Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1991-02-25 2-1],-91/2-25-91 future of Old Ranch golf course and plans of the Bixby Company for a signature eighteen hole course, waterscaped throughout, with one hundred sixty high quality homes enhanced with lake or golf course views, a hotel and restaurant south of Lampson. Councilman Laszlo said the letter mentioned a future general membership meeting to discuss the plans, cited a recent effort at the City Council I level to place the Country Club/golf course in District Four rather than District Two, reported that Mr. Laszlo had vowed to oppose the plans, and encouraged persons to attend the February 11th Council meeting to oppose the redistricting effort. There being no further comments, Mayor wilson declared Oral Communications closed. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the m~eting until February 25th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed 'Session. " The meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m. Clerk and e - of Seal Beach Approved: ~"'\.'V~ ayor I Attest: Seal Beach, California February 25, 1991 The city Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:02 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Archibold, Acting city Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant city Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I CLOSED SESSION The Assistant City Attorney announced the city Council would meet in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section to discuss pending litigation, Mola Development Corporation versus City of Seal Beach, threatened litigation regarding the same property, and labor negotiations. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn to 2-25-91 I Closed Session at 6:04 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The Assistant City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the matters previously announced, also discussed cases numbered 517450 and 507914 with Special Legal Counsel and gave direction to said Counsel. ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, second by Forsythe, to adjourn the meeting at 7:01 p.m. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried erk and ex-of ~ of Seal Beach of the Approved: ~""'AJ :60. ~~ Ma r Attest: I Seal Beach, California February 25, 1991 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:15 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Archibold, Acting City Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I, WAIVER OF FULL READING Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, 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: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4001 - COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURAL RULES Councilmember Forsythe moved to postpone consideration of 2-25-91 Resolution Number 4001 until the next meeting. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. Councilman Laszlo moved a substitute motion to follow the agenda format as printed even though Resolution Number 4001, the basis for that format, has not as yet been adopted. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. After brief discussion Councilman Laszlo withdrew the substitute motion and for the purpose of I clarification, moved a second substitute motion to include Council Concerns, in addition to the Council Items/Other Concerns listed on the agenda, after agenda item "H". Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Vote on the motion to hold Resolution Number 4001 over until next meeting: AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Wilson proclaimed March 1, 1991 as IIpeace Corps Day." The Mayor proclaimed February 17th through 23rd, 1991 as "National PTA Week in the Los Alamitos School District." AGENDA AMENDED Forsythe moved, second by Wilson, to amend the agenda to consider proposed Resolution Number 4022, paying tribute to Al Lopez. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4022 - HONORING/PAYING TRIBUTE TO ADOLFO "AL" LOPEZ Resolution Number 4022 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND PAYING TRIBUTE TO THE MEMORY OF ADOLFO LOPEZ." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4022 was waived. Councilman Laszlo noted the passing of Mr. Al Lopez, Public Works Department Superintendent, and commended him as a valued employee, dedicated to the City of Seal Beach, the community and its residents. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4022 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Mr. James Goodwin, 1405 Crestview Avenue, said the consensus of the experts is that the Hellman.property is a dangerous area upon which to build, that the three independent experts had I reviewed the Mola plan, each having determined that additional data was needed to clearly define the wetlands and liquefaction areas. He showed a diagram comparing the high and moderate liquefaction areas of the Mola plan to the ponderosa proposal, claiming that thirty of the ponderosa homes would have been destroyed by an earthquake, and up to six million dollars in damages plus death and injury would be realized, and in the Mola plan eighty-eight homes would be in the low or moderate liquefaction area where $1.2 million could be an estimate of potential damages. Mr. Goodwin said he was uncertain if earthquake insurance would 2-25-91 I be available to homes on the Hellman property, also if the high liquefaction zone extends to the state Lands parcel, however the liquefaction issue is likely as a result of the similar elevation of the area. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, representing the Wetlands Restoration Society, stated his review of the Initiative shows that two hundred forty- seven homes will be built before there is any major restoration of the wetlands and at that point the 6.5 acre buffer area will only be planted with pickleweed, and inquired if there was some provision in the Initiative that would prevent a developer from ceasing construction prior to the wetlands restoration and building of the remaining higher priced homes. He asked also if this city would need to make improvements to its water facilities to accommodate the new construction, at a cost to the tax payers, as is being considered in Huntington Beach. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, said he felt that a letter in the Long Beach newspaper this date regarding the Redevelopment Agency was misleading, that his understanding was tha~ the Agency is several million dollars in debt, that no attention is being paid to the costs that may be the result of the Mola project, yet it was once projected at $200,000 annually greater than tax revenue. He referred to the potential for water rationing, however new homes are being considered that will result in increased water rates. Councilman Hunt responded that the Seal Beach tax payer has not paid an Agency debt, and although the city has loaned the Agency monies, the interest the Agency pays is greater than could be earned if that money were in a bank. Mr. Victor Grgas, Seal Beach, offered that there is misunderstanding as to what an Agency can and can not do in California, that Seal Beach has benefitted from Agency activities such as the greenbelt, library, Zoeter School, baseball diamond, childcare, etc., that the citizens do not pay more taxes, and in many cities the use of Agency monies has avoided the need to use General Fund monies. He pointed out that there is legal opinion that Agency funds may be used to repair the groin and replace sand on the beach, and said those monies could come from the Agency through the Mola project. Making reference to the number of signatures on the Initiative petition, Mr. Grgas requested that the Initiative be placed on the ballot, and that no additional measures be considered. He suggested that the monies that would be spent on legal costs could be better spent on street or sidewalk repair, alleys, etc., also that opinions with regard to liquefaction and earthquake laws should be based upon State law. Councilman Laszlo said he felt the expenditure of legal fees will be realized if the Mola project is approved. Councilmember Hastings noted that Redevelopment Agency monies can not be used for