Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1999-04-26 4-12-99 / 4-26-99 personnel matters as to the City Manager, City Attorney, and Public Works Supervisor pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 11:10 p.m. and reconvened at 1:00 a.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had given direction to the City Manager and City Attorney, no other action was taken. Yost moved, second by Snow, to approve the provision for supplemental health insurance for a thirty-five year City employee. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 1:01 a.m. () 1. Y Clerk an the City of clerk Approved: Mtt: (~..:Jh~ {l City Clerk Attest: I Seal Beach, California April 26, 1999 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Yost Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow Absent: None Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Badum, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Ms. Stoddard, Director of Administrative Services Chief Sellers, Police Department Mr. Dorsey, Assistant to the City Manager Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation and Parks Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I I I I 4-26-99 APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilman Doane requested that Item "Q" be removed from the agenda and be tabled. The City Attorney referred to Item "L", Ordinances numbered 1444 and 1445 relating to the Zoeter Park Skate Facility, Section 2 thereof, changing the title of the individual charged with the responsibility of posting applicable signs from the Director of Community Development to the City Manager. Doane moved, second by Campbell, to approve the order of the agenda as revised. With regard to the tabling of Item "Q", Councilman Boyd asked if the intent was that there be no budget discussions at this meeting. Councilman Doane said that would be his recommendation, the reason being that there is not as yet a balanced budget, piecemeal considerations are not the best, also, placing that discussion at the end of the agenda is not fair to those who want to be present. He offered that he was in favor of the changed budget discussions when suggested at the last meeting however in talking to some of the people who want to participate it may be well to go back to the public workshop format. Councilmember Campbell said she favored the Council meeting forum ho~ever ~ants to have the budget pages under discussion a week ahead to have the opportunity to review. To the question posed by Mayor Yost as to whether the budget is complete, the City Manager advised that the budget is not complete, four departments were presented for consideration at this meeting yet those are only tentative as the revenue projections have not been finalized, so at this point even the four could not be recommended as a balanced component of the budget. Mayor Yost offered that he first thought the piecemeal approach would be workable however upon further thought it may be better to look at the total picture, consider comparisons of issues as they relate to priorities, otherwise it may be impossible to have a balanced budget, at this point his preference too would be to table the budget discussions and return to the previous workshop format. Councilmember Campbell objected to late afternoon meetings as people are returning from work and unable to attend, discussing a little at a time with a concluding overall review would be acceptable, things that are carried over from year to year should be reviewed to see if they continue to be pertinent, her concern is with receiving the information on the same day as the meeting. She suggested an adjourned meeting or at the beginning of the agenda. Councilman Boyd said he brought this issue up as he felt each cost center should be reviewed individually, to adopt the budget all at once would be fiscally irresponsible, a member of the Council had said there should be more public participation, to which he stated this is the public forum, his idea had been to review each cost center, not adopt, at a Council meeting where the public can either view from home or attend and participate. As to cablecasting of a mid-week adjourned session, it was noted that that would be a decision of the Cable Foundation, funding is generally only for Council and Planning Commission meetings, to that it was also mentioned that possibly a non-broadcast workshop would be more relaxed for participation by the public, and to that comment there was disagreement. A mid-week session with a two hour limit was suggested. As to the expectation of the City Manager for this meeting, he stated just a walk through of the four preliminary cost centers, possibly resolve some questions or confusion, offering that for the budget to be adopted there will be one or two cablecast public hearings were there is an overview of the entire document, the fund balances, estimated beginning and ending balances, budget 4-26-99 highlights, and policies, the schedule depends on how much detail the Council wishes to review the budget and how formal that process should be. Vote on the motion to approve the order of the agenda as revised: AYES: NOES: Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost Boyd Motion carried I PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Yost declared Public Comments open. Mr. Reg Clewley, Catalina Avenue, said he wished to speak to Item "M", proposed Ordinance Number 1419, at this time as the item was not on the Consent Calendar where it could be removed for separate consideration, and in this case requested that the time limit be waived. He stated he presented materials for information of the Council, recalled that the District Three representative proposed arguments in favor of this Ordinance at the last meeting, that because the thirteen foot tall fence had been permitted, thus the fifteen foot six inch structure similarly situated