Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1998-06-30 6-22-98 / 6-30-98 Attest: I Seal Beach, California June 30, 1998 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 4:00 p.m. with Mayor Brown calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brown Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Yost Absent: None Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Brown made reference to the agenda item relating to a status report on the El Toro Reuse Plan, advised those present that there had been a misunderstanding as to the focus of discussion, the intent had been to merely review the procedures, not a discussion of taking a position on a Plan, and that this item will be continued to an unspecified date without discussion at this meeting. Brown moved, second by Campbell, to approve the order of the agenda as revised pursuant to Mayor Brown's statement. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried WAIVER OF FULL READING Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried I CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING / ORDINANCE NUMBER 1433 - MORATORIUM - THREE STORY COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES - MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Mayor Brown declared the continued public hearing open to consider extension of the moratorium on three story structures within the Main Street Specific Plan Area. The City Clerk certified that notice of the continued hearing had been posted as required, and reported no communications received. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report that reviewed the moratorium currently in place, the impacts of the moratorium on the property located at 328 6-30-98 Main Street, the various approvals that the 328 property has received through the City and the Coastal Commission, as well as an overview of previous moratorium ordinances that the City adopted where a policy decision was made by the Council at that time to exclude projects that were going through the process and would have been impacted by the moratorium ordinances. It was noted that the report also addressed I vested rights where, under California law, this particular property has no vested rights at this point, and until there is an issued building permit and substantial funds have been expended to implement the building permit there is technically no vested rights under the law in California. The Director noted there are two ordinances presented for consideration, one to maintain the exemption for 328 Main Street, the other to remove that exemption, the impact of that ordinance would be to basically not allow building permits to be issued for the 328 Main Street project, also, any future development proposal for that property would need to comply with standards as they exist at that time. He noted that attachments to the staff report included Coastal Commission staff reports, various permit approvals that have been received to date, and copies of deposit fees that have been paid to the City, primarily the Public Works Department, for grading, plan check, water connection, etc. Mayor Brown stated that the purpose of the continued hearing was to allow comments from those having an interest in the 328 Main Street property. Councilman Yost reported having reviewed the tape of the last meeting from which he had been absent, the documentation as well, also, ex-parte communications from Mrs. Mitzi Morton and Mrs. Carla Watson I in favor of the moratorium being applied to 328 Main Street, Mr. Don Cox and Mr. Ron Bennett who had opposite opinions. Councilman Boyd reported that he had been left a message by the applicant, a call was returned however no communication took place, there has been communication with Mr. Dick Mitchell and Mrs. Mitzi Morton. Councilmember Campbell reported ex-parte communications with Mrs. Mitzi Morton and Dr. Hood, the District Four Planning Commissioner. Mr. Bob Griffith, Catalina Avenue, identified himself as the owner of the 328 Main Street property, also a twenty-six year Main Street business owner. Mr. Griffith said when the design for the property was prepared he had waited for the Main Street Specific Plan to be completed, that with some knowledge of the requirements, political views, etc., his intent was to comply with every regulation. He noted that he read the Specific Plan when it was adopted, for more than two years people had input to that Plan, it is a good document, does not try to micro-manage each parcel of property as each is unique, and it brings structures into the guidelines of thirty feet. Mr. Griffith said his design was premised on the thirty foot height limit, nothing additional has been requested, thirty feet was the goal, the plan was brought to the Planning Department from which an approval in concept was I received, the plan was taken to the Coastal Commission, with the approval in concept, only to find that the City is not as stringent with regard to parking as is the Coastal Commission, under the Specific Plan five to seven parking spaces were required, the Commission noted this as being a new project, they were informed that the top floor would be utilized as his office for possibly two to three persons, to meet Coastal requirements the project was redesigned, the project finally received a permit, providing every parking space that the Coastal Commission required, on-site, no phantom parking spaces, no in-lieu, no spaces located on 6-30-98 I other properties. Mr. Griffith expressed his affection for Seal Beach, the goals of the Specific Plan propose to maintain the small town, village atmosphere, the character, noted his enjoyment in walking Main Street, talking to friends, and to inquiries as to what he planned for the 328 property, that was an unanswerable question as it was not known what would comply with City guidelines. He said he never gave appearing before the Planning Commission a thought as he had complied with all of the rules, the Commission is for those that do not comply. He noted a rumor that the plan is for a car museum, that then appearing as a flier, the rumor is not true. He said the facts need to be made clear, what the plans are, where they do or do not comply, where it fits with the goals of the Specific Plan, explained that the top floor is set back by fourteen to sixteen feet, the appearance is that of a two story building, thirty feet in height, the adjacent building is within six inches of the height, the theater is thirty-eight or forty feet, this structure four to five feet taller than the building to the south. Mr. Griffith asked why people did not call him if they had questions as to his plans, as to not being at the last meeting where this was discussed, he received no notice of the discussion, again, why would he be present since his plan complies, his would be one of the few legally conforming buildings on Main Street, Seal Beach is uniquely eclectic, people do not want all the same architecture, his building is unique as is the property, no other property the same on Main Street, and a unique design. Mr. Griffith offered to answer questions of the Council. I Councilman Yost inquired as to the amount of expenditure on this project thus far. Mr. Griffith responded that the property was purchased about two years ago for approximately $180,000, design work and plan check has been about $50,000. Councilman Yost noted that between the City concept approval and Coastal approval there are differences in square footages, the office space on the third floor increased from 1,095 to 1,804 square feet. Mr. Griffith said the redesign cut back the size of the third floor and the commercial, the intent to issue permit from Coastal gives the exact size. Councilman Yost also questioned the first floor retail reduction from 936 to 703 square feet, also, what is conceived as to how the parking will occur in that a requirement of the Specific Plan is that it be publicly accessible, who will it serve, how will it service the commercial area, question with regard to the lift, and attendant to man the lift as well. To that Mr. Griffith stated the commercial was redesigned for the reason that Coastal requires more parking than does the Specific Plan, three spaces will be provided on the first floor primarily for public parking, second floor parking will serve the office with a car lift, confirmed that a qualified lift operator would be available at all times when the businesses are open, in fact that will be a requirement of employment, they will be given instructions and signed off, it is basically a matter of pushing a button, the Coastal Commission addressed this issue as well by requiring an approved parking program. It was alleged that the second floor parking appears to be for employees rather than public, the response was yes and no, it would be public parking if the person were to have business within the building. Mr. Griffith acknowledged knowing of the 1984 Downtown Revitalization Study, noted