general maintenance or repair, also claimed that the entire budget for legal fees had been expended in the first months of 1990. Mr. Frank.Ellsworth, Leisure World, reported after a recent Archaeological Committee meeting three of the five members met at a local restaurant to informally work on some changes that had been discussed during the regular meeting. He said it has been suggested that the meeting of the three members could be interpreted as a violation of the Brown Act, however as Chairman of the Committee his interpretation was that it was an act of enthusiasm to provide the best Archaeological and Historical Element possible, and upon receipt of new State guidelines it is the intent of the Committee to complete their work. In response to Council, Mr. Ellsworth explained that since there had not been agreement at the regular meeting, he believed the intent was to develop language that would be acceptable to the Committee as a whole. In response to Council, the City I I 2-~5-91 Attorney said a violation would depend on whether this would be considered a meeting under the Brown Act or if decisions were being made. Councilmember Hastings noted that the meetings of the Committee must be public, that the meeting of the three appears to be a violation, that anything resulting from that meeting should not be allowed, that the participants should not sit on the Archaeological Committee, I or the Committee should disband and submit what has been developed thus far. Councilman Hunt said he felt ,it would be appropriate for the City Attorney to discuss this matter with the individual members of the Committee. Councilmember Forsythe inquired if there was a report completed prior to the last meeting, prior to any changes that are a matter of this discussion. Mr. Ellsworth responded that there were two reports, somewhat different is wording and structure, that could be made available. The Acting city Manager said he would be willing to discuss the issues of the Brown Act with the Committee members. Councilmember Hastings suggested that the City Attorney should render a decision as to what took place. Councilmember Forsythe moved that the Council be provided with copies of the reports compiled prior to the last meeting of the Committee, look at any modifications to those reports as a separate issue, and have the Committee continue to meet to attempt to agree on one report. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. Discussion followed. The Assistant City Attorney stated that more information would be necessary to determine if there was a violation of the Brown Act, and suggested that the staff communicate with the members of the Committee to determine what happened at the impromptu meeting and if an action was taken. Councilman I Laszlo asked that this subject be placed on the next agenda for further discussion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson Hastings Motion carried Mr. Robert Smiley, Leisure World, expressed his support for the Mola project, thanked members of the Council and the staff. Mr. Dick Ramzier, Seal Beach, suggested that the debate over the Hellman land has gone on too long, the number of dwellings has decreased from more than seven hundred to three hundred twenty-nine, the developer has complied with the requests of the Council, that the plan has met the requirements of the Coastal Commission, Fish and Game, National Wildlife Service, Marine Fisheries, and urged that this issue now be placed on the ballot. Mr. John Nakagawa, 320 - 12th Street, said he had observed the members of the Archaeological Committee together at the restaurant, and requested that the city Attorney review the Administrative Procedure Act, Public Records Act, and the Brown Act. There being no other comments at this time, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:24 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. I CITY COUNCIL ITEMS/OTHER CONCERNS HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE and RELATED DOCUMENTS Councilmember Hastings asked that the report prepared by the Finance Director of the Hoffman Associates financial report be reviewed. Councilmember Forsythe suggested a review of the City Attorney analysis. Councilman Laszlo referred to A :.(.~.~ .-"".;~:- ::" -U1~"'l I....... " 1~ ' . . ,~ 2-25-91 I four financial reports prepared by Stanley Hoffman Associates, a May, 1986 analysis of seven hundred seventy- three units showing an annual loss to the city of $21,600, a May, 1989 analysis of four hundred twelve units showing a $97,845 loss, a November, 1990 analysis of three hundred forty units projecting a $174,000 loss, yet the most recent analysis, paid by the development company, projects an annual financial gain to the city with eleven less units. Mayor Wilson offered that the financial projections would change as a result of the different number of units and benefits that were not originally a consideration. Councilmember Forsythe inquired as to what means is used to calculate certain fiscal benefits to the City, as an example the taxable purchases based on household income is shown as 35.15 percent, where the purchase of many large items are not available in this community. The Director of Development Services responded that he believed such information is based upon federal data such as the census of retail sales that is conducted about every five years within community, the consultant then makes projections from that information. He noted that typically a city will fall within the forty-five to fifty-five percent range, and the thirty-five percent represents the total spendable income within this city given the lack of availability of major purchase goods. Councilman Laszlo mentioned the $45 per capit~ cost for fire services and inquired if future increases had been considered. The Acting City Manager noted the cost for fire services is based upon a formula taking into consideration calls for service, assessed valuation and population, and that he did not know if future increases had been considered. councilman Hunt stated although there may be some minor inaccuracies of the numbers, he felt that the Stanley Hoffman report was reasonably accurate and incorporates the industry. standards for compiling such data. Councilmember Forsythe asked for clarification of a $173,000 reduction of public works recurring costs and noted the Finance Director's answer regarding the reduction of citywide overhead from $59,000 to $23,000. Councilman Hunt said he had discussed the public works costs with the Finance Director, and made a comparison between this project and Leisure World with regard to public works where their services are necessary only on occasion, pointing out that this project would be a closed community having a homeowners association that will be responsible for the repair of streets, trimming of trees, etc., however First Street would be a dedicated street falling within City maintenance. The Acting City Manager noted an explanation of the difference in public works costs commenced at the bottom of the first page of the February 7th letter from Hoffman Associates, then proceeded to read the February 12th memorandum from the Finance Director in full. 'I I Councilman Laszlo requested Mr. Martin Coren' of McClelland Coren Consultants to respond to the Hoffman Associates financial analysis, and so moved. Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion. Discussion followed. Mr. Gordon Shanks said as a result of concerns with the Hoffman report by Seal Beach citizens United, Mr. Coren had been requested to do an independent analysis. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Mr. Coren introduced himself as a Redevelopment Financial Consultant, McClelland Coren Consultants, and stated he had been retained by Seal Beach citizens United to examine the Hoffman report in the specific area of redevelopment 2-25-91 revenues and that he had not reviewed other areas of that report. He said the basis of his review, attempting to utilize the same development functions as the Hoffman report, it is felt that report significantly overstates the tax increment revenues that can be generated from the project area, that conclusion based upon the assumption that the taxable values will grow from the project area at six I' percent annually and apparently ignoring Proposition 13 which limits ,growth to two percent annually, where in order for the project area to grow at six percent annually either all of the homes would need to change ownership at a six percent appreciation or the percentage of the homes that change ownership would have to be significantly higher than the six percent in order to bring the total project area up to six percent. He said their calculations, based upon one assumption of the Hoffman report that ten percent of the property would turnover per year, were appreciated at six percent, another element he felt the Hoffman report did not take into consideration was the required twenty percent tax increment set aside for low and moderate income housing, there is a 1.25 percent administrative cost on property taxes in Orange County that was not taken into consideration, also there was difficulty with the manner Hoffman Associates calculated the present value of the tax increment, commencing their revenue stream from 1993 forward, yet the report deals with 1990 dollars or three years of additional inflation which tends to diminish the present value calculation that they utilized. Mr. Coren stated as a result of their calculations it is felt that the redevelopment portion of development will generate approximately $14,280,000 from 1993 through 2012 as opposed to the $29 million plus projected by the Hoffman report, I with a present value of $4.5 million versus $10.8 million. In response to a number of questions posed by Councilman Hunt, Mr. Coren explained they had used six percent for the annual increase however only applied that figure to ten percent of the property each year where Hoffman had applied the six percent to all of the property in the project area, that it was felt to project that the entire property would increase six percent was unrealistic, that Hoffman had based the present value on nine percent and the increases on six percent. He said he had not used industry standards for the calculations, rather tried to use the standards of the Hoffman report, that their January 9th memorandum indicated for purposes of calculating property transfer tax a projection of ten percent or more turnover every ten years was used. He confirmed that the twenty percent set aside had been subtracted from the total income that would be received by the Agency, that it is assumed there is a tax increment flow that would generate sufficient revenue to satisfy any set aside debt, and offered that under Redevelopment law there is a means to defer payment of the set aside to meet pre-existing obligations, projects, programs, and activities started before 1986, however there must be a plan as to how those deferrals will be paid, likewise redevelopment monies can not be spent on a new project area until the deferrals are paid. The Assistant I City Attorney confirmed that there must be a twenty percent set aside for any new projects, and explained that in 1986 a Resolution was adopted that listed the existing obligations of the Agency, at that time the set aside could be accomplished by two methods, one was to payoff the existing debt, the other was to make a finding that there were existing programs that was consistent with the intent of the twenty percent set aside, and in 1988 or 1989 there were legislative changes where the Council could no longer defer setting aside the twenty percent. He noted that if the .....~'\oI'. \,~_ ~':'~b.r.f f,.oO to'.;~ ._,,",iIfI:,,~ 'I --'1~ it", "'J' .-..,..... . .. .... '1\1" 2-25-91 I Initiative is approved and the City starts rece~v~ng tax increments from that project, twenty percent must be set aside. In response to Council, Mr. Coren said he had not heard of the Stanley Hoffman firm prior to this time. Councilman Laszlo made reference to proposed Assembly Bill 315 that would increase the set aside from twenty to forty percent for existing project areas unless the city has failed to meet its low/moderate income requirement in which case the set aside would be fifty percent, therefore if this project were passed and the projected tax increment is $14 million, $7 million would go to the low/moderate set aside. Mr. Coren said if AB 315 were to pass it would be forty percent of the gross amount, noting that the twenty percent had been deducted from the projected $14 million tax increment, however still a significant amount. Councilman Laszlo suggested that if that amount of money were required to be set aside it is likely this City would be required to develop low income housing at some point in the future, the result of which could be a cost to the city, less available tax increment for other uses, and concluded that the Agency is currently in debt and that situation may get worse. He also questioned if Redevelopment monies could be required to be used to develop housing on the remaining Hellman land. Councilmember Hastings stated the Initiative does not guarantee that one hundred sixty-four homes will be built in the project area, therefore the Hoffman financial projections would be incorrect. Councilmember Forsythe noted the substantial differences between the analysis of Mr. Coren and Hoffman Associates, the differing opinion regarding Prop 13, the twenty percent set aside had not been applied nor had the 1.25 percent administrative costs, and the use of 1993 calculations versus 1990. Discussion continued between Councilman Hunt and Mr. Coren regarding Table 4 of the Hoffman report. Mr. Coren concurred with the projected ten percent turnover ratio, cited his use of six percent increase of property values to be consistent with the, study, noted that property values in Los Angeles county have increased eleven percent in recent years, this past year the values are either stable or dropping. Councilman Hunt said long term the industry accepts nine percent as the annual increase for Southern California coastal cities given a ten percent turnover, which could result ~n the difference between the analyses, and over a period of ten year that would result in an average six percent increase in the property tax increment. Members of the Council expressed their views as to the accuracy of the two analyses. Mr. Coren was thanked for his presentation. I I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 9:36 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:49 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Councilmember Forsythe suggested that a date be set for a special election, then discuss the analysis of the Initiative. Councilman Laszlo said if there is question as to whether an advisory measure will be considered, he would prefer to consider that first. Wilson moved, second by Forsythe, to call a Special Election for June 4th, 1991. Councilman Laszlo said he felt the Initiative is flawed, may result in further legal actions, and could be illegal. Councilmember Hastings disagreed with calling an election at this meeting as requested by the Initiative Committee, inquired if the Committee was prepared to present a $25,000 check to the' City and if the election is set would that eliminate further legal actions as claimed by a February-5th letter. Councilmember Forsythe said that 2-25-91 setting the election at this meeting was not the result of the referenced letter, that it was likely the necessary number of signatures would be obtained on the second petition drive that is currently in progress and requesting an August election date, therefore to obtain maximum voter turnout it would be her preference to hold the election in June prior to summer vacations. Councilmember Hastings I agreed with the reasoning, however stated she would abstain, as an election could be called at the next meeting of the Council. Councilman Laszlo expressed preference for a November election, yet agreed that vacation schedules could pose a problem. Mayor Wilson and Councilman Hunt supported the June 4th date. Vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance Number 1326 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OF A QUESTION RELATING TO THE HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1326 was waived. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Hastings Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4009 - REOUESTING COUNTY SERVICES - SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - JUNE 4. 1991 Resolution Number 4009 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4009 was waived. Hunt moved, second by Wilson"to adopt Resolution Number 4009. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Hastings Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4010 - WRITTEN ARGUMENTS - SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - JUNE 4. 1991 Resolution Number 4010 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE' CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA; SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT REGARDING AN INITIATIVE MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4010 was waived. Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 4010 as amended to authorize Mayor Wilson and Councilman Hunt to file a~ argument in favor of the measure and Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, and Laszlo to file an argument against the measure. Councilmember Hastings noted that the ballot question throughout the documents pertaining to an election there is reference to three hundred twenty-nine single family dwelling units, however there is no mention of the one hundred twenty-five units on parcels eight, nine and ten, which she claimed is part of the Initiative. Councilman Hunt pointed out that the summary prepared by the City Attorney defines the boundaries of the project as the one hundred fifty acres, even through argument could possibly be made that somewhere in the Initiative petition it could be I I .,..., ..,:a~"":o:::..r~:Zf'. ..-:.t ... .)ot , 2-25-91 I construed that it includes the one hundred twenty-five units. After some discussion, the Assistant city Attorney recommended that the vote be taken on Resolution Number 4010 and subsequently should the Council choose to reconsider Ordinance 1326 that action could be taken, or the additional units could be addressed at this time. Councilmember Forsythe noted the analysis points out uncertainties as to what would be applied to the remainder parcel in the future, also there is reference to the flood retention basin in the Initiative, and questioned if consideration is being qiven to a two hundred twenty-five acre development at some point in time regardless of the Mola development, that there is reference to elections at a later time for the seventy acre one hundred twenty-five multi-family units and options regarding the flood retention basin, therefore if the Initiative binds two hundred twenty-five acres of the Hellman parcel, people should be made aware of that fact. The Assistant City Attorney responded that he saw no reference in the analysis to acreage other than the 26 acres of parkland and 41.4 acres of wetlands, and explained that the portion of the Hellman Ranch proposed to be developed by the Measure is one hundred forty-nine acres, below the extension of First street, yet the Initiative does affect more than the one hundred forty-nine acres, that there is a reference in Specific Plan section 4.5.1 that is not entirely accurate, the analysis pointing out that 'the 1990 Housing Element does not make the construction of these affordable units a certainty, the program calls for public hearing to determine the appropriateness and benefits of redesignating the Hellman Remainder Parcel for uses including both single family detached market rate residences and either medium or high density multifamily affordable housing units, to promote a more balanced housing inventory within the community,' and the conclusion in the analysis is that 'because this paragraph of the Specific Plan merely refers to the one hundred twenty-five affordable housing units noted in the Housing Element, it is unlikely that the Specific Plan will be read to impose any more restrictions on development of the Remainder than does the 1990 Housing Element.' He explained further that the Housing Element states the one hundred twenty-five units is a program the City will explore and after further studies determine if it is appropriate housing, that the Initiative does include the parcels yet does not impose any further restriction or commitment of the city on the Remainder with respect to the one hundred twenty-five units, and should the Initiative be approved it would not prohibit the City from changing or modifying the Housing Element after the studies are conducted. Councilmember Hastings questioned the appearance to a court should the city choose to amend the Housing Element to eliminate the possible one hundred twenty-five low income housing units on the Remainder. , The Assistant city Attorney said it would be difficult to'determine the position of a court should the City follow its program, hold hearings, and make a decision that it is or is not appropriate to place that housing on the Remainder, and at that time if there were action to contest the decision of the City it is possible argument could be made that it was contained in the Housing Element and the Specific Plan Initiative. Councilman Hunt said that mention of the one hundred twenty-five units does not mean it is part of the Specific Plan Initiative. Councilman Laszlo offered that the Remainder would provide a location for Mola to place low/moderate income housing if required to do so. Councilman Hunt pointed out that the developer is being required either provide $360,000 or thirty-three affordable housing units at an undetermined location in the City. I I , ' .iil~"~1.t~~ifli:' ",1 2-25-91 Councilmember Forsythe questioned why reference to parcels eight, nine and ten, one hundred twenty-five housing units, and the Flood Control Basin is made in the Initiative unless there was a specific purpose for making such reference. Councilmember Hastings noted that a letter from the Hellman attorney indicated that they were not aware that parcels eight, nine and ten had been included in the Initiative. I Councilman Hunt again pointed out that the boundaries of the project are clearly defined in the Initiative, and that the five acres outside of those boundaries was referenced because Mola/Hellman had a responsibility, as previously agreed to, to sell that land to the city to be subsequently zoned as Public Land Use. Discussion continued regarding the Remainder and the requirement to address affordable housing. The Director of Development Services explained that the initial Housing Element submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development did not indicate general areas where a potential existed for creating a possible demand for low and moderate income housing in the community, the State then determined that the city needed to develop a more precise description of areas and establish a potential time schedule to consider those areas for future development, which was a concern of both the Planning Commission and Council when the Element was going through the adoption process. with regard to concerns brought forth in the letter from the Hellman attorney, the Director reported the response from the City had been that it was understood the reference was to correspondence between the developer and his representative, and if not the City would be willing to provide them any information with regard to future discussions regarding their property. Councilmember Forsythe inquired as to what legal grounds the I city would have should the Initiative be approved by the voters and a proposal were submitted for multi-family units on the Remainder and it was found that use was inconsistent with the a use desired by the city. The Assistant City Attorney stated the key issue is how any type of development could be provided on the Remainder if the Initiative is passed, that the Initiative document is inconsistent regarding whether the Remainder is a part of the Initiative or whether the Initiative affects the Remainder. He cited as an example, if someone wants to place some type of future use on the Remainder in the future, the question would become is this future development consistent with the spirit and intent of the Initiative, noting that in reading the document one can not determine what