to the property line at 1733 Crestview should also be permitted, that was a good argument until the fact that the wall at 1505 was permitted inadvertently, carelessly, or wrongfully. He referred to Code Section 28-2316 (2)(0) that he said speaks to a property line on or within a lot of no greater than eight feet as measured from either side of the fence, page one of the materials submitted provide a photograph of the only permitted wall along Catalina, Crestview, or Surf Place, that I a height of thirteen feet, there is a nine foot six inch retaining wall and a forty-two inch guard rail that has been permitted on top. Mr. Clewley read 28-2316(2)(0) relating to retaining walls, also included in the materials submitted, claimed there are peculiar circumstances on those three streets, then the Council adopted an amendment to Section 28- 2316, Zone Text Amendment 92-6, subsection (2)(H)(3), allowing ten foot high fences for purposes of security in the 'back yards of Hill homes adjacent to vacant Hellman land and Gum Grove Park' whether they be retaining walls, hedge plantings, screening devices, something six foot tall could be built but under no circumstances at either side of the fence could the wall be more than ten feet tall. He then referred to page thirteen of the Planning Commission minutes of October 3, 1990 with regard to comments relating to structures, flatwork, raised materials, and backfill during discussion of the 1733 Crestview property, thereafter he referred to page nine of Planning Commission minutes of March 6, 1996 from which he read an except as had been explained by the Development Services Director with regard to deck setbacks, reference to the same property, then he read a quote of Planning Commissioner Brown from a Sun newspaper article of March 26, 1998, citing Code enforcement as a problem. With regard to the permitted wall that had been I constructed, he claimed there was no issue raised by staff as to how the permit was issued, to which he stated it was not in compliance with the Code. Mr. Clewley said the argument at the previous meeting in favor of the proposed Ordinance came up because the wall at 1505 Crestview was permitted, that too should be an illegally constructed structure as at 1733, it does not comply with Seal Beach Code, and he had been referred to some County Code that deals with freeway escarpments and related properties. Mr. Clewley stated if the proposed Ordinance is adopted there will be a complaint filed, claimed that his property and the lives of his family 4-26-99 I are endangered with the passage of this Ordinance. He mentioned also that his neighbor has a structure, if he were to catch fire his house would be finished and this City should be sued. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, mentioned that he is getting feedback from people with regard to the newly metered parking lots, he was not aware that they were going to be $1 per hour, a little excessive, to which he asked if the Council has considered a study to determine if the lots may do just as well at fifty cents an hour and possibly feel better about that, also, what kind of reputation is the City getting when one wants to stroll the pier and when they return to their car they are met with a $34 parking ticket, noting that the lot in the one hundred block of Main Street is nearly empty. The Manager responded that the revenues from the metered lots are being watched, the intent was to get through a peak summer season, gather statistics on their usage and revenue, to allow the Council to evaluate whether the rates are appropriate, if near capacity most of the time that would likely mean the rates are acceptable, if they are near empty in the summer that would be a concern. Mr. Shanks claimed that this is a three and a half month City, the remainder is fall, winter, and into spring, to evaluate on a basis of three and a half months is not to evaluate for a twelve month period, it is known that the City will be busier in the summer, yet is that making an impact on the businesses for the other eight and a half months, this City can not be judged on the three plus summer months. He requested that this be looked into. With regard to issue just addressed, Ordinance 1419, Mr. Shanks said people should remember that when the Hill was built, commencing in 1958, Seal Beach was a flat City, when the codes were adopted for Crestview especially, not so much on Catalina and Surf place, they did not take the slope issue into account, the City is getting caught up with having a steep bluff to the back, the City is making an effort, and spoke for passage of the Ordinance and resolving this issue. Mr. Stan Anderson, Balboa Drive, expressed appreciation for the help of the City with the Car Show held on Saturday, also the Seal Beach Chamber and Business Association, the volunteers, and the car owners. Mr. Anderson reported that persons have again talked to him regarding the standing water in front of St. Anne's Church, and requested that someone contact those persons with regard to dates and times of any upcoming work. While walking and talking this weekend he also received complaints regarding the parking and restrooms, there needs to be some signage with regard to restroom facilities, possibly they should be looked into as a budget item, that is only fair to visitors as well as the residents, and businesses complained about people utilizing their facilities. Mr. Anderson mentioned also complaints that the metered lots are too high, that these lots should not be metered unless there is a total parking management program, offered to obtain information from a contact in Belmont Shore regarding their program, said more and more people are parking on the residential streets, the businesses had been using those lots for themselves and their customers, now they have no good business parking program, it is hoped that can be resolved. He