Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB Min 1988-03-15 . . . . e CITY OF SEAL BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD March IS, 1988 MINUTES 10 CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Environmental Quality Control Board of the City of Seal Beach met at 8:00 p.mo and was called to order by Chairperson Knapp with Lowell Ko1b leading the Salute to the Flag. III. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Knapp Board Members Eisenberg, Fortner, Gavlick, Kolb Also Present: Pamela Walker, Administrative Assistant Department of Development Services IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Fortner requested that the last paragraph on page three be deleted as he felt it did not reflect his concerns. MR. KOLB MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. FORTNER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PAGE THREE. AYES: EISENBERG, FORTNER, KNAPP, KOLB NOES: NONE ABSENT: GAVLICK V. ASBESTOS IN THE HOME Mr. Eisenberg reported that he had examined the ducting in his home, and it was made of alumibestos. He also looked at neighbors' attics, and found alumibestos there, too. He concluded that many homes in College Park East would have the same materials. Ms. Knapp inquired if any of the ducting was damaged. . . . e e EQCB MINUTES March 15, 1988 Page Two Mr. Eisenberg replied that it was not, but noted that the material was fairly lightweighto He expressed his nervousness that he had discovered the alumibestos, and stated that he planned to have it removedo He noted that he was much more concerned than before, and that there could be quite a .problem in College Park East. He also expressed reservations about the finding that asbestos is only a hazard when it is friable. Mr. Kolb referred to a report he had filed with the City on asbestos. Mr. Fortner inquired whether there were state standards on acceptable levels of asbestos. Ms. Walker responded' that no such standards had been established for asbestos in the home. Mr. Fortner discussed the possibility of testing homes, and finding sources of funding for testing. Ms. Walker noted that the City had an outstanding planning contract for CDBG funds which might be reprogrammed for asbestos testing. She noted, however, that the County would provide funds but not services. The City would have to submit an acceptable' proposal for reprogramming the CDBG funds, and perform the services. Mr. Gavlick arrived at 8:15 porn. Mr. Fortner inquired of Mr. Kolb if a testing program would address the problem as he perceived it. Mr. Kolb replied that he felt the problem was the presence of materials containing asbestos, not how much asbestos was there, or in what form. His goal would be to get the ducting taken out before it broke down to avert a potential problem. Ms. Knapp raised concerns about how much removal would cost. She noted that there were special licensing and disposal requirements for asbestos work. She also raised a concern about liability to the City. Mr. Kolb expressed concern about the threat to people's lives, and observed that asbestos was not identified as a carcinogen until after the construction of the tracts. . . . e e EQCB MINUTES March 15, 1988 Page Three Mr. Fortner stated that the City would have no liability on this matter. Ms. Knapp noted that Mro Eisenberg's action had been a first step. She called for suggestions for a second step from the Board. Mr. Eisenberg noted that material about asbestosis was easy to obtain. He recommended that the Board make a recommendation to the City Council noting their concern about this issue, and presenting information about the presence of alumibestos ducting in College Park East and West homes, and recommending that the City Council inform the public about the existence of this potentially hazardous substance. Mr. Gavlick felt this suggestion was appropriate given the Board's authority. Mr. Eisenberg added, in response to comments by Mr. Kolb, that the Council's information not be done by a notice in the newspaper. Mr. Fortner suggested that the Board contact the members of the City Council individually to see what would help them to move on the issue, including recommending potential actions. Ms. Knapp inquired about the possibility of including a message with the water bill. Mr. Kolb asked whether the Board would just concentrate on College Park Easto Ms. Knapp felt the entire City should be covered due to changes in ownership since Mr. Kolb had campaigned in College Park West. Leisure World might be excluded since the homes are all electric, and the ducting only applies to gas homes. Mro Kolb discussed methods of sending flyers around the Cityo Ms. Knapp suggested coming up with a list of recommendations for the Council. She inquired if a building inspector could assist