Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1996-09-30 9-30-96 Seal Beach, California September 30, 1996 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling meeting to order with the Salute-to the Flag. the ROLL CALL Present: I Absent: Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers Brown, Campbell, Fulton Councilmember Hastings Brown moved, second by Fulton to excuse the absence of Councilmember Hastings from this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried Also present: Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried I CLOSED SESSION By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:31 p.m. to discuss the items identified on the agenda, a conference with the City's labor negotiator relating to the Police Officers Association pursuant to Government Code section 54957.6, and a conference with the real property negotiator, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, relating to terms of payment for Ruby's Restaurant. The Council reconvened at 7:05 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. The city Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items listed on the agenda, gave direction to the city Manager, and no other action was taken. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the -u waa adjo=ed at "" p.m. c~t erk and ex-off~c~o ci of Seal Beach Approved: _4.. ,()~ lf1" J > Ma r n /! I I f I f I () Attest: 9-30-96 Seal Beach, california September 30, 1996 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:08 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: the Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers Brown, campbell, Fulton Absent: Councilmember Hastings Brown moved, second by Campbell, to excuse the absence of Councilmember Hastings from this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried I Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, city Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Badum, City Engineer/Director of Public Works Chief Stearns, Police Department Officer Paap, Police Department Officer Mullins, Police Department Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilman Brown requested that Item "E", the Fire Prevention Week proclamation, be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration, Mayor Forsythe asked that Item "N", relating to the Bolsa Chica project, be removed, and members of the audience requested that Item "F", a Resolution honoring Fred Barrera, and Item "G", Ordinance Number 1409, be removed. As a point of clarification, the City Manager noted that the action to be taken on Item "L", the award of the contract for street improvements, would be to approve the specific contract amount and that any proposed additional work, approximately $100,000, will be brought back to the Council for consideration at a future meeting. Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve the order of the agenda as revised. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe Fulton None Hastings Motion carried I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Carla Watson, Catalina Avenue, announced the commencement of Founders Day activities early in October to celebrate the city's eighty- first birthday, a bowling tournament on October 12th, the . . Masquerade Ball and Monster Mash on October 25th, a dance for middle school students the following Saturday, the festivities concluding with the parade and 'Day On The Green' on Sunday, October 27th. Ms. Watson invited the city council, city staff, and the community to participate in the Founders Day celebration. Ms. Ann Tuler noted that in 1996 a group of citizens created a directory of neighborhood services entitled Neighbors Helping Neighbors, they are now soliciting ads for the 1997 directory, and invited anyone wishing to be included to contact her. Ms. Tuler presented a gift to each member of the 9-30-96 Council. Ms. Dorothy Whyte, College Park East, expressed support for adoption of the daytime curfew ordinance, also suggested that the Council agenda be displayed on the local cable channel. with regard to the Bixby property, Ms. Whyte stated there is concern on the part of many persons with regard to a possible commercial development of the tennis club site, cited the importance of recreation facilities and open space, I and expressed her opinion that placing commercial in the northerly portion of the City is unfair. She asked that the Council consider every issue on a city-wide basis, and suggested that there be a public forum to discuss all options for the Bixby land. Ms. Whyte questioned who requested that there be a police ofticer present at the recent forum held by the College Park East Councilmember. Dr. David Rosenman, 8th street, scolded those persons who have been distributing unidentified fliers containing false information, basically with regard to the Bixby land, and condemned this as an attempt to fragment the community. Mr. Larry Nemirow, twelve year Daisy street resident, expressed his concern with current and future development plans for the Bixby property and with the potential of Bixby deciding to sell their land, concern al~o that his Council representative did not discuss this issue at her recent pUblic forum, no subsequent meeting has been held, and no survey has been received by College Park East residents. Mr. Nemirow claimed that time is running out, Bixby may go forward with development that no one will like, stated the College Park East election was not a mandate of the type of development that would take place in that community, it is time for the community to come together, the citizens demand the right to determine their future, and asked that the options being discussed for the Bixby property be outlined for the citizens, including the ramifications of each option. Mr. Nemirow stated he did not I favor all commercial, nor did he know how many residents in his area