another was done some years later, both saying basically the same thing. Councilman Yost noted that by consensus it had been recommended that I 6-30-98 requirements should allow no more than two stories, and inquired if staff had reviewed the 1984 Task Force report in dealing with the 328 Main Street application with regard to documentation, applicable laws, etc. as the recommendation was contained in the Task Force final report. The Director of Development Services explained that when building plans are submitted they are reviewed for compliance with the Code I of the City, the Code currently specifies thirty feet in height however does not specify the number of stories, that applies to all commercial zones, noted that there was a 1984 recommendation from the Task Force to the Council however the City to date has not adopted story limitations for commercial zones, reiterating that a project is judged against what is set forth in the Code. Mr. Griffith said he would believe that that was merely a recommendation, which Councilman Yost acknowledged, however noted some other recommendations appear to have been adopted. Councilman Boyd said if he had the ability to build a nice office he too may have taken the approach of Mr. Griffith, yet there are other factors that need to be taken into account. He inquired as to Mr. Griffith's familiarity with the 1984 Study, or participation in, to which Mr. Griffith acknowledged he was aware of the Study and has participated in some other study committees. To the inquiry if he had any concern if his plan would be questionable when brought to the City, what instructions had been given the architect, anything specific to the parking area, Mr. Griffith responded in the negative, this is a unique building for a unique property, he was aware the plans were required to be approved in concept, there are no two like buildings on Main Street, this a goal of the Specific I Plan, the instruction to the architect was to design a nice looking building, comply with all of the rules, comply with all parking regulations, and that he had made the suggestion that that could be accomplished with a lift, lifts common in other areas such as San Francisco, designed as a two story building with concealed on-site parking. Councilman Boyd asked why not construct a two story building with parking on the top floor, also, if driving down the alley there is a garage door shown, to which Mr. Griffith said that third story parking had been a thought however he was not necessarily comfortable with an extra ten feet of elevator, it could have probably accomplished the same goal, yet he chose otherwise, and the door off the alley is a security door open during business hours, desirable also is to have cars parked out of the sun. Should the three story building be approved, Councilman Boyd asked if a condition to not allow vehicle storage from midnight to 5:00 a.m. would be acceptable, to which Mr. Griffith responded that it could be a condition, however believed that has been addressed as a deed restriction, to which he noted that if the property were to change ownership the use can not be intensified. Councilman Boyd noted that the building proposed to be constructed is about 7,600 square feet, the net retail is 515 square feet, eight percent of the building, which is I interesting in that with that size of a building, to build out, as valuable as property is, and the reason this has not been addressed before is that no one would build a three story building to park vehicles in, and if, according to the Coastal Commission the project is required to have ten parking spaces, at $3,500 per space through a development agreement with City that would be $35,000, where the cost of building an additional story on the building will likely be much more than that, therefore it does not seem to be economically viable to building a building with one story dedicated solely to parking. He acknowledged that inside 6-30-98 I parking is a unique idea, common and necessary in San Francisco and other areas of the world. Councilman Boyd noted that the Coastal Commission has also required that balconies and deck areas not be enclosed, and inquired as to the thinking behind the third floor deck. Mr. Griffith said the deck as now proposed was part of the redesign, the City ordinance requires a top deck to be set back, confirmed that the back setback was because of parking, the front setback was revised as well, also, in reference to the Coastal Commission report and the City's in-lieu parking program, Mr. Griffith noted that the Commission deemed the program as not a means of mitigating the parking, they would not have approved the project, that again the reason for the project redesign. Councilmember Campbell recalled discussion of third stories at the Planning Commission level during discussions of the Main Street Specific Plan, that was considered a moot point because the Commission had thrown out in-lieu parking, the Council in turn put it in, therefore knowing the Commission concern, when this plan came in for a third story asked why it was not questioned. The Director responded that the public hearing process was gone through before both the Commission and Council with regard to the Specific Plan, and there was no discussion by the Council to place a story limit in the Plan, the ordinance adopted that set forth the design standards does not include a story limitation for that area of the City, therefore that was not seen as an issue. Councilmember Campbell noted that there were strong feelings as to third stories at the Commission level. Councilmember Yost inquired if, since Councilmember Campbell discussed and deliberated on this subject matter at the Planning Commission level, does that pose an issue now as a member of the Council. The City Attorney advised that this is a legislative matter, not quasi-judicial, therefore can be acted upon at both levels. Councilman Yost inquired as to the height of the parking area in the 328 plan, and the minimum height to classify as a story. The Director responded that seven feet, six inches is the minimum ceiling height under Code for a story, however was uncertain as to the height proposed for the parking level of this structure. Councilman Yost said it is believed that all are concerned that three stories on Main Street is not the best of ideas as that is a thirty to fifty percent increase in the intensity of use. Mr. Griffith contended that if Main Street were retained as it is presently, and the City was approached with plans for any building on the Street that complied with all parking requirements, there would be at least a fifty percent reduction of commercial space, if that were to happen that would be a significant disintensification. Councilman Boyd explained that the Council will not be deliberating whether or not 328 Main Street can be built, it is whether 328 should be included in the moratorium, the issue is if 328 can go forward and be built or if the project will be required to wait until the Council determines what is felt to be consistent with the Main Street Specific Plan and the integrity of the community, to which he noted one of his campaign issues was keeping Seal Beach a small town. If 328 Main Street were included in the moratorium, Mayor Brown inquired as to the options of the property owner. The City Attorney responded that if 328 Main Street is removed from the exemption the applicant has the opportunity to apply for relief from the moratorium, a public hearing would be held at which evidence would be presented, some of which has already been presented, and the Council could grant relief from the moratorium, another option would be to wait, if the ordinance is adopted at this meeting, which will be in effect for a I I 6-30-98 maximum ten months and fifteen days, giving the City time to study the issue. With regard to vested property rights, Councilman Yost noted that one issue was the amount of expense, said to be about $50,000 thus far for plan check, Coastal Commission review, architect fees, etc., and questioned if that comes close to a significant level of expenditure. The City Attorney advised that those expenses must be incurred after the issuance of a building permit, the key requirement is that the applicant is relying on a validly issued building permit and significant expenses are incurred, pre-issuance expenses do not give a vested right, courts do not look at money spent before issuance of a permit. Council again requested assurance that there is no vested right even if the applicant is relying on the issuance of the permit or if it had been implied by staff that it would be issued. The City Attorney emphasized that the permit needs to be issued first, that is the key component of the vested right doctrine, having the permit in hand the applicant can then spend significant money, the courts have generally looked at somewhere in the area of $300,000 to $400,000, that of course dependant