expressed appreciation to the Recreation Department for their efforts in developing the skateboard park, noted that the park is already being used a great deal and people are appreciative of having some place for skateboarding other than on the sidewalks, possibly others can be developed in other areas of the community, and mentioned that some of the Recreation personnel will be joining him on an upcoming public access program that will be I I 4-26-99 shown on May 6th. In response to a question of Councilman Boyd, Mr. Anderson confirmed that the Belmont Shore Business Association does own the parking lots, also explained that their meter rate is fifty cents per hour, are operative until 6:00 p.m., this similar to what the Business Association had previously looked at in terms of encouraging use of the beach lots, also, in Belmont Shore the businesses have parking I available for their use and at a reduced rate. Councilman Boyd asked if the beach parking rate is not the same as the Main Street lots, $1 per hour with a $6 maximum, the Manager responded that the beach lots are variable rates, a flat $6 in the summer with a reduced $2 rate after 5:00 p.m., also a $1 hourly rate. Mr. Anderson said he would even like to see some free hours offered to the beachgoers in order to encourage use of those lots, if people are offered one hour free they will likely be there the remainder of the day. Mayor Yost announced that the beach restrooms are now open. There being no further comments, Mayor Yost declared Public Comments closed. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4701 - OPPOSING SAFE AND HEALTHY COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE eEL TORO) Resolution Number 4701 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE SAFE AND HEALTHY COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4701 was waived. Councilmember Campbell explained that this resolution was drafted by the Orange County Regional Airport Authority in response to this proposed Initiative, and expressed objection to the connotation of certain language in the Initiative itself I relating to the responsibilities of politicians. Councilmember Campbell pointed out that the Orange County Regional Airport Authority is going on record as opposing this Initiative, encouraged all persons to read it before signing a petition, and pointed out that the people of Orange County have twice voted for airport use of El Toro, this Initiative is trying for a third vote. Campbell moved, second by Boyd, to adopt Resolution Number 4701 as presented. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried LEGISLATION - OPPOSING ASSEMBLY BILL 1248 - ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS and ASSEMBLY BILL 1479 - LOCAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY - EL TORO REUSE Councilmember Campbell explained that revenue bonds do not require a vote of the people as they do not obligate the tax payer where general obligation bonds do require a vote, revenue bonds are paid from the revenue that a project creates. She claimed this to be an attempt to again confuse the public, there is no vote required for the County to issue revenue bonds as there is no tax obligation of the public. With regard to AB 1479, Councilmember Campbell explained that I the City of Irvine is attempting to acquire another seat on the Local Reuse Authority which would then be an even number of members, produce a split vote and nothing would be accomplished with regard to the reuse of the El Toro base. Councilmember Campbell moved approval of opposition to both AB 1248 and AB 1479. seconded the motion. the letters in Councilman Boyd I I I 4-26-99 To a question of Councilman Snow, Councilmember Campbell explained that the Base Realignment and Closure Commission outlines the procedures for the closure and reuse of military facilities, those facilities are first offered to other federal agencies, then to local agencies, in this case the federal government is making the El Toro Marine Station available to the County of Orange at no cost if it is used as an airport, the Orange County Board of Supervisors has been designated as the Local Reuse Authority, the Local Reuse Authority is the body that decides the disposition. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried APPOINTMENT - ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Councilman Snow nominated and moved to appoint Ms. Joyce Basch as the District Two appointee to the Archaeological Advisory Committee for the unexpired term ending July, 1999. Councilman Doane seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "0" thru "L" Doane moved, second by Yost, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented. D. Approved the waiver of reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. E. Approved regular demands numbered 22986 through 23150 in the amount of $430,161.45, payroll demands numbered 3290 through 3430 and 27643 in the amount of $132,910.25, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. F. Approved the minutes of the March 8th and March 22nd, 1999 regular meetings. G. Approved a letter to be forwarded to the Orange County Grand Jury relating to their report on Leaf Blower Pollution Hazards in Orange County, and authorized the Mayor to sign the response letter on behalf of the City. H. Proclaimed the month of May, 1999 as "Veteran Appreciation Month." I. Proclaimed the May, 1999 as "Clean Air Month." J. Approved a letter to be forwarded in support of ACA 16 that provides that State and local public agencies have the authority to contract for professional services, architectural and engineering, and authorized the Mayor to sign the 4-26-99 letter on behalf of the City. K. Adopted Resolution Number 4702 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT AND COORDINATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD/LOS ALAMITOS BOULEVARD TO THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR FUNDING UNDER THE COMBINED TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROGRAM" and Adopted Resolution Number 4703 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR BIKE LANES ADDITION TO THE MARINA DRIVE BRIDGE PROJECT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR FUNDING UNDER THE COMBINED TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROGRAM." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolutions Numbered 4702 and 4703 was waived. I L. Adopted Ordinance Number 1444 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADDING CHAPTER l5C TO THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PERTAINING TO THE USE OF ZOETER PARK SKATE FACILITY AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF" and Approved the introduction of Ordinance Number 1445 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 15C TO THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PERTAINING TO THE USE OF ZOETER PARK SKATE FACILITY' and that it be passed to second reading. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1419 - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 96-1 - REAR YARD DECK STRUCTURES Mayor Yost mentioned that at the last meeting he had turned the conduct of the public hearing over to Counci1member Campbell, will do so again, public comment on this matter has been closed, and he had the opportunity to speak to this item at the last meeting. Mayor ProTem Campbell assumed the conduct of the meeting relating to this item. She inquired if her fellow Councilmembers had walked the rear of these properties. Councilman Snow stated that during the past two weeks he has spent several hours in conferences, visiting people on Crestview, and walking the area along Gum Grove Park, he has done considerable study of certain comments and minutes over the past ten years, concurred with the public I comment that some of the problems of the past should be corrected, and read an excerpt from the news article where Planning Commission Chairman Brown stated that 'many of the exceptions made by the Planning Commission have to do with inadequate rearyard and sideyard setbacks' to which he said when one expands that it can be seen where mistakes have been made over the years, especially with property along Crestview. Mr. Snow said he spent about four hours walking the back of the subject properties, there are a number of places that need inspection as to stability, there is concern with the potential of fires and possibly with camping out, it I I I 4-26-99 is believed much of that could be avoided by actions on the part of City management, yet he would not like to see damage to any of the citizens either emotionally or financially, some of the backyards are beautiful, he would not like to see them damaged, and it needs to be understood that health and safety of the citizens is first and foremost in the thoughts of the City. Councilman Snow mentioned that this has been a difficult issue for the Planning Commission and City staff, and expressed his support for approval of Ordinance Number 1419. Mayor Yost mentioned again that he had made a statement at the last meeting, that with the proviso that there needs to be limits on the height of retaining walls and that future decks be terraced. Councilman Doane said he feels that in the case of a structure being built without permit, a year should be allowed to secure the permit, the property is then inspected for safety for that property and surrounding residences. He mentioned that he had visited one property, viewed the structure, was pleased with other improvements that have been done and permitted, he felt there were no safety factors in this particular case, which is what the City inspectors will review. Councilman Doane emphasized however that he felt a permit should be required for all decks that were built without permit, they should be inspected, he would not be looking to tear things down, and should there be safety problems they need to be corrected. The Mayor agreed that there are many things that are not permitted, have not been inspected and he would support taking acting on anything that is determined to not be safe, correcting or removing it, again, the prime concern is the health and safety of the citizens. Councilman Boyd stated that the Code does specify how high a retaining wall can be, in fact a member of the planning staff explained during a Commission meeting of October 3, 1990 that a retaining wall can be six and a half feet with an additional forty-two inch fence, his feeling is that if something is built it has to be to Code, and if it is built illegally one should not expect it will stay even if it has been in place for ten years. He said he would sympathize with those who bought a house with this deck structure, but the fact is that laws are not changed just because people break the law. Mayor Yost read Code Section 28-2316 with regard to retaining walls, stated there is no reference to what the height of the retaining wall should be, only that a fence, screen planting, or whatever can be six feet on top of the retaining wall, what the planner was explaining in October of 1990 was how high a fence could be on top of the retaining wall, and stated his intent to request amendment of the Code to specify a height for retaining walls. Mayor ProTem Campbell referred back to the previous Council denial of this matter, it was because it was felt there was a loophole in that it was proposed that a year be allowed to bring a non-permitted structure into compliance, yet in the meantime someone else could build a structure out to the property line and then request after- the-fact approval, the issue was not retaining walls, rather it was people building into the setback, five foot sideyard setbacks and ten feet to the rear, and then upon viewing the subject decks it was realized they have never been