would, that he also did not want the value of his residence to go down, possibly a mixed plan would work but details need to be known, and certainly it should not be felt that Bixby can be lead along forever without doing something. Mr. Ace Yeam, Fir Avenue, reported that the committee against a commercial development distributed fliers to each residence in College Park East which set forth three potential options for development of the Bixby property, thus far the choices have been three hundred twenty-seven for residential and two for the default commercial plan, and asked that the Council take this information into consideration at such time as a development plan is considered. He noted an example of other communities encouraging the development of residential. Mr. Nicholas Rini, Seal Beach, expressed appreciation on behalf of himself and a majority of the citizenry for the manner in which the College Park East Council representative has handled the development issue for the Bixby property, first seeking facts and a development proposal that can then be discussed at a public forum. He noted a prior plan for the property was pulled when it was determined there were not sufficient votes to approve it at the Council level, and now that plan is being brought forward through a vocal minority and attacks on the Council representative. Mr. Frank Laszlo, Candleberry Avenue, added his congratulations to I Councilmember Campbell for doing a good job, despite differences of opinion in the community. with reference to the recent Council election in College Park East, Mr. Laszlo stated that the candidate that supported the residential project was defeated by a nearly two to one margin, also, the pro- development group threatened that an undesirable Plan B would be developed if their candidate did not win, to which he stated there has never been a Plan B, only Plan A, which had been submitted to the City, a threat also that Bixby would develop a commercial project across from the Rossmoor Center and demolish the tennis courts to accommodate an office building. He noted I I I 9-30-96 it has been six months since the election, nothing has been done, and predicted nothing will be done. Mr. Laszlo made reference to statements made by persons outside of the recent town hall meeting that Home Club was going to purchase and develop the Bixby land, that to occur within ten days, and similar comments with regard to the tennis club property. Mr. Laszlo recalled that the Bixby development proposal was submitted to the City sometime last year, the project was considered and denied by the Environmental Quality Control Board, the Planning Commission accepted it due to legal requirements, and as noted by the EIR consultant there were unmitigatable impacts, traffic congestion, flight noise, school crowding, smog, water and drainage capacity problems, etc. therefore the Council would need to determine that there were overriding considerations in order to approve the project, which in turn would set a precedent for any other project in the city regardless of the impacts. He suggested that planning for the Bixby property be done in a manner similar to the Hellman land. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "A" thru "T" Campbell moved, second by Brown, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except Items "E, F, G, and N", removed for separate consideration. A. Approved the waiver of reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. B. Approved regular demands numbered 13715 through 13838 in the amount of $1,162,351.61, payroll demands numbered 18622 through 18860 in the amount of $340,963.85, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. C. Proclaimed October, 1996 as "Escrow Month." D. Approved the minutes of the september 9th, 1996 regular meeting. H. Proclaimed October, 1996 as "Domestic Violence Awareness Month." I. Held second reading and adopted Ordinance Number 1410 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 16-B OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO PIPELINE FRANCHISES." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1410 was waived. J. Received and filed the staff report relating to the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report - Marine Corps Air Station El Toro Community Reuse Plan, authorized the Mayor to sign the response letter thereto, directed staff to provide additional information as deemed appropriate, and that this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. 9-30-96 Received and filed the staff report relating to the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), South Coast Air Quality Management District, requested that staff monitor the 1997 AQMP development process, provide additional information to the Council as deemed appropriate, and directed that this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. L. Bids were received until September 18, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. for Project Number 673, Citywide Pavement Resurfacing, at which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: K. I R. J. Noble Ruiz Engineering Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. All American Asphalt Excel Paving Co. Sully Miller Construction Co. $ 309,040.00 321,282.00 321,607.40 321,839.00 324,544.00 338,200.00 Awarded the contract for Citywide Pavement Resurfacing, Project Number 673, to R. J. Noble Company in the amount of $309,040.00 and authorized the City Manager to execute same. Authorized the City Manager to execute the contract professional services agreements with Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, and W. G. Zimmerman Engineers for construction inspection and management services as authorized by the Director of Public Works on a project by project basis at the approved hourly rates not to exceed five percent of the final construction project cost unless