upon the size of the property. Councilman Boyd stated he wished to assure the property rights of the applicant are protected, also assure that the legal exposure of the City is limited, that there is solid ground, he would not want to send the applicant away or have the business community unhappy on a questionable decision. The City Attorney stated that is why there is a relief provision built into the ordinance, if the applicant were to avail himself of that option he would gather his evidence, be more precise on what was spent, the Council could then decide whether or not the project is compatible. Councilman Doane said from his observation the applicant did not apply for a permit therefore the money spent thus far does not count, yet, how does one apply for a permit without incurring expenses, one must have something tangible to show at the time of applying for the permit. As a point of clarification, the Director explained that when someone comes to the City to construct a building or an addition they submit a set of plans, those plans go through a plan check process to assure compliance with all Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire Codes, once that is complete and corrections have been made to those plans, at that point the applicant is able to obtain a building permit, a fee is initially paid for plan check, then there is a building permit fee, in this case the applicant has gone through the plan check process, the plans are now out for some corrections that need to be made, yet they have not as yet been submitted back for checking and a building permit, the City Attorney is saying that you vest your right to continue building the project once the building permit is in hand and once a substantial amount of monies have been spent in reliance on that permit to do the grading, foundation work, framing, etc., until the building permit is in hand there is no authority to build anything. Councilman Yost inquired if a parking area is built under the seven foot six inch limit for a habitable structure could it then never be a habitable structure. The Director explained it would not be a habitable area however would be a story under the definition of the Building Code, review shows that this project shows the second story as seven feet, ten and three- quarter inches. Councilman Boyd made reference to the third floor area on the plans submitted to the Coastal Commission, something that looks like a piano, to which he requested confirmation. Mr. Griffith suggested that question be posed to the architect, directed attention to a subsequent page showing a dog, and stated that is not his dog either, these I I I 6-30-98 are referred to as architectural things. Councilman Boyd offered that when plans are submitted for review that show a sink and a kitchen, parking spaces, an elevator, etc., it can then be assumed that the floor plan and contents are accurate, including a piano. I Mr. Ron Bennett said he is the owner of the property just west of the 328 Main parcel and had no particular objection to the building, he found Mr. Griffith's plan an interesting idea with the provision for ten parking spaces, otherwise he predicted that the Councilor Planning Commission would allow someone to build a much smaller building on that property, buy parking spaces at $3,500 each, which is actually about $1,500 to the City, those are parking spaces that do not exist, which means his building would have parking spaces yet not on the street or in his parking area. He claimed the current system is a terrible idea for the City, a good idea for business persons like himself to buy them, yet this does not work, and in his opinion people should not be allowed to buy parking spaces. With regard to height, Mr. Bennett pointed out that the theater must be at least forty feet, the next building is twenty-nine and a half, his building is nearly twenty-seven feet, it is unclear if people object to the thirty foot height limit, which everyone should be aware of, if not that, then the issue must be the three stories. With regard to the plan of Mr. Griffith, said he does not see three stories, rather a ground floor with a small retail, a second story for parking use which is not deemed to be a habitable story but an innovative use of space, and the level above that is set back sixteen feet from the property line which gives the building the look of a two story building from the sidewalk or across the street. Mr. Bennett said the rules have been written for years, the property owner came up with an innovative solution, and in the end those persons who do nothing positive for the community complain. He pointed out that the Coastal Commission required ten parking spaces, the City required just seven, that is a positive for him, thirty percent more than the City would require. With regard to the comment that this is not economically feasible, that may be so for most, it doesn't make money, stated that Mr. Griffith has lived in Seal Beach for years, raised his family, has a business here, and wants his personal office, it matters not if he loses money, to which he offered that Mr. Griffith paid too much for the property, if he can not build what he thought he could pursuant to City Code, he has already incurred expenses for architects, Coastal Commission, etc., and now is being considered to be included in a moratorium. Mr. Bennett offered that he has no problem with moratoriums, he too does not want to see three story buildings on Main Street, maybe thirty feet is even too tall, yet this applicant complied with all of the rules, was straight forward, did not appear before the Planning Commission because there was no requirement to do so, if three stories were such an issue why was it not brought up before, and how was one supposed to know about a 1984 reference to a feeling that some people had relating to three stories. To a question as to whether the parking would be accessible to the public, Mr. Bennett said basically none of it is because it would be surprising if any building on Main Street serves any more than the people who work there, most spaces are actually labeled by the businesses, and if Mr. Griffith just covers his own parking use, his clients, he will have done more than other businesses, providing more than others. With reference to a comment regarding over- night parking, he said if the applicant were to choose to I I 6-30-98 ride his bicycle and leave his car over-night what is the difference, that question seems to be somewhat intrusive, if he used three of the spaces for his personal use even that would be reasonable. He noted comment also that the issue is inclusion in the moratorium, ten months plus in itself is economically devastating, then, what happens at the end of that period of time, if this property is included in the I moratorium his opinion is that the answer to the project is - no, to that the suggestion of Mr. Bennett was that 328 Main not be included in the moratorium, let the building be built, then if so desired do not let such a plan happen again, and it is likely not feasible for someone else. Mr. John Baker, said he is a thirty year plus resident and business owner, recalled having used the subject property for parking, whether that may have been legal or not, the property owner was then given permission to remove the paved area, it was fenced, and became a dust bowl, the price of the property was considered inconceivable for most due to the restrictions of the City, then Mr. Griffith decided to purchase the land, he followed all of the rules, and from the design concept it can not be determined whether it is two or three stories, that is no consequence if it meets the requirements for the street, he has worked hard at making the building fit the design of the Street, and questioned why the attempt to stop the project. Mr. Baker said he believed he was a member of the 1984 Task Force, no one thought of three stories and thirty feet, it was two stories and thirty feet, no one brought up the fact that possibly three stories could work, things like setbacks, store fronts, areas for outdoor tables, etc. were the considerations. Mr. Baker said he does not understand the concern with this project, there is no impact on parking, I the City should support what works, suggesting that the proposal be allowed to go forward. Mr. Stan Anderson, businessman and more than forty year resident, concurred with the comments of Mr. Bennett, noted that the project as proposed meets all requirements, and urged Council support. Ms. Geri West, Electric Avenue, stated that Mr. Griffith, Mr. Baker, Mrs. Morton, and Mrs. Kredell and others had served with her on the 1984 Downtown Task Force, Mr. Griffith was a representative of the business and property owners, the committee on which they served reached a consensus that buildings on Main Street should only be two stories in height, therefore he knew of the sentiment in the community when his project was conceived. She said