her with examining her ducting. Mr. Fortner suggested enlisting the aid of a community or youth group in distributing flyers. . . . e e EQCB MINUTES March 15, 1988 Page Four Ms. Knapp requested staff to return with some language in a resolution making a recommendation to Council. In the interim, the Board would develop some suggested actions. VI. DISCUSSION: MEASURE A Mro Eisenberg asked for a clarification of the availability of open space in the City, particularly with regard to the statement in Article I of Measure A that the City has not met the ratio of 5 acres of open space/parkland for every 1000 residents. Ms. Walker responded that calculation of the open space ratio in Seal Beach depended upon how one defined open space. If the beaches, proposed facilities, naval weapons station and water area were included, there would be well in excess of five acres of open space per 1000 residents. Ms. Knapp noted that an Orange County Register article reporting on open space in various cities did not employ a consistent methodology from one city to another in calculating open space acreage. Mr. Eisenberg commented on the ambiguities contained in the section of Measure A discussing the DoW.Po property. Ms. Walker reported that the voted to oppose Measure A due distortions and confusion in to the D.W.Po Specific Plan. D.WoP. Advisory Committee had to what they described as presenting provisions related Ms. Knapp asked what items were subject to a 2/3 vote of the electo~ate under Measure Ao Mso Walker replied that changes in land use on property classified as public or quasi-public, construction or reconstruction of streets, and planned unit developments would be subject to such a vote. Mso Knapp noted that these items development of the Mola project. would include the Mr. Eisenberg requested information on the office building construction on Seal Beach Boulevard next to Beverly Manor. Ms. Walker explained that the office project complied with zoning regulations and therefore did not require Planning Commission or environmental review. . . . e e EQCB MINUTES March 15, 1988 Page Five Ms. Knapp explained that she had requested placing Measure A on the EQCB's agenda as the Planning Commission, the D.W.P. Advisory Committee, and the Parks and Recreation Commission had all considered the initiative ordinance and taken a position on it. Ms. Knapp asked the EQCB to discuss Measure A and determine whether to take a stand on the initiativeo Mr. Eisenberg inquired whether all the other committees had taken stands against Measure A. He felt the ordinance was over broad. Mso Walker reported commissions taking a oppose the initiative. that all the other boards and position on Measure A had voted to Mso Knapp expressed doubts as to the legality of the initiative. Mr. Kolb felt the Board should take its position on Measure A from and environmental standpoint, since that is the subject matter of the Board. He brought to the Board's attention that the impartial analysis of Measure A showed that an affirmative recommendation from the Department of Forestry of a recognized California University would be required to cut trees within the City. He noted that this provision is cumbersome as only Berkeley and Humbolt State had Departments of Forestry. He felt, due to the unworkability of the recommendation requirement, that the provision is environmentally unsound and would be to the detriment of the health of the city's trees. Ms. Knapp asked whether that section would affect property owners cutting the trees in their yards. Mso Knapp also asked the definition of urban forest contained in the Public Resources Code. Ms. Walker trees on definition noted that noted that the initiative ordinance referred to public and quasi-public land. She read the of urban forest in the Public Resources Code, and it included "residential" trees. Mr. Fortner noted that Measure A does exempt routine tree maintenance. He opposed the provision, however, emphasizing that it contained many definitional problems. He suggested that the real target of this section was Gum Grove Park or the windrow on Seal Beach Boulevard. Ms. Knapp suggested that the Board focus on three or four points to define its position on Measure A. She raised the e e EQCB MINUTES March 15, 1988 . Page Six issue of the strict enforcement of the 35 foot height limit mandated by the initiative, noting that the municipal code limits building heights to 25 to 30 feet for the most part. She noted that the increased height limit would enable the expansion of residential uses to an extent not permitted under the existing zoning code, and that more residential traffic would be the result. Mr. Eisenberg asked what exactly was meant by enforcing the 35 foot height limit, and whether it would actually expand existing height limits. Ms. Walker