inspected. After-the-fact permit requests are irritating, people know they need permits yet they go right ahead and build things, an example is the subject of this Text Amendment, there was a stop work order, the deck was completed over a weekend, and the house immediately sold, this is now the problem of the new owners. The issues are many, are decks going to be allowed to remain in the setback, are they going to be required to come into compliance, decks moved out of the 4-26-99 setback, now there is an issue of retaining walls, is there going to be limits on those, yes there will, there are pictures of the properties that have decks, however, there are no pictures of the properties that do not have decks. Mayor ProTem Campbell stated that the Ordinance is not complete, it needs to address the height of retaining walls, require that the owners of pre-existing decks apply for a I permit within twelve months from the date of this ordinance, and address the setback issue. Mayor Yost suggested an inventory of all properties, no new deck construction within the next year without going through the permit process, establish a height of eight feet for retaining walls, and limit decks to twelve and a half feet with terracing. Councilman Boyd again made reference to Section 28-2316, subsection (2)(D), relating to retaining walls, quoting again that 'for retaining walls located on a property line or within a lot a fence, wall, or screen planting may be placed on the retaining wall, the height of such fence, wall, or screen planting shall be six feet in height measured from the highest elevation of land contiguous to the fence, wall, or screen planting, but in no case shall be greater than eight feet as measured from either side of the fence,' to which he said that means the retaining wall can be no more than eight feet high and the fence atop can be no more than forty-two inches, that a fact verified by the former and contract planner. The Mayor again said he found nothing in the Code that specifies the height of retaining walls, that verified by the Development Services Director at the last meeting. The Manager offered to clarify the height of retaining walls by the next meeting. The Mayor noted that the initial order relating to the 1733 Crestview property was issued in 1989, I how could this go on for ten years, the question is how does the City want to treat its citizens, a point was brought up as to how many properties may possibly be involved, asked if it is the intent to send the planning staff into the backyards of properties with their tape measures, that is something the City has generally chosen not to do, to that there was comment that they will be in the area one way or another, verifying whether the structures should stay or go. Mayor ProTem Campbell inquired if the intent is to grandfather the building in the setbacks, to that Mayor Yost noted that a retaining wall can be constructed in the setback yet one can not put a deck in the setback, to him that a total inconsistency, the question is do you treat properties in different areas of the City differently, the answer is yes, and used the overhangs on the Gold Coast as an example, that due to location, sun, etc., a property having a slope behind it too needs to be treated differently, that is what the CUP and ZTA process is for. Mayor ProTem Campbell again inquired as to opinions regarding building in the five foot sideyard and ten foot rear setbacks in the subject area, the response of the Mayor as to the rear setback, as specified by this Ordinance, yes, as to the sideyard setbacks the answer was no, again with regard to the rear yard setback, it was I noted that a retaining wall is already allowed to the rear property line, decks allowed only in accordance with this Ordinance that will require a CUP before the Planning Commission which requires permitting, screening, etc., to the question of grandfather those currently in the rear setback, the answer was yes. Mayor ProTem Campbell made reference to the reading of Section 28-2316 relating to retaining walls, eight feet high plus a forty-two inch fence, to which Councilman Boyd said was verified by the contract planner this date, the retaining wall measured from each side of the wall. The City Attorney stated that if there is a motion on I I I 4-26-99 the floor, the issue of the retaining wall will be clarified before second reading of the Ordinance, from the discussion there appears to be agreement that retaining walls should be no more than eight feet, the question is simply whether it is currently in the Code or not, if not it could be incorporated into the proposed Ordinance. Councilman Snow questioned the reference to grandfathering, keeping in mind that under the proposed Ordinance persons will still have to apply for a permit, determination will then be made by the inspectors as to what is dangerous and what is not, therefore this is not one hundred percent grandfathering. The Mayor stated again that if there is a dangerous structure of any type he would totally support enforcement, demolition, whatever is necessary. The question of Mayor ProTem Campbell was intent as to whether encroachment into the ten foot setback and existing retaining walls are being grandfathered. Councilman Snow noted that there are two retaining walls that are higher than eight feet. The Manager said this is actually not grand fathering otherwise there would not be a requirement to apply for a permit, conditions can be set yet there could be an approval process after the fact. Point was raised that the Planning Commission could determine to turn down each of these minor plan reviews, is the City ready to deal with that, the response was that a minor plan review is typically a Consent Calendar item, that is not forseen as an issue, and should not preclude deciding this matter. Mayor ProTem Campbell again expressed concern with there being a