she and Mrs. Morton have a list of the members, the committees, and the minutes of those meetings, and noted that citizens have spent many hours testifying before governmental bodies, serving on task forces and committees to make this City what it is today. In response to a prior comment, Ms. West said she was one of those who formed against duplexes being built on the Electric Avenue right-of-way some thirty years ago, among other involvements. She asked that the moratorium be extended and that 328 Main Street not be exempted. Mr. Roger West, I Electric Avenue, expressed support for the moratorium prohibiting three story structures on Main Street and specifically for the attempt at approval for 328 Main, claiming that this is setting precedent, if this one is allowed others will seek the same. He objected to the comment that the 328 Main property owner had little notice to prepare for this meeting, to which he countered that he and others had no notice, had to seek out information on their own, in fact certain information before the Council was provided by them, the other argument, which may have some consideration, however not thought to be justification in 6-30-98 I this case, is the amount of money that the 328 Main Street property owner has spent thus far and that he should now be recompensed by the City if he is not issued permits, yet the law states that there is no justification until after receiving permits. Mr. West said there are a number of things to consider, Mr. Griffith is a nice person, has been a resident for a long time therefore should have known better, should have sought community approval in advance, if allowed the City will need to let the project be finished, to that it is argued that there is need for the three story building to be a profitable project, with regard to other projects that were exempted at the time of moratoriums they were not such egregious violation of standards and use, reiterated that this project is precedent setting and should be included in the continuance of the moratorium. Ms. Mitzi Morton, Seal Beach, objected to comments of a prior speaker that those in opposition to this have done nothing positive for the community. As points of background she stated in 1982 the Old Town Business Association established a Main Street Revitalization Committee in an effort to make the Street economically viable which would benefit property owners, merchants and the City through increased sales tax, a consultant was retained in 1983, two Task Forces were appointed which included residents from every district, including Leisure World, members of the Business Association and some building owners. One Task Force was formed to study traffic, parking and urban design, consisted of six business and nine resident representatives, the second Task Force was charged with the responsibility of marketing and business analysis consisting of eight business and seven resident members, community members and merchants also attended the meetings and provided input, several of which continue business on Main Street today. Ms. Morton offered that the community has come a long way from the less than desirable Main Street to what it is today, which is the result of the studies and recommendations of the Task Force, expressed pride in having been part of what has been accomplished and the decision to limit buildings to two stories on Main Street. Ms. Morton claimed that when the 328 Main Street plans were brought to the city the staff should have known the project would be controversial, as the Coastal Commission noted, this would set a precedent, there are not even three story structures on Pacific Coast Highway or Seal Beach Boulevard, only Boeing, there was opportunity to bring this to the attention of the Councilor Commission, rather, the City worked with the property owner and builder to get approval from the Coastal Commission. Ms. Morton requested that the 328 Main Street property be included in the moratorium extension to allow for further review. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, mentioned the reference to the use of car lifts in San Francisco, pointed out that this is a twenty- five foot lot, theoretically if it were a fifty foot lot this could be done, however everything is parallel parking, to use the second story parking one would drive in, use the elevator, then back onto the floor to park, to exit would require going forward and on the first floor back out of the building, which he deemed to not be adequate parking. Mr. Shanks again mentioned the twenty-five foot width of the lot, a difficult lot for development, and pushing the parking capabilities to the limit, too, this will be the only public parking with a garage door, it is understood that that door will be open at all times yet Coastal Commission requires a speaker box outside the door to allow people entry. Mr. Shanks supposed that if at some point Mr. Griffith sold his business, the second story parking could become a storage I I 6-30-98 area with security, of prime concern is the garage door that could be left closed rather than allowing people to see where they can park to frequent the stores, and sometimes share parking in the evenings with adjacent businesses, etc. Mr. Shanks expressed his opinion that the 328 Main Street proposal sets a bad precedent for parking, that should have been a warning at least, questioned the parking adequacy as I called for by Coastal Commission, to which he stated they should not have granted their approval, nor should the City, spoke favorably of the moratorium continuance and inclusion of 328 Main Street. In an effort to provide more parking spaces, question was posed as to what is foreseen as the problem with putting the spaces into a structure, to which Mr. Shanks responded that there are many people who are not capable of backing cars out of a space, parking for handicapped persons would be even more difficult. Mr. Chi Kredell, Seal way, stated his opposition to three story buildings on Main Street, there is presently only one such structure and it is four stories. Mr. Griffith asked what the conditions are that he is not meeting or not meeting close enough, would it be more ideal to have parking on a twenty-five foot lot, the goal is to not add a square foot of building space on Main Street, which people are doing, it seems to be easy to say why things can not be done. He again said this is a thirty foot building, the design makes it look like a two story building, no one can see the parking, the adjacent building is thirty-eight feet, his second story has no commercial value, it only provides parking for that which the City has failed to provide, his idea was to design something that provides every 1- parking space. With regard to notification, he offered that the Coastal Commission has a requirement to notice, there was not one opponent at the Commission hearing, possibly he should have been aware of the previous moratorium discussion, there has been nothing out of line, he was willing to redesign with the two-story look that complies with every rule of the City, of the Coastal Commission, the building is unique, and asked who wants to maintain the small town character more than he does. Mr. Griffith asked to be treated fairly, that the moratorium extension be passed with the exemption of 328 Main Street or let the first adopted moratorium expire, there is no public safety issue with this item. To a question posed, the project architect reported the interior garage height is seven feet ten inches. There being no further comments, Mayor Brown declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Campbell inquired as to what can be done with this building if it is built and at some point Mr. Griffith determines to sell the property, at that point could in-lieu be applied. The Director of Development Services responded that the building could be used for the uses as permitted, the parking would remain parking, parking is based on the I square footage of the building, City and Coastal Commission parking requirements are different, Coastal is more stringent, a deed restriction on the property has been recorded that limits the square footage for office and retail uses, and stipulates the required number of parking spaces to be maintained, that deed restriction runs with the land and will continue irregardless of the ownership of the building. As to in-lieu parking the response was no in that the Coastal Commission does not recognize the in-lieu program of the City, therefore to build a new structure parking must be provided to meet Coastal Commission requirements, that is the 6-30-98 I reason a number of Main Street businesses over the years have had to lease spaces at another location in order to obtain a Coastal permit. It was clarified that the deed restrictions require that any change to the project must go back to the Coastal Commission. Councilman Yost stated he could see positive aspects of the 328 Main Street