noted that the text of the ordinance was unclear as to whether the drafters of Measure A intended to increase the height limit, or whether they erred in representing the maximum height limit. . Mr. Eisenberg reported that the undercurrent was that the proponents of Measure A really wanted to allow maximum expansion of residential uses, and that the other provisions of the initiative were used to gain popular support. He also noted that the ordinance violated the State Elections Code by requiring a 2/3 vote of the people for a number of items. Ms. Knapp noted that there were three items now before the Board: the tree issue, the 35-foot height limit and the 2/3 vote. Mr. Eisenberg opened discussion about parking issues, including shared parking and in-lieu parking. He requested clarification as to how strictly staff enforced parking codes, and what was meant by in-lieu parking. Ms. Walker explained that .the in-lieu program grew out of the downtown improvement study, and should have been followed by additional study on parking facilities. The current in-lieu program is only an interim effort, and collects $100 per space per year to establish a fund to build a parking facility. Participation in the in-lieu program is granted through the variance process. Ms. Walker noted that removing the in-lieu program would make it very difficult to upgrade properties on Main Street according to the recommendations of the downtown study. Ms. Walker explained the differences between in-lieu parking and shared parking provisions under the zoning code. . Mr. Kolb noted that the provisions of the initiative would turn the clock back on building on Main Street, while it . . . e e EQCB MINUTES March 15, 1988 Page Seven would increase properties. opportunities to expand on residential Mr. Eisenberg and Ms. Knapp commented that the Zoeter site was commercial on one portion because leasing the commercial properties would enable the city to purchase the park portion. Since this item would probably be litigated, the EQCB would not include it in its comments. Mr. Fortner highlighted a section of Measure A, included under an article designed to alleviate parking problems, which would allow enlarging' existing nonconforming residential properties. He felt that this section would exacerbate parking shortages, thereby doing exactly what the article purported to prevent. Ms. Knapp noted that this was also a negative environmental impact due to the parking problems created. Mr. Fortner said there is a residential parking problem, and this section makes it impossible for the City to correct that problem. Mr. Gavlick noted that many in Leisure World were opposed to the ordinance due to the many conflicting statements in the measure. Ms. Knapp called for a motiono MR. FORTNER MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. KOLB, THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD FORMALLY OPPOSE MEASURE A BASED ON THE AMBIGUITIES AND DISCREPANCIES DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD: THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO TREE CUTTING WOULD LIKELY DETRACT FROM THE HEALTH OF THE URBAN FOREST THE ORDINANCE IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT; THE MEASURE WOULD ENFORCE A 35-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT WHICH DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHTS PERMITTED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND WHICH MIGHT INCREASE THE HEIGHT PERMITTED THROUGHOUT THE CITY; THE MEASURE CALLS FOR A 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES, IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE AND THE CITY CHARTER; THE MEASURE PERMITS EXPANSIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USES WITHOUT PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING, THEREBY ADDING TO THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING . . . - 0;' "!t e e :: f \ . EQCB MINUTES March 15, 1988 Page Eight PROBLEM EXISTING IN THE CITY AND MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CITY TO CORRECT THAT PROBLEM AYES: Knapp, Eisenberg, Fortner, Gavlick, Kolb NOES: None MOTION CARRIES, FIVE TO ZERO (5 - 0). VII. BOARD CONCERNS Mr. Eisenberg complimented the heating repairs in the Council Chambers. Ms. Knapp brought two more sign enforcement cases to the attention of staff: Don Juan's blinking roof sign and the Oakwood Apartments leasing signs. Ms. Walker reported that the sign enforcement program was generally successful. Mr. Fortner suggested that the Board consider recommending an ordinance prohibiting leaf blowers, and requested staff to bring sample ordinances from other cities. VIII. STAFF CONCERNS There were n0 dtaff concerns. IX. ADJOURNMENT With the unanimous consent of the Board, the meeting was adjourned to May l7, 1988 at 8:00 p.m.