specifically authorized by the City Manager. o. Approved the proposal for contract professional services from Integrated Urban Forestry in an amount not to exceed $7500 for the preparation of grant applications to the California ReLeaf/National Urban Forestry Grant Program and the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program. M. I P. Received and filed the status report relating to the Air Quality Management Plan Application, Quick Charge Program Proposal, instructed staff to prepare additional status reports as deemed appropriate, and that this item be forwarded to the Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. Q. R. Received and filed the staff report relating to the Sunset Harbor Maintenance Facility, California Coastal Commission Report, authorized the Mayor to sign the response letter thereto, and directed that this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. I I I Adopted Resolution Number 4502 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF A FUNDING APPLICATION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION I I I 9-30-96 AUTHORITY FOR FUNDING UNDER THE COMBINED TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROGRAM." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4502 was waived. S. Denied the claim for damages of Sandra E. Trepasso. T. Received and filed the staff report relating to the Naval Weapons Station Site 1, Non-Time Critical Removal Action, Request for Identification of Applicable and Appropriate Requirements (ARARS), authorized the Mayor to sign the response letter thereto, and directed that this item be provided the Environmental Quality Control Board and Archaeological Advisory Committee for information purposes. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "E" - PROCLAMATION - FIRE PREVENTION WEEK Mayor Forsythe read in full the Proclamation of "Fire Prevention Week", October 6th through October 12th, 1996. Representatives of the Orange County Fire Authority accepted the Proclamation with appreciation, noting the theme for this year is "Test Your Detectors". Councilman Brown commended the Orange County Fire Services for achieving their goal for a Labor Day holiday without a child drowning incident, this accomplished primarily by public education through the efforts of the Fire Services. Brown moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the Fire Prevention Week Proclamation. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried ITEM "F" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4501 - HONORING FRED BARRERA - CITY OF ORANGE Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, questioning the identity of the honoree, suggested that all commending resolutions be considered and read separately for information of the public. It was explained that Mr. Barrera is a retiring twenty-plus year member of the City of Orange City Council, and Councilman Brown noted that such resolutions are courtesies between cities. Brown moved, second by Campbell, to adopt Resolution Number 4501 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH HONORING AND RECOGNIZING MAYOR PROTEM FRED BARRERA FOR HIS DEDICATED COMMUNITY SERVICE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4501 was waived. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried ITEM "G" - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1409 - DAYTIME CURFEW Mr. David Buffett, 2nd Street, introduced his wife Maryann, and said it occurred to him that no one would want to stand before one of the nation's heros and admit that we gave away a freedom that they gave their life for, those heros would be appalled that parents do not know whether their children are or are not in school, by the gang problems, and to relinquish a freedom would be intolerable. Mr. Buffett stated his feeling that any curfew is unconstitutional, recalled providing each member of 9-30-96 the Council a copy of a paper prepared by a group of constitutional lawyers citing why this curfew is unconstitutional, asked if it had been read, and said the tendency is that once a freedom is relinquished another will follow. Mr. Nicholas Rini, Seal Beach resident and Deputy District Attorney in a neighboring county, explained that the Fourth Amendment does not make it illegal to stop someone, I rather, illegal to make unreasonable stops, that community - safety is a legitimate concern of law enforcement and is a legitimate basis for making a stop. He stated that if people understand what the daytime curfew ordinance is about and what it is meant to do he could not see how one could disagree, it is meant to protect the children and the citizens of the community, to make parents responsible for their children so that the police department does not need to become involved or bring the child into the criminal justice system. He said this is another tool to keep crime out of the City, the police officers are trained to recognize criminal activity, gangs, etc. and identify those who come from outside the community, this ordinance provides the police the ability to stop students that come into the city that may cause harm to the local children. Mr. Rini stated that truancy and school drop-outs are a major, significant issue, and it has been shown that the most significant correlation to persons in the criminal detention facilities is the junior high and high school dropouts, also between truancy and dropouts, as opposed to factors of economics, residence location, etc., this ordinance aimed at keeping kids in school. He noted that a police department is not judged on how many youths they arrest or cite, rather how safe from violent crime they make the community, also, State Department of Justice research shows that within ten to fifteen years violent crime amongst juveniles has and will double. Mr. I Rini again stated this ordinance provides a means to keep kids in school, away from crime, makes