project, eliminating the need for street parking is good, leaving more spaces for persons to park in front of the various businesses, and according to legal opinion alleviates the issue of vested interest. On the other hand in his opinion this does set a precedent, it is not felt that anyone would want to see a fifty percent increase of intensity on Main Street if three stories are allowed, in this case a story of the building is for the purpose of on-site parking albeit not in the most user friendly manner as a speaker had described, also the use of the property has not been thoroughly researched, nor has it been before the Planning Commission. Councilman Yost mentioned that of considerable concern was the request of the new Council to enact an urgency ordinance for an issue that has been before the City for some time, particularly given the documentation from 1984 and prior that shows people have given thought to three stories and determined that was not desired, said he personally has no problem with the thirty foot height limit, of concern is setting a precedent for three stories, again on the positive side the project does provide parking on-site, more parking than the City would have required, more cars off the street, and the design seems to be in character with the area. The Mayor offered that he had come into this meeting somewhat sympathetic to the 328 Main Street project, the initial impression had been that the property owner had no knowledge that a third story was a problem, yet it has been said that the owner was a member of the 1984 Task Force that determined that third stories could be a problem, which is troublesome, of concern also is if this building is permitted, the difficulty the Planning Commission will have in addressing a moratorium for three story buildings when there is one already in the process. Councilman Doane pointed out that the reason for the moratorium is to prevent additional three story buildings if the Planning Commission so chooses, however he could see no objection to this proje9t even if the Commission and Council determine to restrict three story structures in the future. He offered that when the plans for 328 Main were developed the property owner followed all of the restrictions and parameters necessary, his feeling is that this is a good use of a very small lot that is currently being used for nothing, it takes nothing away from the small town atmosphere that everyone desires, his preference would be to allow the 328 Main project to continue through the process. I I Councilman Doane moved that the moratorium be extended and that the 328 Main Street property be exempted. Mayor Brown seconded the motion for discussion purposes. The City Attorney confirmed that a four fifths vote is required to continue the moratorium as well as to remove the exemption, and noted that two ordinances have been drafted for consideration by the Council, one extends the moratorium Ordinance 1432 without change, the other deletes the exemption for 328 Main Street. It was noted that the intent of the motion was to continue the exemption of 328 Main. Councilman Doane made reference to a prior comment that identified certain members of the 1984 Task Force, to which he pointed out that one of the members built a three story structure on Electric and provided parking underneath, there is an existing four story on Main Street, thus precedent has 6-30-98 been set, the moratorium will merely prevent further precedent. It was noted that the four story is grandfathered under pre-existing law. Councilman Boyd noted that this issue specifically relates to his Council district, he campaigned on keeping Seal Beach what it is, that is felt to be the opinion of all even though there may be differing views of what Seal Beach should and should not be, the plan I of Mr. Griffith is good, he reviewed the Code, determined what he wanted to build and build into. Putting that aside, Councilman Boyd said of immediate concern is that if he owned a twenty-five foot lot on 8th or 10th Street he could not build thirty feet high nor build a cupola that is sixty-four square feet, only twenty-five feet maximum is allowed, and it is not believed to be the intent of any person that owns or rents a piece of property or vacations in Seal Beach to expect the residential component of the City to be diminutive in comparison to the commercial districts, it is believed that the desire is to have a cohesiveness, an environment of not having one tower over the other. Councilman Boyd said he favors the moratorium for the reason it gives the opportunity to look at whether the community wants to allow Main Street to be five feet taller and possibly have three stories yet not allow the residential areas to do the same. He commended the innovation of the parking plan for 328 Main, deemed the in-lieu program as something that needs to be revisited and restructured, citing $3,500 per space as a bargain, to which he said if there were property available it would likely be a good idea to purchase it and sell spaces for $9,100 as the Coastal Commission has suggested. Councilman Boyd again commended the 328 Main plan, it has maximized everything, taking a creative approach to a small piece of property, yet I he must represent the electorate of this district that can only build to a maximum of twenty-five feet, the architecture of 328 is likewise well done, from the front no one would be aware it is a three story building, possibly from the back, his intent is to look at everything in the City, not just Main Street or 328, the whole picture, the question is if this is something that the City wants to allow at this time or take the ten months and fifteen days to review. To the question of Councilman Yost if the deed restriction is to only allow parking to be used for parking, the Director responded in the affirmative, the staff report packet contains a copy of the recorded deed restriction on the title of the property on behalf of the Coastal Commission which limits the first floor retail, the third floor office use, and requires the parking areas to be maintained for parking, and to a question if it could ever be used for something other than that would intensify the use on Main Street, the Director said he could not commit to never because the property owner could request an amendment to the approval through the Coastal Commission, which would require another hearing under the approval process, public hearings before the Planning Commission and Council would not be required given the construction of the Code at this point in time, as I his project as proposed is in compliance with all current City zoning provisions, there is no requirement for a conditional use permit, no variances are requested, the parking is provided in accordance with City standards, the building meets size requirements, for that reason this project did not go to the Planning Commission initially because it met all requirements of the Specific Plan, however noted that if the standards are changed for the area, depending upon what new standards mayor may not entail, any change to the project mayor may not require approval before the Planning Commission. Mayor Brown suggested a vote be 6-30-98 forthcoming on the moratorium including 328 Main or excluding 328 Main, which requires a four-fifths vote, otherwise the moratorium will simply expire. Councilman Yost suggested a vote on just the moratorium extension to assure that it does not expire. I After further discussion, the vote on Interim Ordinance 1433, extending the moratorium and allowing an exemption for 328 Main Street, was: AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane Boyd, Campbell, Yost Motion failed Councilman Yost moved to adopt Interim Ordinance Number 1433 and to include the property located at 328 Main Street. Councilman Boyd seconded the motion. It was again pointed out that a four-fifths vote is required. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Yost Brown, Campbell, Doane Motion failed I Councilman Yost said based upon the response of the Director of concern is that it appears that at some point the parking floor could be taken before the Coastal Commission for a change of that use without the requirement of appearing before a local body for approval, to which he noted that parking off-street is good but this could be an adverse precedent, also expressed his feeling that this matter should have been considered by the Council some time ago. The Director explained again that as the Code is now written there is nothing that would require any future modifications to come back before the City so long as there is compliance with the Code, also, once the City goes through the moratorium process and possibly new standards are developed, not allowing a third story as an example, the building then becomes legal non-conforming, the building can continue as it then exists yet it can not be changed unless it were to come before the City for a change under the non-conforming provisions of the Code, which requires a conditional use permit hearing before the Planning Commission, at this point that is presupposing what a future determination of the Commission or Council may be, again, assuming some changes to the Code in the future it mayor may not require some Council or Commission review if there are changes proposed to this building, or any other building on Main Street depending upon what new height standards may be for the Main Street area. Councilman Boyd said at issue is whether a three story building can be built on Main Street, the Code now allows it, the real problem is parking, it is required, the Coastal Commission will not accept mitigation by means of parking in- lieu, therefore if the property owner were not required to provide this number of parking spaces would he be asking for a three story building with one entire floor dedicated to that purpose. He indicated his support with those whose desire is to maintain Seal Beach at twenty-five feet tall, support also for the business people who are having to abide by the in-lieu program that does nothing, suggested however that the business community could have come together to buy property for parking, as has been done in Belmont Shore, there are a number of options that could have been addressed. Doubting that a four-fifths vote can be attained at this meeting, Mayor Brown suggested adjournment to another date. To that other members of the Council indicated their desire to continue deliberation at this meeting. I 6-30-98 To a concern of Councilman Yost with regard to subsequent review by the City, the City Attorney explained that Section 5 of the ordinance provides that in the event a property is exempted from the ordinance the Council may place reasonable conditions on the development, therefore the Council could require a public hearing before the Planning commission should there be any change proposed, that as a condition of the exemption. Councilmember Campbell objected to attempting to pass something that people do not want because it is controversial, also to taking action after the fact. Councilman Boyd offered that the issue of three story buildings would not be under consideration if it were not for having to meet the parking requirement, Councilman Yost disagreed, his concern is with the precedent of a three story building, increasing the density by fifty percent, Councilman Boyd countered that there would not be one issue without the other, voiced support for the moratorium and a Main Street height of twenty-five feet. It was cautioned that the height could come back at thirty-five feet. As to the issue of precedent, Councilman Doane once again stated that the purpose of the moratorium is to prevent any further three story buildings, with the moratorium in place no one else, other than Mr. Griffith, can submit plans for a three story building. I Councilman Doane restated his original motion to approve the Interim Ordinance extending the moratorium and that the property at 328 Main Street be exempted. It was noted that should the moratorium expire then a building permit could be issued for the 328 Main Street property. I The City Attorney reported that the moratorium established by Ordinance Number 1432 is due to expire July 9th. He noted that regardless of what action the Council may take, there remains a requirement of State law to issue the report before the Council at the last and present meetings, that required to be done ten days before the July 9th expiration date. The Mayor offered that the moratorium issue could be postponed until the July 9th date. The City Attorney concurred that the issue could be continued, however if there is not the required four-fifths vote by the deadline the moratorium will cease to exist. Mayor Brown seconded the motion of Councilman Doane. Councilman Yost requested that the motion be amended to include a deed restriction to require that any change in the use of the parking area must come before either the Planning Commission or City Council for review, this to ensure that the parking area will never be intensified to more commercial or a use other than what it is intended. No action was taken on the amendment. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane Boyd, Campbell, Yost Motion failed I Councilmember Campbell offered that if 328 Main Street is included under the moratorium, that does not deny that project, rather, delays it until the three story issue can be resolved. Councilman Boyd suggested a moratorium of ninety days. The Director said realistically the process can not be gone through in ninety days, explained that an ordinance must have two readings, a thirty day period to take effect, just that is sixty days after adoption, that allows only thirty days for public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, some form of environmental analysis as well, 6-30-98 I even a mitigated negative declaration has a twenty day public comment period. Comment was made that this project has been in the process for at least a year, could it not wait another ninety days, another was that under the moratorium he would not be able to build, another was that if the Council remains at impasse it will be only a few days before a building permit can be issued, and if this property is included in the moratorium and the determination is to not allow three story projects, the project is finished. Councilman Boyd stated what is being requested is to revisit the land use intent of what the community desires are for Main Street, if something is to be done there should be a means to accomplish legislation within ninety days. The Director explained again that pursuant to the laws of the State of California under which the City must operate there is a public hearing process mandated before both the Planning Commission and City Council, two readings of the ordinance, and thirty days thereafter before it takes effect, that process can not be done in ninety days, realistically the time frame would be more like five to six months at minimum. Mayor Brown said he did not believe that the time frame is of importance, his understanding is that what is requested is that the Planning Commission come up with recommendations, the Council would then vote, that would allow Mr. Griffith to build, that can not be done at this meeting, so what is going to change in five or so months with the process, that must be gone through. Councilman Boyd said the request is for time to look at the intent of the moratorium so that the Commission and Council can visit the issue of three stories on Main Street. The Mayor asked if it is not believed that when the matter comes back to the Council that it will be no three story structures on Main Street. If that be the case, Councilmember Campbell raised the question as to why it would be allowed now, to that the Mayor responded that Mr. Griffith has already made application, it is not truly three stories, there is a parking area in between, a number of reasons, and to that Councilmember Campbell stated he is not vested. Supposing that the moratorium is voted upon separately, the exclusion is then addressed and agreement can not be reached, Councilmember Campbell asked what happens then. Response was that by taking no action that essentially makes no change to the Code, a building permit can then be obtained and is then vested. The City Manager offered that if there is no moratorium there are others that are interested in a third story under this concept, as was heard at a prior meeting, it is a matter of timing in that anyone would need to design and develop plans, therefore it may be that review of this issue could be completed before another gets to the building permit stage, however that could be a risk. Mayor Brown asked if those in opposition could make a suggestion to move this item forward. Councilman Yost asked what is the problem with putting parking on-site on a second level, of greater concern to him is the precedent of a third story, however if there is a deed restriction that states the parking area can never be residential, commercial, or intensified, what are the arguments against. Councilmember Campbell cited practicality and the reality check, this will be a tandem parking situation with people backing in and out of a limited area, that is a problem in itself. I I As moved by Councilman Yost, there was a consensus of the Council to reopen the public hearing to allow comments from the architect for 328 Main Street. 