loophole where someone could construct a deck into the setback within the twelve month period and then seek an after the fact permit claiming the deck has existed all along. The City Attorney advised that an earlier version of the ordinance had a definite date, suggesting for instance that a date of January 1, 1999 could be used which would prevent someone from building a deck after the fact, that would make it somewhat tighter, however unless an inventory is taken there is nothing that would prevent someone from constructing a deck, suggesting a visual observation that would not be intrusive. The Mayor agreed that there should be no problem with doing a quick inventory. Councilman Boyd referred to Section 28-2316, subsection (K), relating to non-conforming fences, that they 'can be maintained and reconstructed in the non-conforming configuration until such time as the property upon which such fence is located is redeveloped, upon redevelopment new fences shall be constructed pursuant to the regulations set forth', to that he requested an interpretation and clarification. As to the way a city is updated, the Mayor said that is when there is an application for a major remodel and the property is required to be brought into compliance with current law, making an example of a one story house with an inadequate side setback, they are not allowed to build straight up rather build the second story within the setback so that all of the new construction is within Code, another example being the existing garages in Surfs ide that are on the old Pacific Electric Right-of-Way, none of which have adequate setbacks for their garages. Councilman Boyd then asked how many of these homes that this law is being considered for have been redeveloped with this existing provision in the Code, in other words the properties should have been required to come into conformity when the homes were remodeled. The City Attorney offered that provisions of the Code could be reviewed, however it is not felt that that would affect this particular ordinance, the term grandfathering should not be used, what this does is make a use that was not permitted a permitted use, that is done frequently and often years later when a city decides 4-26-99 something should be a permitted use, if approved, there will be members of the Council that will feel that because of the circumstances in this particular location decks should be permitted to encroach into the rear yard setback. with regard to the question relating to fences he deferred a specific opinion until later. Mayor Yost offered that no matter the decision there will be some that are not pleased, some will claim the law is the law, on the other hand if not passed there will be a situation of the City policing the area and issuing demolition orders, taking people to court and whatever, that is not what the City is for, and stated his belief that the staff has come up with a reasonable opportunity for compromise that allows for permitting, that provides for public safety to make certain things are built within safety standards, and if not they will come down. I Mayor Yost moved to approve the introduction of 1419 with the amendments previously mentioned. Doane seconded the motion. Ordinance Councilman The City Attorney directed attention to Section 5, subsection 3, a change to read "...appropriate permits prior to January 1, 1999...", that will preclude persons from constructing decks in the next sixty days; a new section 6 which, after staff research could be deleted upon second reading of the Ordinance, to read "maximum height of retaining walls shall be eight (S) feet from either side"; to Section 5, subsection 4, which addresses any new development of decks, language to reflect "maximum height of twelve and a half feet" and that they be "terraced"; and that the existing Section 6 shall be renumbered as "Section 7". Mayor ProTem Campbell made a statement that she always backs decisions of her Planning Commissioner, however in this case there have been sufficient changes to what the Commission considered. The Mayor mentioned that the Commission has had this issue for ten years as well, this a good compromise and takes into account Commission concerns as well. The City Attorney read the changes once again. It was clarified that the existing rear and sideyard setbacks stand unchanged. I AYES: NOES: Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost Boyd Motion carried The City Manager said if anyone has an idea of constructing a deck within the next year while this process applies, they will take the chance of being found, red tagged, and fined, also the title of their home would have a notation of an unpermitted structure that would need to be disclosed in any real estate transaction. Mayor ProTem Campbell questioned setting precedent. The City Attorney stated he did not see a precedent, rather this is unique to this particular area of the community, it is always uncomfortable to try to resolve things that do not have permits, it has happened in the past, there is no guarantee it will ever happen again, and it is I not felt that if anyone were to try to build a deck within the next year without permits that there would be any approval from this Council. As to an inventory, the city Manager stated it may have already been done, if not, it could likely be done fairly soon. STATUS REPORT - ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY - EQUITY PLAN ~ouncilman Boyd made reference to the prior discussion relating to the Orange County Fire Authority Equity Plan at which time the Council authorized him to cast a vote to receive and file that study. He explained that the study I I I 4-26-99 basically identifies the member agencies, whether they be contract cities or structural fire fund cities, that over pay and under pay for fire services and how that situation can be rectified. The study was prepared, there were