parents responsible for the whereabouts of the children, and said the police department will use the same discretion in its enforcement as it does now. Ms. Laura Wegter, 4th Street, in listening to the discussion relating to Bixby she said she did not see it as a sin for people to have a different opinion from that of their Council representative or to meet to discuss their views. She stated the same holds true with the proposed curfew ordinance, so many people, a majority being Seal Beach residents, spoke before the Council against the ordinance yet it was approved, not speaking because of a lack of support for the pOlice department, rather, they support their families and want to protect the right of parental permission. Ms. Wegter asked that the ordinance not receive final approval, or if it is deemed to be necessary, requested that the right of parental permission be protected. Mr. Don Smoot, Seal Beach, expressed objection to the ordinance as written, suggested that Section 15-5.5 could be changed to read "...the curfew set forth in Section 15-5.4 of this Chapter shall not apply when the minor is accompanied by, or has written permission from his parent", explaining that it is his obligation to raise the child, not the school. Mr. Smoot stated he felt his rights were being violated by the proposed ordinance, that alternatives should be looked at, and noted that I there was a majority of persons, Seal Beach residents, at the last meeting that spoke against this ordinance. He clarified that there is nothing against the police department, the desire is that the police do their job as well as they can, they are supported, however this proposal is not right, parents should have the right to say what their children are doing. Mr. Richard Hauser, Fir Avenue, made reference to the large sums of money that goes to boards of education, and commented that if he missed school as a youth a telephone call would be made to his parents or there would be a visit to the vice-principal, to which he stated that parents need to be responsible and the I I I 9-30-96 schools should follow up. He noted that there is no prevention aspect in the ordinance, police officers are trained to recognize criminal behavior and they have the right to apprehend on that basis, however said he did not see this ordinance resolving the problem. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, stated he did not believe that the ordinance will accomplish what is desired. From his observation of the schools he felt there is a fairly alert administration, most likely could name the truants immediately, concurred that there is a gang problem, more so in some other cities, however expressed his opinion that this ordinance is not the answer, it will do little to resolve the gang problem given the curfew hours of 8:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m., and further, the real problem is during the summer months. Mr. Shanks said a law can not be passed to solve every problem, there should be less rather than more laws, and expressed resentment to any thought that being opposed to the ordinance is an expression of being anti police. Mr. Jeff Christ, College Park West, offered that primarily this ordinance will prevent children from coming to Seal Beach from the surrounding areas where such an ordinance is already in effect. He noted that the daytime curfew is going to go into effect citywide in Los Angeles, thus far in the areas where it is has been tested daytime burglaries, etc. have gone down. Mr. Christ spoke for adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Jim Fresetta, 7671 Alhambra Drive, Huntington Beach, made reference to the opinion section of the September 23rd Orange County Register relating to the skewed priorities of the District Attorney and the belief of the president of the Orange County City Attorney's that the daytime curfew is unconstitutional, has not been upheld in a court of law, to which Mr. Fresetta stated if it is deemed unconstitutional the fines must be refunded. He claimed that in 1995 the District Attorneys office notified the Orange County cities that they would no longer prosecute as misdemeanors crimes commonly referred to as wobblers, the District Attorney has the discretion as to how those crimes are prosecuted, examples relate to the purchase, attempt to purchase, consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors, which prompts him to question the prosecution of daytime curfew ordinances, also, if a minor is issued a citation the police officer will then merely drive away rather than return the child to school, home, or the police station, thus the anticipated reduction of crime will likely not be realized. Mr. Rex Wegter, Seal Beach, urged that there be reconsideration of passing the daytime curfew ordinance. He asked how children will be identified as local youth, offered the possibility that he could be stopped and cited while with his child during school hours unless he had the proper paperwork, all of which he deemed to be wrong, reminded that there are places other than a school classroom where children learn, and if similar ordinances seem to be working in other communities questioned why those youth are out of school and coming into Seal Beach. Mayor Forsythe stated that this ordinance, as written, allows more discretion and freedom with ones child than current law, where existing truancy law requires a specific reason to have ones child out of school, illness, doctor or dental appointment, funeral, etc., the ordinance proposed deletes reference to the Education Code and provides that if a child has permission from the parent or is with the parent that is adequate. Chief Stearns explained that the "in writing" requirement is in reference to a guardian or other adult person, a written instrument is needed when the child is under the care of someone else, there is no