6-30-98 Mr. Paul Gyer stated he has been designing projects in Seal Beach since 1977, his third project on Main Street. He reported the Coastal Commission requested that a parking attendant be on duty at all times during business hours, therefore no one would be backing up one hundred seventy feet, nor park their vehicle. Councilman Yost asked Mr. Gyer if this were his building and he wanted to have parking on a I floor, would his reaction be any different. If her building, Councilmember Campbell said she would not want to put parking on a floor, to Mr. Griffith money seems to be no object, from a business standpoint it seems there would be a better economic use for the second story, a better way to maximize ones investment. Mr. Griffith acknowledged that there may be however under the rules it is impossible, there is not enough parking to have another use on the second story, the reason the building is larger is so that there can be some retail and office space, in practicality parking needs to be on-site in order to comply with the rules as there is no off-site parking available. Councilman Boyd inquired if, from a legal standpoint, parking needs to be on-site. The City Attorney noted that the Coastal Commission addressed this issue, their staff report said they allowed off-site parking in the past with other properties on Main Street however there are no more spaces available, that according to Coastal staff, the Commission imposed the parking condition. Councilman Boyd concluded that the Coastal Commission has put the City in the position that if Mr. Griffith is not allowed to build and within the confines of the building provide parking, then neither he or anyone else can build on Main Street. The Attorney acknowledged having this problem in the past where the City has approved projects with in-lieu parking, then the I Commission says it does not like the in-lieu program. Councilmember Campbell pointed out that this is the only empty lot on Main Street, to which she inquired what if someone has a building that they want to demolish and build something new, a single story structure as an example, does that put them in the position of having to deal with the Coastal Commission, also, if they were to propose a second story how would the parking be provided. As it is understood, the Director stated that the in-lieu program of the City is not acceptable to the Coastal Commission thus they require parking in accordance with their standards, which is more stringent than the City, requiring more parking than the City for the same amount of building space, there lies the conflict, the local standard is felt to work throughout the City, Coastal Commission disagrees and believes it should be greater. The City Attorney pointed out that the interest of the City is to provide parking for customers of the businesses and the employees, the Commission is only concerned with providing access to the beach. With regard to the question of someone wanting to demolish a building on Main Street and construct a new one, to meet Coastal Commission requirements on a twenty-five foot lot one would see about six to seven hundred square feet of retail I space on the lower level with parking behind that and if the proposal were to place additional retail or office use on another level there would need to be a level of parking, that results in a smaller building on the property that what existed, therefore from a realistic standpoint one will not demolish a two thousand five hundred to three thousand square foot building to construct a smaller building with a parking structure because the financing does not work, when dealing with a raw parcel of land it is a different situation. Councilmember Campbell posed the scenario of a person wanting to intensify their building then it would seem that new 6-30-98 I construction would need to be done on the top of the existing building, to which she asked if that too would be subject to Coastal Commission regulations. The response was in the affirmative, the Director explained that the primary reason that buildings are not being enlarged on Main Street is because Coastal Commission requirements can not be met. To a question of Councilmember Campbell it was said that there are no other vacant lots on Main Street, and reconfirmed that anyone wishing to intensify their building would need to meet Coastal requirements as well as those of the City. On the recommendation of the City Attorney, Boyd moved, second by Brown, to confirm the issuance of the report describing the measures which have been taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the interim moratorium ordinance. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried I Subsequent comment was that as far as setting a precedent, there can not be another like project as this is the last vacant parcel. Question was posed if any other party has approached the City for a three story building, to that the Director reported that inquiry has been made with regard to a new residential development in conjunction with an existing commercial building on Main Street, that being a completely different issue and will not be allowed under current Code. He said there appears to be an attempt to predict what current Main Street building owners may want to do with their building, he would not pretend to understand what each building owner may want, however could not foresee a number of them wanting to tear down what is there now to build something similar to 328 Main, to undertake the cost of reducing the retail area and leasable building space to create parking inasmuch as rents are based upon leasable space, not parking spaces. Councilmember Campbell again expressed her feeling that there is a much better economic use than a parking structure, to which the Director confirmed his prior comment with regard to tearing down an existing building and reconstructing, she also questioned again long range future alternative uses. Councilman Yost inquired of Mr. Griffith if he would take issue with a deed restriction that would require the parking area to remain as just that. The response_was no. By unanimous consent of the Council, the public hearing was again closed. I Councilman Doane moved to extend the moratorium with an exclusion for the property located at 328 Main Street subject to the execution of a deed restriction with regard to the parking area. Councilman Boyd stated again that one can not build to thirty feet on a twenty-five foot residential lot, this is a matter of principal, said when the Main Street Specific Plan was adopted that established a thirty foot height limit for the area, considerable discussion occurred as is evidenced by the 1984 Revitalization Study conducted by the business and residential communities that there was to be a thirty foot height limit with a maximum of two stories. The Mayor pointed out that that was a recommendation of the committee, never adopted, as may have been the case with other recommendations. Councilman Boyd said he was going on public opinion, it is the public that created the Revitalization Study, it is the public who said thirty feet with a maximum - 6-30-98 of two stories, a five foot height variance was for architectural features. Question again was why that was never adopted. The Director of Development Services said he could not speak for years prior to 1989 as that is when be began with the City, however subsequent to the Council being advised of the 1984 recommendation a review of the minutes from that time period has been done, the only action that the Council took with regard to the recommendations was an issue of establishing a Business Improvement District, several meetings dealt with that topic yet the District was never implemented, a number of meetings also with regard to the application of Hennessy's and the in-lieu parking issue, and during that time frame there is no evidence that other recommendations of the Task Force received any Council action. Councilman Yost offered his opinion that the only way to protect Main Street from three stories in the future is to exempt 328. Councilmember Campbell suggested that monies from the in-lieu fund be used to purchase this property, again asking what, in reality, can be done with this lot. The Director offered that the proposal under discussion is what can be done with that lot under current City and Coastal Commission requirements, the uses on the property could probably be reconfigured however the same number of parking spaces would be required, if it were desired to increase the retail area the office area would need to be decreased because the parking requirements dictate the square footage of building area. As to Coastal Commission parking requirements, the Director said based upon memory he believed retail is one to two hundred fifty square feet, the City is one to three hundred square feet, for office use the City is one for every two hundred fifty square feet, the Commission is believed to be one for every two hundred, again, the Commission requires more parking per square footage than the City, therefore in order to obtain Coastal approval for this size of lot what is proposed would be the type of use that would been seen for new construction, in this case parking requirements are ten spaces. The City Attorney confirmed the response of the Director, page six of the Coastal staff report, what is called parking deficiencies, one