numerous workshops, the cities were requested to comment, a working group was formed to discuss the issues, however since Seal Beach issued its formal statement to the study the determination as to how much this City underpays has changed dramatically, it is specifically tied to utilization and this community uses considerable paramedic services, the change is about a quarter of million dollars per year. Councilman Boyd said there now needs to be a determination as to whether the desire continues to be to table and receive and file the Equity Study, then address a policy issue that would be consistent with the new recommendations of the Study, if it is received, tabled, and passed at the Fire Authority level, it is then understood that there will be no further costs incurred above the approximate fourteen percent that is currently known. At this point in time it appears that the majority of the member agencies support tabling the Study. A letter has been prepared expressing the disappointment of this City with the revisions of April 20th, the opinion being that there is no defined equity method based upon assessed value and utilization, this could be a significant issue with the upcoming budget. He pointed out that the letter has been forwarded to the Chairman of the Fire Authority Board of Directors. Boyd moved, second by Doane, to receive and file the status report. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT MASTER PLAN The City Manager said as is known, the source of the Seal Beach primary water supply is the groundwater basin governed by the Orange County Water District, the District has prepared a Master Plan to the year 2020 which has implications for the groundwater basin and the water supply of Seal Beach. The plan anticipates growth scenarios within the boundaries of the Water District as well as the proposed annexation of the area in the vicinity of Irvine, the Irvine Water District area, the Master Plan proposes to deal with that growth through the use of treated wastewater flows of the Santa Ana River, also on the assumption of the continued availability of Bay Delta and Colorado River water, and on the supply of ground water replenishment from the Groundwater Replenishment System. The concern for Seal Beach and other cities is that there is a lack of certainty that any of the three strategies will continue to be available over the life of the Plan, given the pace of development in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties there will be a significant increased demand for water from upstream supplies, it is also known that cutbacks are forthcoming for imported water due to environmental constraints on the Delta and legal decisions on the Colorado River, any delays or modifications to the groundwater replenishment system could jeopardize the third source of water, in addition, Seal Beach and other coastal cities need to deal with salinity issues on an ongoing basis. The Manager said in the opinion of staff the Plan does not thoroughly or adequately deal with ensuring that the existing member agencies of the Water District will have their issues on water quality, salinity in the case of Seal Beach, addressed and have some security that future demand on the water basin will not further degrade the water quality. With regard to annexation and pricing, the Manager said that 4-26-99 relates to new demands on the system that would place a major strain on the ground water system and require an acceleration of increasing the supplementation of ground water supplies, with that member agencies such as Seal Beach would be asked to pay an increased rate in order to support the cost of new facilities and delivery of water to the annexing agencies, primarily South county, that is something that the District Board of Directors was requested to take into account, possibly tiered pricing to assure that the City would not be paying more because of future annexations in high growth areas. The Manager noted that some of the surrounding member agencies have taken a rather aggressive approach by demanding that the EIR be recirculated and revised to more specifically deal with the issues mentioned, this would be inserted into the record by requesting that the District take the concerns of Seal Beach into account. If the Council has no objection, the Manager stated that the letter proposed will be formally submitted to the District. I Yost moved, second by Doane, to authorize the submittal of the letter to the orange County Water District defining the concerns of Seal Beach regarding the 2020 Master Plan. Councilman Boyd noted that it is the Sanitation District that is undertaking the ground water replenishment system, there is a video that has been produced by the District and may be aired on local television telling about the Sanitation District and the ground water replenishment system, a $121 million system, taxpayer money, would be used to treat wastewater, pump it back up the Santa Ana River to a holding basin that would then seep back down into the aquifer and eventually be extracted for drinking water, this would be in lieu of creating another outfall. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:42 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:50 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order. MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT With regard to the Monthly Investment Report Councilman Boyd made reference to the Investment Chart, specifically the Excess Over Expenditures column, inquiring if that reflects more expenditures than revenues received, and if it is the purpose of the TRAN to cover this. The Director of Administrative Services confirmed that that is the purpose of the TRAN, also to be kept in mind is that this is cyclical and a large payment of property tax and franchise payment is due shortly, this a typical time of year situation. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to receive and file the Monthly Investment Report for March, 1999. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried I CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report was presented. CITY MANAGER REPORT No report was presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Yost declared the period for public Comments to be open. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, made reference back to 4-26-99 I the deck structure rear yard setback issue considered earlier, stating there are two issues of concern to him. He mentioned the holding of public hearings on certain ordinances, from time to time changes are made to an ordinance to the point that the public hearing no longer has an affect, in his opinion that was the case with the deck ordinance, his personal opinion in support of the action taken with regard to the disposition of the existing decks, yet there was then action to include a limit on the height of walls and of decks however that was not a proposal under the public hearing, in his opinion those issues should go back to the Planning Commission and look at what other cities have done. Mr. Stan Anderson, Balboa Drive, again mentioned the success of the Car Show, commending a job well done by the two chairpersons as well as past chairpersons whose efforts are making the Show even better. There being no further speakers, Mayor Yost declared Public Comments closed. I COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Campbell noted that the Bixby Company took down a number of trees on the golf course this past week, explained that the Bixby project consists of a number of different phases, on the south side of Lampson there will be a senior care facility, a hotel, and two restaurants, at this time proposed to be Islands and an Out Back Steak House, on the north side of Lampson there will be the Towne Center north of St. Cloud, the golf course will be rebuilt, they will work on the western nine holes first, the eastern nine holes are presently open, then reverse the areas for improvement, this expected to be complete a year from June, her disappointment is that they could have left the Oleanders along Lampson, and looking to the golf course area now one only sees the trees that have been taken down, that is making some residents upset. There is little being done with the shopping center area with the exception of some grading, and the interior alterations of Mr. X's has begun. Councilmember Campbell again advised the Director of Public Works that the streets of Columbine, Banyon, Camelia, and the cul-de-sacs are in need of repaving, those residents are most unhappy and have been gathering signatures on petitions, no streets were done last year, supposedly only Harvard Drive in College Park West will be done this year, and when the capital improvement budget is considered it is for certain the people from College Park East will be present. Councilmember Campbell inquired about the recent trip to Sacramento. Mayor Yost extended appreciation to Councilman Boyd who traveled to Sacramento last week to lobby for monies for the continuation of the bike path, which was somewhat successful. Councilman Boyd mentioned that the City Manager and Director of Public Works went to Sacramento as well. With regard to establishing a beach committee, Mayor Yost said there will be an informal education session on May 13th at 7:00 p.m. featuring a representative of the Orange County Health Department speaking to water quality in the San Gabriel River, similar sessions planned to be held every couple of months. For information of the public, he announced that water quality comparison reports are available on his web site through the City's site. Councilman Doane made reference to the Talk of the Town show hosted by Rick Paap, announced that he will be the stand in host for the next show on behalf of, that Mr. Stan Anderson and Councilman Boyd will each do a fifteen minute segment, and recalling the prior cautions of Mr. George Briggeman with regard to reduction of refuse to the landfills by fifty percent by the year 2000 or be subject to substantial fines, he announced that Mr. I 4-26-~ / 5-10-99 Russell Dicks of the City's disposal service will be speaking to that issue, and encouraged all residents to watch and listen. With reference to Mr. George Briggeman, it was said it is believed he continues to have a connection with the Briggeman Disposal Company. Councilman Doane mentioned how obvious the sidewalk problems on Main Street are when one sees the street vacant of cars, as he did this past weekend, to which he said that sidewalk problem must be tackled. I CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the City Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda, conferences with legal counsel with regard to two potential cases of anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b), and existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) in the cases of Los Alamitos versus City of Seal Beach and League for Coastal Protection versus the Coastal Commission. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:44 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported that the Council gave direction on one item, no other action was taken. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. clerk I Approved: 'i:: ~ Attest: Seal Beach, California May 10, 1999 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order. Councilmember Campbell welcomed Girl Scout Troop 1441 of College Park East who led the Salute to the Flag. The Scouts introduced themselves, Councilmember Campbell presented each with a commemorative Seal Beach pin, noted that they assisted with the recent lOX run as well, and thanked them for their attendance. Councilmember Campbell offered that this type of participation is a continuing effort to introduce youth to their City government. I