requirement for permission from the school, and clarified again that the criteria in section 15-5.4 does not apply when there is compliance with section 15-5.5. The Mayor emphasized that there is no written permission required when a child is with the parent. The Chief cited as an example an 9-30-96 eighteen year old male accompanying a sixteen year old female during school hours, and in that situation the police officers would likely verify with a parent their permission to be out of school, and in the case of a student out of school yet having a written note, there would be an attempt to contact the parent to verify the permission, and explained further that the officers still have discretion under the Education Code therefor even 1- after seeing a note in the possession of the child they could return a student to school. To a scenario of a child and parent walking down Main street, question was posed if the police have the right to stop the child or the parent, and the response was that they can be stopped, questioned if the adult is the parent, if the response is yes, no citation would be issued. As to verification of a written permission with the parent, question was raised as to procedure should the parent not be available by phone, the response was that the option remains to transport the student back to school under the Education Code or to issue a citation until such time as the permission is verified, in most communities the procedure is to transport to school on a first occurrence, cite on a second. In response to a question from a soon to graduate high school student who will then be just seventeen years old and on a college schedule, the Chief explained that a student identification will suffice. Mr. Dave Dorrans, Los Alamitos Assistant Principal, suggested also that a call could be made to the school in the morning to let it be known that the student will be absent, then the police officers can call the school for verification when necessary. The Chief confirmed that that suggestion can be incorporated into tne police procedures. Councilman Brown said although there are some mixed emotions regarding this matter it is likely worth a try, and if it does not work he would be one of the first to rescind the ordinance. Mayor Forsythe invited parents to report I any concerns that may arise and if there are problems the ordinance will be revisited. with the addition of punctuation to Section 15-5.5 as suggested by Councilmember Campbell, the City Attorney read Section 15- 5.5, "The curfew set forth in Section 15-5.4 of this Chapter shall not apply when the minor is accompanied by his or her parenti or guardian, or other adult person having authorization in writing, granting care and custody of the minor." It was clarified that if a situation falls under Section 15-5.5, Sections 15-5.4 and 15-5.7 do not apply. Mayor Forsythe explained again that this issue will be reviewed in three months. Brown moved, second by Fulton, to adopt Ordinance Number 1409, as amended, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTIONS 15-5.2 THROUGH 15-5.11, INCLUSIVE, TO CHAPTER 15 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO ESTABLISH A DAYTIME CURFEW FOR MINORS SUBJECT TO COMPULSORY FULL-TIME EDUCATION, AND RENUMBERING OTHER SECTIONS OF THE SAME CHAPTER." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1409 was waived. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried I ITEM "N" - BOLSA CHICA PROJECT - CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION With regard to the proposed response letter to the Bolsa Chica Project, Consistency Determination, Coastal Conservancy Project, and Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles Master Plan Amendments for Wetlands Restoration, Mayor Forsythe requested that the last sentence of the third paragraph be amended to read "Residential development will be precluded on all but. 42 acres of the Bolsa Chica Lowland however, the city of Seal Beach still adamantly I I I 9-30-96 opposes any development of the Bolsa Chica which includes the Mesa due to the unmitigatable adverse impacts to the surrounding communities." Brown moved, second by Fulton, to receive and file the staff report, authorize the Mayor to sign the response letter, as amended, favoring wetlands restoration of the Lowlands at Bolsa Chica, and instructed staff to forward this item to the Planning commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 96-1 - REAR YARD SETBACKS - CRESTVIEW/CATALINA/SURF PLACE Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Zone Text Amendment 96-1, Rear Yard Setbacks for decks along crestview, Catalina and Surf Place. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report and background detail relating to the Planning Commission consideration and denial of ZTA 96-1 which addresses the ability of homeowners adjacent to the Hellman land to construct raised patio decks on the rear portion of their property. He noted that in 1990 a code enforcement action was commenced on a patio deck being constructed closer to the rear property line than current Code allows, which is a ten foot setback, the property owner at that time then requested a variance to allow the structure to remain within the ten foot non-permitted area, the Planning commission recommended denial of the variance, an appeal was filed upon that denial, the Council denied the variance as well however requested that there be no code enforcement until such time as a Zoning Text Amendment could be considered to revise those Code standards. The options proposed for consideration of the Commission with regard to ZTA 96-1 were to allow a raised patio deck structure to extend to the rear property line, a request of several property owners in the area, the staff recommendation was to allow a raised patio deck structure with a six foot setback from the rear property line to be maintained as an