parking space for every two hundred fifty square feet of gross floor area, made reference to page twelve as to discussion of off-site parking, and confirmed that the Commission requirements must be met in order to obtain a Coastal permit. Councilmember Campbell voiced objection with the Commission imposing these requirements because of it being a vacant lot, therefore the owner is either allowed to build this plan or do nothing and it remains a vacant dirt lot. A member of the audience suggested a structure of less square footage, revised placement of parking spaces. Mayor Brown seconded the motion of Councilman Doane. I I AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane Boyd, Campbell, Yost Motion failed I Councilmember Campbell noted that Mr. Shanks had suggested revised placement of the parking spaces, the concerns with the third story, with the feasibility, reality, and practicality of the lot because of the parking, Coastal Commission even said that is controversial. The Mayor pointed out that the project has been submitted and resubmitted as revised to the Commission several times, finally met their requirements, at that time had met City requirements which did not prohibit three story buildings, even though the applicant may have known the intent, and -= 6-30-98 I stated once again his desire to approve the moratorium so that this problem does not resurface and that there are no future three story buildings. Councilmember Campbell questioned if a reduction of parking by reduced size of the building would alleviate the concerns of those opposed to this structure. Mayor Brown mentioned that the owner needs to use the property to his best use, the City can not dictate how to build his property so long as it meets Code, which it does to some degree in this case, the intent is to not allow anyone else a third story, that can be accomplished by the moratorium. Councilman Yost asked if certain members of the Council would be more comfortable without a moratorium. Reduction of the size of the building was again mentioned. The building contractor, Mr. Cox, said even if the floor area were fifteen hundred square feet the second story parking would be needed. I Councilman Yost moved to extend the moratorium and exempt therefrom the property located at 328 Main Street with a deed restriction that the areas designated for parking shall remain only for parking unless considered by a body of the City, whether that be the Planning Commission or City Council, should any change be proposed. Mayor Brown seconded the motion with the understanding of the importance of the moratorium, however his opposition to the building per se, adopting Ordinance Number 1433 entitled "AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH EXTENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 1432, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS FOR ANY THREE-STORY COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1433 was waived. Councilmember Campbell stated her vote is under protest, her objection is to the third story yet understands that the property will either be developed as presented or nothing. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost Boyd Motion carried The City Attorney clarified that by this action Ordinance Number 1432 has been extended with no change, stated that staff will develop a deed restriction to be executed by Mr. Griffith as a condition of the exemption. CITY MANAGER REPORTS No report was provided. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Brown declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach, said she was certain the citizens did not know there was a three story provision in the Code for Main Street, also, the community was led to believe that the in- lieu parking was legal, the merchants are paying into that, and according to AB 1600 at the end of five years the money must be returned, those businesses will be looking for parking, there is no vacant land for that purpose, and will they be out of business. Mr. Chi Kredell, Seal Beach, criticized the handling of 328 Main Street by the City, it was certainly known to be controversial, and suggested that no variance should be allowed except in extreme hardship cases. Ms. Nancy Kredell, Seal Beach, reported that an elevator ramp exists in an apartment complex on 7th Street and it is never used. There being no further comments, Mayor Brown declared Oral Communications closed. 6-30-98 COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilman Boyd requested that the subject of the Armed Forces Reserve Center Fireworks Show be placed on the upcoming agenda inasmuch as this City has not paid its share for the past couple of years. The Mayor indicated his preference that the amount of $5,000 be put towards the swimming pool, Seal Beach Boulevard, or other worthy projects rather than fireworks. Councilman Boyd said the request would be for a retroactive payment, with the condition to form a steering committee for next year with a contribution of less money and corporate sponsorship. He requested also the consideration of an urgency moratorium with regard to in- lieu parking with the instruction that no new in-lieu parking be granted pending development of a new in-lieu plan. The Mayor suggested that could be a matter for discussion at the next meeting to possibly provide a deadline for closure of that program. Councilman Boyd explained that he had voted against the moratorium extension for the reason that he wanted all properties included. Councilman Yost expressed his feeling that the subject of discussion at this meeting was difficult and frustrating, he too did not want three story buildings on Main Street, that is not consistent with the area, the Council needs to be made aware of issues, staff should advise of anything in the future that is foreseen as potentially controversial, the process itself could withstand improvement. With regard to the budget, Councilman Yost said he was encouraged to see a reasonable amount of money included for improvements to infrastructure and services which is of benefit to all, it increases property tax, property value, income to the City, and makes the community a nicer place to live. As to Hellman, he said that is going forward, the property owner, developer, and Hellman representative are making efforts to develop the plan so that it is approvable, and that he is personally guardedly optimistic. Upon reviewing the tape of the last meeting, . Councilman Yost said he was pleased to have seen the Council following the recommendation of the Planning Commission on another issue, commended the strength of the Commission and knowledge of its members, suggesting their dec~sions should be overturned only when absolutely necessary. Councilmember Campbell emphasized her desire that in the future the Council be informed of any issue that might in any way be controversial. She mentioned the closing time for news items to the local papers of Tuesday night, requested that the Council agenda likewise be concluded by then so that they can be noticed in the papers for information of the public. Mayor Brown suggested that the topic be discussed with the City Manager as to practicality. Councilmember Campbell invited all to the 4th of July celebration in College Park East. I I CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the item identified on the agenda, an item of existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Bolsa Chica Land Trust et al versus Koll Real Estate Group. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:48 p.m. and reconvened at 6:52 p.m. with Mayor Brown calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the item previously identified, directed their attorney, Mr. Bill Seymour, to not pursue the Bolsa Chic a case any further. I 6-30-98 I 7-13-98 ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, July 13th at 6:30 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:54 p.m. Attest: Mayor I Approved: Seal Beach, California July 13, 1998 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:31 p.m. with Mayor Brown calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brown Councilmembers Boyd, Doane, Yost Absent: Councilmember Campbell By unanimous consent, the absence of Councilmember Campbell was excused. Councilmember Campbell arrived at approximately 6:40 p.m. and joined the City Council in Closed Session. Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boyd moved, second by Brown, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost None Campbell Motion carried CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the City Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the item identified on the agenda, a conference with legal counsel with regard to anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b). The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:33 p.m. and reconvened at 7:10 p.m. with Mayor Brown calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had