 23rd meeting be canceled and adjourned until Monday, January 13th, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 11:13 p.m. I Approved: Attest: Seal Beach, California December 23, 2002 I The regularly scheduled City Council meeting to this date was canceled by action of the Council reco nition of the Holiday Season. be held on in it Clerk and the City of clerk Seal Beach, California January 13, 2003 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: I Mayor Larson Councilmembers Antos, Campbell, Doane, Yost Absent: None