open space area where it adjoins the boundary of the Hellman land, part of the reasoning for the six foot setback being that there is an Edison easement that runs through the rear of those properties, and the third option was to leave the Code as it presently exists. The Director reported that the Commission determined to recommend that no changes be made to current Code, that resulting in an impact on four or five properties that have constructed some type of a structure within the ten foot setback area. He explained that the setback was adopted in 1957 therefore anything constructed since that time has been done without a permit, there have been no inspections, and there is no knowledge as to the condition or safety of the structures. He reviewed the options for Council consideration to deny the appeal and retain present Code standards, sustain the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Gary Myers and revise the Code to permit decks at an appropriate distance from the property line, or refer the matter back to the Planning commission if new information is presented. He directed attention to a map showing the footprint of each lot and boundary line between the residential structures and the Hellman property within the area of discussion. with regard to the topography of the area he noted there are approximately twenty- five to thirty lots that have a fairly steep drop-off from the residential lots into the Gum Grove that either have similar structures, or, if the Code were changed there would then be a potential to build something of a raised nature out to the 9-30-96 property lines. Councilman Brown inquired as to how many of those residences may have Deen sold and if there was a requirement of the seller that the discrepancy with the Code provisions De disclosed. The Director offered that there is knowledge of the sale of the one property for which the variance was denied, in that case the potential Duyers did contact the City, were informed that the deck continued to De an issue under I consideration, the Duyers signed a document acknowledging their - awareness that the structure existed illegally and that they would comply with any ultimate decision DY the City. councilman Fulton asked if any of the structures go Deyond the Hellman property line. The Director responded that there may De a few fences that extend past the boundary Dut not necessarily a raised structure such as a patio deck Duilt from the house to the property line, which poses a fire safety issue. To Councilman Brown's inquiry as to under-structure maintenance requirements, the Director explained there are no Code provisions dealing with that issue as the Code does not allow a structure to be Duilt out to the point where there is an underneath open area, therefore that issue falls under the safety requirements of the Fire Department. Mayor Forsythe invited members of the audience wishing to address this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mrs. Terri Myers, appellant, identified herself and her husDand as the purchasers of 1733 Crestview Avenue, stated they had Deen made aware that there was a concern with the deck on the property, however told it was likely nothing would De forthcoming regarding the setback issue for possiDly a few years, her understanding was that there were about seven such properties that would have the opportunity to present their arguments when this issue was considered, however I the Code Amendment was denied, and her perception of why it was denied was set forth in the appeal. Mrs. Myers stated they did not construct the deck, was made aware of the problem, and apologized for the problems it has caused. She noted that their property backs to Gum Grove Park and the Hellman land, the deck is not built to the property line however does not meet the ten foot setDack either, stated she felt the deck deters soil erosion of the slope, it was constructed in a manner that saved the trees on the property however if the deck needs to De modified the trees will be lost, the neighbors on either side could be impacted yet have assured that there is no problem, the deck is well maintained, and to concerns of the Hellmans and their representative an offer was made to cover the portion of the under-deck that was felt could become an aesthetic problem, to cover it would also provide a safety factor. She offered to do anything to the deck that is felt necessary, whether structurally or otherwise, however stated her support for the Zone Text Amendment to allow a structure to be built to the property line or at least allow the existing decks to remain. Mr. Gary Myers said there is a large amount of vegetation Dehind the deck, only aDout one-fourth of it can be seen, it enhances the looks of this property as well as the neighborhood, to remove part of it would be an eyesore, to which he stated his opinion that it should remain as it now exists and has for six I to seven years. Mr. Gordon Shanks stated his Surf Place residence is at the westerly end of the subject area, as a general rule he opposes variances however there are cases where they are due when the circumstances are different from the standard. He referred to Seal Beach as basically a flat city where it may not be viable to have a ten or five foot setback in the subject area, none of these properties will encroach onto a backyard neighbor, a number of the residents have planted ground cover to control erosion, and cited these properties as the only ones having the opportunity to take advantage of being built on a bluff, therefore the circumstances are different than the 9-30-96 I standard. Mr. Bill Morris, neighbor of the appellant, expressed support for the Zone Text Amendment to allow the use of the rear ten feet of these properties which, in turn, would provide the ability for the City to control, aesthetically screen, and maintain the area up to