the spirit and intent of the Initiative is with respect to the Remainder, that being the problem that will be faced regardless of what the project may be or the reference to one hundred twenty-five units. He again pointed out that the Housing Element does not provide for one hundred twenty-five units on the Remainder, however one of the programs of the Housing Element states that public hearings will be held to analyze whether it is appropriate to place housing on that property, which is substantially different from saying public hearings will be held because the Housing Element provides for those I units. with regard to any future use of the Remainder he said their opinion is that an amendment would be required, whether it would require a vote of the people is presently unknown and depends on whether it would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Initiative. The Assistant City Attorney expressed opinion that the city would not lose any power over what the future development of the Remainder will be, yet if that power is reserved for the voters there could be a loss of control depending upon the type of proposal and determination of the purpose and intent of the Initiative, also that he could not envision what an administrative .... ." 'F ' ,,4"1".-. .. .~~.." ~ ~. ,. ", 2-25-91 I amendment might be with respect to the Remainder. Discussion continued. with regard the enforceability of conditions, as set forth on page five of the analysis, the Assistant city Attorney explained that development agreements are agreements between two parties, the City and the developer, the developer agreeing to certain things in return for assurances from the city, however an initiative is a unilateral action imposed by the voters and consent to a development agreement is not required on the part of the developer nor can it be obtained in that manner, yet in their opinion if Initiative is approved it would be in the best interest of the city to have a development agreement or impose whatever conditions that can be justified with approval of the subdivision map, and concurred that there could be some difficulty in obtaining the amenities offered through the Initiative from a successor developer unless, once again, there is a development agreement or conditions are imposed on the subdivision map. with regard to page twenty-two, section 1.3 of the analysis, he noted there is uncertainty with any development that the city will receive the benefits outlined, as an example, if the units are not built the City would not receive the $1 million, as was the case with the 1989 approvals as well as this Initiative. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that the Specific Plan constitutes the zoning of the property to which any developer would be required to comply, and if adopted, the Initiative controls the entire Hellman Ranch, yet given the inconsistencies there is question as to what would apply to the Remainder if this Initiative does not, considering that the Initiative would repeal the 1987 amendment, and it is unknown if the intent was to go back to the 1981 plan with respect to the Remainder. He noted that although not specifically addressed in the analysis, in comparing the 1981 plan, the 1987 amendment, and this Initiative, they essentially call for the same use on the Remainder, oil production/future development, that.there are also some variations of the boundaries that can be addressed at a later time if necessary. He again clarified that a development agreement could not be entered into unilaterally in the case of approval of the Initiative by the voters, that would require the consent of the developer, however if such consent were given there would be less concern with the enforceability of conditions. Councilman Hunt asked if a statement could be made in a development agreement that the one hundred twenty-five units were not a part of the Initiative project. The Assistant city Attorney indicated that would be difficult, rather that would be a statement of the proponents of the Initiative as to its intent. With regard to the precise boundary definition of the Initiative project area, Councilman Hunt again stated he could not understand how one could construe any area outside of that project to be part of the Initiative. The Assistant city Attorney again stated there is no question that the area . proposed for development is one hundred forty-nine acres, the next question becomes how is the remainder affected by the Initiative, that there are areas of the Initiative that states there are three planning areas that are designated for oil production and future uses, a reference to the five acres, and another reference to the one hundred twenty-five units, therefore if the 1987 amendment is repealed by the Initiative document, which also included references to the Remainder, the Initiative then stating that it does not apply to the Remainder, is it then suggested that reference be made to the 1981 Specific Plan, which was essentially repealed by the 1987 Plan, then does that control. He said the question can not be answered because the Initiative goes back and forth, yet all three plans set forth basically the I I \.lil'1 fNfl~lj9il" ~ "II 2-25-91 same use, and in the analysis Section 4.5 of the Initiative was the deciding factor as to how the Initiative would affect the Remainder where it makes three references to section 6.4 which advised how to revise, amend or adjust the Specific Plan, administrative revisions, administrative adjustments, neither of which is believed to apply to the Remainder, therefore with reference to section 6.4.2 the I only way to amend the provisions concerning the Remainder is _ if it is consistent with the spirit, intent and purpose of this Initiative, therefore the one reference to one hundred twenty-five units is not felt to be enough to bind the city. Councilmember Forsythe inquired if the City would have the resources to implement the Subdivision Map Act with all of its inconsistencies. The Assistant City Attorney advised that the city does have the power to make certain findings with respect to consideration of the Map, at such time as there are public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council there remains the power to apply the Subdivision Map Act and apply conditions to mitigate certain impacts with regard to public health and safety concerns, yet if the Initiative is approved some of the power to condition for aesthetic reasons as an example would no longer exist. with regard to aesthetics, Councilmember Forsythe noted that some homes could be as close as eight feet from the street, the lot coverage could be fifty percent, parking spaces would be covered spaces but need not be garages, and the allowable height would be thirty-three feet, and requested clarification as to the city's ability to revise those standards. The Assistant city Attorney confirmed that if the Initiative is approved those conditions could be amended at a later date by vote of the electorate. Councilmember Hastings pointed out that the I administrative adjustments and revisions set forth in Sections 6.4.1 through 6.4.3 are extensive and should thoroughly be reviewed by the public, and Councilmember Forsythe added that those sections allow the staff to relax five development standards which deviate from standards that exist in other areas of the City without notice or hearing. Councilmember Hastings again asked for a motion to reconsider the election documents to change the number of units addressed by the Initiative from three hundred twenty- nine single family units to four hundred fifty-four units. The Assistant city Attorney stated that in his legal opinion he did not believe the Specific Plan Initiative Ordinance calls for anything more than three hundred twenty-nine units, yet the Council has the discretion to reconsider and change the language of the ballot question, however recommended that such language be precise and track the wording of the Initiative. Vote on the motion to adopt Resolution Number 4010 as amended to reflect the names of the members of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Hastings Motion carried I Councilman Laszlo moved to reconsider the election documents with regard to the number of units referred to in the ballot question. Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion. The Assistant City Attorney said he felt this action would unnecessarily complicate the question presented to the voters, and if there is additional language it should address the Housing Element and the designation of one hundred twenty-five unit. He expressed belief that what the Housing Element provides has been mischaracterized, and again pointed out that it does not designate the number of !t". ..;';r"'1 , . ". 2-25-91 I units for the Remainder, rather the program to consider the appropriateness of placing units on those parcels. The City Clerk explained that the attachment to Ordinance Number 1326 is the summary of the Specific Plan Initiative Ordinance that was contained with the entire text of the Initiative Ordinance that was part of the Initiative petition, that the summary was used as the attachment to the Ordinance specifically for the purpose of the required three publications of an Ordinance calling an election required by the City Charter in order to avoid the necessity to publish the entire text of the Initiative three times which would be a considerable cost, however the request of the Council is that the entire text of the Specific Plan Initiative Ordinance be printed in the Sample Ballot Pamphlet for the information of all voters. Councilmember Forsythe suggested that the possibility of one hundred twenty-five units on the Remainder and the five acre baseball diamond may be best addressed in the arguments. Councilman Hunt cautioned against making reference to four hundred fifty-four units on the one hundred forty-nine acres. Councilman Laszlo withdrew the motion to reconsider. " RESOLUTION NUMBER 4011 - PROVIDING FOR REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS Resolution Number 4011 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4011 was waived. Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 4011. I, AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Hastings Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4012 - CANVASS OF JUNE 4. 1991 ELECTION Resolution Number 4012 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THAT THE CANVASS OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991, BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4012 was waived. Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 4012. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Hastings moved, second by Laszlo; to direct that the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Initiative Ordinance be printed in its entirety in the Sample Ballot Pamphlet. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 11:31 p.m. Mayor Wilson excused herself from the meeting at 11:34 p.m. due to illness. The Council reconvened at 11:45 p.m. with Mayor ProTem Laszlo calling the meeting to order. Forsythe moved, second by Hunt, to appropriate $50,000 to the Elections Account for the June 4th Special Municipal Election. .... J.!t'11 !'. ~i.. ~ .' i , lit't. 2-25-91 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hunt, Laszlo None Hastings Wilson Motion carried HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN COMMITTEE - CONCEPTUAL PLAN The Assistant City Attorney reported the Council had directed staff to prepare certain language in the event placement of an additional measure on the ballot was desired. The Director of Development Services suggested that the Council may wish to consider a revision of the draft language of the advisory measure to specify the size of a hotel facility by possibly the number of rooms as opposed to square footage. Councilmember Forsythe proposed an advisory measure question to read: "In the event Measure A-91 on this ballot (the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Initiative Ordinance) does not receive a majority vote, should the city adopt a specific plan for the Hellman Ranch calling for a public golf course, parkland, wetlands, and a combination of the following elements to be located only in areas to be seismically safe for habital structures: country club, restaurant, conference center, retail center, hotel or residential". Mayor ProTem Laszlo indicated he could not support hotel use, and Councilmember Hastings said her support would be based upon deletion of residential use. Councilmember Forsythe pointed out that residential use could be considered on the bluff area overlooking a golf course, that the various options would allow a committee to select and work with one or more of the alternatives, and it will be necessary to have some type of development on the bluff area to generate revenue. "Recreational areas II was added as to the ballot question as a possible use, and the statement "This is an advisory measure that is not binding on the city Council" was also added as required language. Councilmember Forsythe moved approval of the advisory measure language as amended. Councilmember Hastings again stated her preference for retail use, rather than residential, on the bluff area, also cited noise as a factor along Seal Beach Boulevard. Mayor ProTem Laszlo seconded the motion for discussion, added that his primary interest would be to promote between seventy to eighty acres of wetlands with a golf course, which would serve to eliminate housing on the hazardous areas of the property. A member of the audience suggested a bed and breakfast. Ms. Carla Watson, 1635 Crestview Avenue, suggested that housing on certain areas of the property should not be precluded, and that mixed uses are a possibility. Discussion continued. Mr. Blake Hastings suggested that the amount of acreage for wetlands and golf course be determined first, then the means to pay for that acreage as it relates to what would be placed on the balance of the property, as an example a hotel with banquet facilities would generate considerable revenue, also that a plan would need to be developed that would generate monies sufficient to pay for the greatest area of open space, and pointed out that commercial and retail generates higher revenue than residential. Ms. Francis Johnson, 125 Coastline Drive, said she has heard no reference to Gum Grove Park in the Initiative, and that the height of the units should be resolved before being placed on the ballot. Councilman Hunt responded that eleven acres is designated for Gum Grove Park in the Initiative. He stated further that he could not support the advisory measure as he felt it was misleading to the public, not economically feasible, and there is insufficient area to accommodate the uses mentioned. He said besides the Gum Grove Park acreage there I. I I , , ,:~t.-H. . I '," ";~~ ~ . ~ ';.. 'r . I ~l. " .. ,.! . 2-25-91 I is forty-one acres for wetlands, sixteen acres for parks, six acres of roads, twenty acres for development, and the remaining fifty-four acres is inadequate for a golf course, stated there is insufficient draw to support retail, also mentioned the competition that the new redevelopment area development in Los Alamitos will have. Mayor ProTem Laszlo suggested that the reference to housing be deleted, that the hotel use remain, and since the measure is advisory possibly residential units could be added at some point in the future. Councilmember Forsythe moved to amend the advisory ballot measure question, designated as B-91, to set forth the uses of country club, restaurant, conference center, retail, or small scale hotel. Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Hunt Wilson Motion carried I As a point of clarification, Measure B-91 as amended was read in full as follows: "In.the event Measure A-91 on this ballot (the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Initiative Ordinance) does not receive a majority vote, should the city adopt a specific plan for the Hellman Ranch calling for a public golf course, parkland, recreational areas, wetlands, and a combination of the following elements to be located only in areas to be seismically safe for habitable structures: country club, restaurant, conference center, retail, or small scale hotel? This is an advisory measure that is not binding on the City Council. II BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE It was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over for at least two weeks. 