the property line, where it is presently unusable and unkept. Mr. Reg Clewley, Catalina Avenue, read his written communication to the Council with regard to his concerns and comments to such issues as the lack of compliance with building codes, securing proper permits, arguments in support of ZTA 96-1 relating to structure safety, protection against hillside erosion, the need for code enforcement, objection to exterior staircases without requiring additional parking, etc. The communication of Mr. Clewley appeared to indicate an opposition to the appeal. Mr. Dave Bartlett, representing Hellman properties, stated that the quality of the edge of property conditions is important to them, the southerly property boundary of approximately five thousand linear feet, whether it be with development of the Hellman property or the abutting properties, of particular concern is privacy, noise, light, glare, aesthetics, etc., and generally they are not supportive of the reduced setback yet are trying to be responsive to the issues that the City is attempting to resolve. He noted that a letter had been forwarded to the Planning Commission stating that they are supportive of some type of arrangement that would appease the property owners that have this existing condition, yet the Zone Text Amendment may not be the correct vehicle, rather, a variance process given the few affected properties, to which they suggested an average ten foot setback with a minimum of six feet which would allow some articulation of the deck and some landscaping, thus eliminating massive deck structures to the six foot line, the intent being that the area be landscaped and screened so that it would be aesthetically pleasing from both sides of the property line, with particular attention to the elimination of clutter from the underside of decks. Mr. Bartlett concluded that their recommendation still stands. Mr. James Goodwin, Crestview Avenue, inquired as to the reason for the setback in the first place, also the correctness of a comment that a wall could be constructed on the property line therefore a deck should likewise be allowed to the line. The Director of Development Services again noted that the setbacks for the area were changed in 1957, the reasoning for the change is uncertain, generally setback requirements from property lines are to prevent the spreading of fire from structure to structure, for light and ventilation around residential structures as well, typically cities have different Code requirements for fences than they do for structures, fences are allowed to be built on a property line however a city may regulate the height and design thereof, yet very few cities will allow structures that have the potential to spread fires to be built close to a property line. Mr. Goodwin said he had envisioned, yet questioned, that one could increase their property area by constructing a wall on the property line, fill the area with dirt, and then, abiding with the five foot sideyard and ten foot rear setbacks, build a structure. The Director responded that the concept of Mr. Goodwin was correct, and explained that provisions of the Code allow the slope area to be filled or terraced to the rear property line, it is the raised structure above grade level that is currently prohibited. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Brown inquired if there is another mechanism, such as a variance, to address the rear setback issue for these few properties, as had been suggested by Mr. Bartlett, in addition there should be some type of agreement that the property owner would maintain a deck underside in a proper, aesthetically pleasing manner. The city Manager said it was his understanding I I 9-30-96 that the variance process had been tried and it failed, also, that process requires that findings be made. The Director explained that the initial report to the Planning Commission proposed construction to within six feet of the setback, which protects the Edison easement, however to build within the four foot area would require either a Minor Plan Review or a Conditional Use Permit which would require public notice to I properties within one hundred and three hundred feet respectively, the Planning Commission determined that neither process was appropriate and that the Code should remain unchanged. The Manager mentioned that since the Planning commission had considered the CUP process the Council could direct staff to prepare an ordinance to implement that process to deal with this setback issue. Mayor Forsythe noted a concern that there can not be a blanket policy to deal with this issue as each property is significantlY different, the CUP would allow consideration and discretion on a property by property basis. Brown moved, second by Fulton, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance setting forth regulations to address the rear setback issue on a property by property basis. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried The City Attorney recommended that an action be taken relating to the appeal under consideration. Mayor Forsythe noted that her concern is not merely with this subject property as there are others that encroach into the Gum Grove, her personal opinion being that they are hurting no one, her preference would be that landscaping and decks not be required to be torn out as I long as they are not obtrusive, unsightly, or affect another's property values or views. The city Attorney explained that the appeal is not site specific, the direction of the Council is that an ordinance be drafted, and if adopted each property having decks, etc. that fall under the setback ordinance will need to be heard before the Planning Commission either as a Minor Plan Review or a Conditional Use permit, and confirmed that the alternative would be removal under current Code. Brown moved, second by Fulton, to defer taking an action on the appeal until such time as a draft ordinance is prepared and considered by the city Council. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS - POLICE SERVICES - AB 3229 Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider the appropriation of funds for police services as provided by AB 3229. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The I City Manager presented the staff report relating to $61,315 to be forthcoming from the State General Fund under Assembly Bill 3229 which stipulates that the funds must be used for front line municipal police services, requires that a special fund be established for those monies, also that the Police Chief and City Manager establish proposed uses for the funds and considered under public hearing. Chief Stearns explained that the items proposed to be funded are four mobile data computers for marked police vehicles, $7,500 each, a portable field command post for the trunk of the supervisors car, $800, and a four-wheel drive, marked black and white, utility vehicle, I I I 9-30-96 $28,000. There being no comments from the audience, Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing closed. Fulton moved, second by Brown, to approve the request of the Chief of Police to purchase any combination of the prioritized items presented, as determined by the Chief and the City Manager. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried CITY MANAGER REPORTS The City Manager reported having attended a recent meeting of the Orange County Business Council which afforded the opportunity to meet some of the department directors of Rockwell International, soon to be Boeing employees, the future of the aerospace industry and impacts on Orange County being one of several discussion items. Of particular interest to Seal Beach is that upon conclusion of the sale, the Rockwell headquarters will become the North American Division headquarters for Boeing, and immediate plans are to enhance and expand the Boeing aerospace operations. The Manager announced the conclusion of the Parks and Recreation/Community Services Director recruitment and the selection of Ms. Nancy Beard for the position, commencing October 21st. He noted her current position as Deputy Director for the City of Riverside, previously affiliated with the city of Newport Beach. To the previous Council approved petition to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the detachment of the Rossmoor wall, he reported the receipt of a letter from LAFCO staff requesting additional documentation such as legal description of the property, property tax monies to be transferred between the County and the cities of Los Alamitos and Seal Beach, spheres of influence, services to the unincorporated territory, etc., to which he reported having advised the Assistant Director of LAFCO that the request was considered to be unreasonable for this nine hundred fifty square feet of land. He noted that the issue of the wall will appear on the Rossmoor Community Services District ballot in November and if approved the request may become mute. Councilman Brown offered to mention this concern to LAFCO representatives that he meets with monthly. The Manager noted there had been some concern with the city's practice of keeping a substantial amount of monies on deposit in the checking account at a local bank, a non-interest bearing account, to meet payroll and warrants twice monthly. He said he wished to clarify that while, in the strictest sense, there is not an interest earnings there is an. earnings allowance in that the cost of the various services provided to the city is approximately $2,700 monthly, therefore by maintaining a certain amount in the account the earnings allowance is applied towards those costs without the City having to make a payment back to the bank. He noted also that it has been found that the bank offers another corporate program where costs could possibly be reduced by $400 to $500 per month, which will be looked at. COUNCIL CONCERNS In reference to the daytime curfew discussion, Councilman Fulton said for a student to write their own excuses to school has not been all that uncommon in the past. with regard to flooding during severe storms, Councilman Brown announced that the Board of Supervisors have authorized monies to rework the pumps at Seal Beach Boulevard and Electric to increase the capacity by at least twenty-five percent, hopefully by the end of this year, also, it is hoped a meeting can be arranged with the residents and City staff in the near future to review procedures in the event of flooding. Chief Stearns announced that one of the 9-30-96 I 10-14-96 I 10-28-96 City's Senior volunteers, Ed Raichel, expired last Friday at the Rossmoor Community Services site. On behalf of the City, the Chief extended condolences to the Raichel family and appreciation for allowing him to share his talents. councilman Fulton commended the recent dedication of the Rossmoor Community Services Center. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. I ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the Council directed that the October 14th regular meeting be canceled and adjourned to October 28th at 6:30 p.m. to meet in Closed session if deemed necessary. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Approved: Attest: I Seal Beach, California October 14,' 1996 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach did, at their regular meeting of September 30th, 1996, direct that the regular meeting of October 14th, 1996 be canceled due to a conflict with the League of California cities Annual Conference. The October 14th meeting was canceled and adjourned until Monday, October 28th, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. to meet in Closed session ,if deemed necessary. Seal Beach, California October 28, 1996 I The city council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.