'I CIVIL SERVICE BOARD POWERS Mayor ProTem Laszlo mentioned that there seems to have been a number of stress retirements in the city, and it was his intent to ask that the civil Service Board look into the stress issue to determine if there is a problem, the number of cases, the basis for stress retirements of the employees as a whole, not just the Police Department, and not individual cases, and cited also the impact on the budget when individuals are on stress leave or retirement. The Acting City Manager noted it would not be advisable for the Council to direct the Civil Service Board to review disability or stress retirements because of the right of appeal process to the civil Service Board. Councilman Hunt cautioned that the Council not delegate authority to other bodies that may be in violation of State law or interfere with employee negotiations. Mayor ProTem Laszlo asked that this matter be postponed until such time as it is requested to be discussed further. ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE Noting the discussion earlier in the meeting, Mayor ProTem Laszlo requested that this matter be placed on the next agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "I" thru "Nil Mayor ProTem Laszlo requested that Item "I" be removed from the Consent Calendar, and Councilmember Hastings requested Item "N" be removed. 2-25-91 J. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of December 10, 1990. K. Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of December 17, 1990. L. Bids were received until February 4, 1991, 11:00 a.m. for Project Number 602, Water Main Replacement/Reconstruction of Electric Avenue Alley, at which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: 1 ~ Valencia Construction Nobest, Inc. Bobco Construction R & L Sewers, Inc. Williams Supply Co., Inc. John T. Malloy Robert Brkich corporation Valverde Construction Miramontes Construction Co. $198,605.00 246,980.80 259,575.00 262,332.25 265,668.15 273,862.15 308,667.00 311,210.00 333,226.00 M. Rejected the bid of Valencia Construction due to a mistake in the bid proposal, and awarded the bid to Nobest, Inc. in the amount of $246,980.80, and authorized the Acting City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the city. Approved the plans and specifications for walkways at Eisenhower Park, Project Number 623, and authorized the Acting City Manager to advertise for bids. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried I ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM II I II - DEMANDS Mayor ProTem Laszlo inquired about check number 82950 payable to the League of California Cities, check number 82956 payable to Tim Olsen, and check number 82929 payable to U.S. Waterpolo. Staff advised that the first check covered attendance of Mr. Orsini and Mr. curtis at the Planning Conference in Monterey, however given the amount of the check offered to review the backup and report to Council the following day, that Tim Olsen was believed to be an employee of the Police Department and the check covered schooling in Sacramento, also offered to review the U. S. Waterpolo payment. Councilmember Hastings inquired about a check payable to Richard Walker. Staff reported Mr. Walker provides sewer cleaning services. Mayor ProTem Laszlo moved to approve regular demands numbered 82859 through 82997 in the amount of $392,919.01 and payroll demands numbered 44259 through 44440 in the amount of $209,379.69 as approved by I the Finance Committee, with the exception of checks numbered .82950, 82956, and 82989 to be further reviewed by the Acting City Manager and dispersed with his discretion, and that warrants for the remaining demands be drawn on the Treasury for same. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried 2-25-91 I ITEM "N" - 1990 FEDERAL CENSUS - CHALLENGE The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, specifically noting that the 1990 Federal Census indicates a population of 25,098, a decrease of 2,252 from the January 1st estimate from the State Department of Finance of 27,350, and from a review of the preliminary census numbers most of the population loss appears to be from the Leisure World area, and as a comparison the 1980 Leisure World population was 8,828 and the 1990 figure decreased to 6,652 or a drop of 1,800 persons in the Leisure World area based upon the census figures. He noted that in talking with representatives of the Golden Rain Foundation their figures as of July 1, 1990 indicate 8,450 Leisure World residents. He said the concern of the city is that a number of State revenue sources are based on the population of the City, and if the population is in fact miscounted that would result in a substantial revenue loss to the city on a continuing basis, approximately $56 per person, or $80,000 to $100,000 annually over a ten year period. The Director reported to conduct a challenge of the census figures there are two agencies that would conduct a Special Census, the State Department of Finance and/or the U. S. Census Bureau, neither agency having the criteria or costs in place at this time for conducting a Special Census, however that information may be available by July or August of this year. He recalled that a Special Census in the city of Bellflower in 1973 was somewhere in the area of $20,000 to $30,000 for a population of approximately 55,000. The Director reported that as a result of the initial challenge of the census figures there was an adjustment from 24,400 persons to 25,098, however it is still felt that the figures are substantially low. Councilman Hunt pointed out that a recent tally of registered voters shows 7,105 therefore it is felt the population figure is well over that, also said there must be a means to recount an area rather than the entire city. The Director clarified that a smaller area of the City can be counted, however the Department of Finance will not accept a portion count as an adjustment for the entire community. The Director stated also that the information regarding a Special Census will be provided the Council as soon as it is available. Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to hold this matter over until the additional information is received. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried I" CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC HEARINGS - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 1-91 - MINIMUM LOT SIZE - OLD TOWN - RMD and RHD - SUBDIVISION TEXT AMENDMENT 1-91 - PARK LAND DEDICATION FEES The Director of Development Services suggested that the two items be considered concurrently under a consolidated public hearing as they are interrelated. The City Clerk certified that notice of the,public hearings had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against these items. The Director of Development Services presented the staff reports and recommendations of the Planning Commission. He noted that the proposed change to the Subdivision Ordinance is to establish a different criteria for subdivisions that create fifty lots or less, a flat fee of $10,000 per lot created, as opposed to current Code that requires either land dedication or a fee based upon a certain ratio of land area per residential housing unit constructed, and as brought forth during consideration of Variance 1-90, a request to create two twenty-five foot wide lots of a fifty foot wide 2-25-91 lot, in that case the park land dedication fee would have been $156,000 or $78,000 per lot. He reported the second component of ZTA 1-91 proposes to decrease the minimum lot size in Old Town of Residential Medium and High Density Zones from the existing five thousand square feet to two thousand five hundred square feet, bringing the minimum lot size into conformity with the city's density requirement as I set forth in the General Plan and city Code. The Director explained that due to the provisions of the existing '~ . ordinances and the high park dedication fee, an individual having a lot of a size where more than one unit could be developed, there is an incentive to develop that property with as many rental units as the Code will allow rather than a single family unit. He noted that there has been no park dedication fees collected since 1975, quite likely because of the high dedication fee and significantly increased land values. He pointed out that there is a provision of the Subdivision Ordinance that exempts the conversion of rental units to condos, if those units have been in existence for five years or more, from the payment of any park dedication fees, as an example, rental units are constructed, remain as such for a period of five years, are converted to condos, sold as owner-occupied homes under the condo conversion, realizing a substantial return on the original investment, yet the City has no ability to collect the park dedication fee at any time. The Director explained the intent of the Planning Commission was to lower the minimum lot size back to two thousand five hundred feet being that ninety-one percent of the lots in Old Town in the RMD and RHD zones are twenty-five feet in width, current zoning providing for one house per twenty-five foot lot, and the Planning commission felt that the park dedication fee should be reduced I accordingly to encourage the construction of the single family units. The Director suggested change to section l(c) of proposed Ordinance 1329 to delete the word "will" to read "Staff prepared an initial environmental assessment...", also noted that the Planning commission had recommended that the park dedication fee be reviewed on a regular basis, suggesting every five years, the City Attorney agreeing with that recommendation, however it was that directive could be part of the Ordinance rather than being in the Subdivision Ordinance. Councilmember Hastings pointed out that most corner lots are twenty-seven and one half feet wide, and by implementing this change it will essentially make the twenty-five foot wide corner lots legal nonconforming. The Director responded that if there are existing twenty-five foot corner lots they are already nonconforming under existing provisions of the Code which requires a minimum fifty-five foot wide corner lot, and the intent is to not increase the number of nonconforming lots in the community, noting that there is a subsequent provision of the Code for corner lots that states the width of the lot would be increased by ten percent of the minimum required width, which applies throughout the city. Counc1lmember Hastings 'I said she is aware of twenty-five foot wide corner lots in Old Town, therefore there should be a specific provision to reflect minimizing those lots. The Director said he understood the request to be for an exception for the RMD and RHD zones in Old Town from the additional ten percent, yet since those corner lots are presently nonconforming it would be necessary to refer that matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. Discussion continued. The Director suggested that if the Council so desired, the Ordinances could be introduced at this time, and the corner lot issue could be referred to the Planning commission for an amendment. ;.'{ :,:;.;)~;{:. .,., \ ,', '. ' . 2-25-91 t Mayor ProTem Laszlo invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this matter to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Seal Beach, stated her home was constructed in 1978, that she had not been informed that it was legal nonconforming, however the Planning Department at that time had stated it was not legal nonconforming, and inquired of the reason why park dedication fees had not been collected. She noted her corner lot is twenty-five by one hundred feet, a divided fifty foot lot. The Director responded that he could not answer why the fees were not imposed during that time frame, the last park dedication fee payment that was a matter of record was on 8th Street in 1975'. He explained that there is a difference between a nonconforming lot and a nonconforming residence, the nonconforming residence would exist if, as an example, there were not proper setbacks, parking, or over lot coverage, also that the term nonconforming does not mean it is illegal, it simply means that at the time it was built it met all the requirements of the City, and there would be nothing that would prohibit one from building a new structure as long as current Code requirements are met. He added that the twenty-five by one hundred foot lot is not illegal, it is a buildable lot, yet it is nonconforming in that it does not now meet what is the City's minimum size of a fifty foot wide lot, ,that nonconforming means that one can not come to the city and request to subdivide that lot into smaller parcels because it presently does not meet the minimum lot size. Mr. Kurt Dimere, 242 - 5th Street, stated the Director had expressed his comments, he spoke for the Zoning Text Amendment and the construction of single family units, he offered that current Code would have allowed him to built a much higher density than he had chosen to build. There being no further comments, Mayor ProTem Laszlo declared the public hearing closed. I In response to a question posed, the Director reported from 1955 to 1966 the City required a minimum lot size of six thousand five hundred square feet for the R-3 zone, five thousand five hundred square feet in the R-2 zone, in 1966 it was change to a minimum of seven thousand square feet in both zones, and in 1974 it was changed to the current five thousand square feet. I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1329 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 1-91 - PARK LAND DEDICATION FEES - RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS Ordinance Number 1329 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (ZTA) 1- 91, APPROVING SUBDIVISION TEXT AMENDMENT 1-91, AMENDING SECTION 21-32 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF FIFTY (50) OR FEWER LOTS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1329 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1329 as amended, and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1330 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 1-91 - DECREASING MINIMUM LOT SIZE - RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM/RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES - PLANNING DISTRICT ONE Ordinance Number 1330 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 2-25-91 CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (ZTA) 1- 91, AMENDING SECTIONS 28-701, 28-801 AND 28-2301 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY ZONES (RMD) AND (RHD) OF PLANNING DISTRICT I FROM THE EXISTING 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO 2,500 SQUARE FEET." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1330 was waived. Hastings I moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1330 as amended, and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried The Assistant City Attorney noted that the amendment, as requested by Councilmember Hastings, would be presented to the Planning commission for consideration. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NUMBER 1328 - COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES It was the consensus of the Council to hold over until the next meeting proposed Ordinance Number 1328 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A CHARTER CITY, AMENDING THE COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES OF COUNCILMANIC DISTRICTS 2 AND 4 OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND CORRECTING THE EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 1, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 3, AND COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 5, AND AMENDING SECTION 2-70 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH. II RESOLUTION NUMBER 4015 - HONORING DENIS THOMAS - FINANCE DIRECTOR Resolution Number 4015 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND COMMENDING DENIS THOMAS FOR HIS MORE THAN TWENTY-TWO YEARS OF DEDICATED AND LOYAL SERVICE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4015 was waived. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4015 as presented. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4016 - SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION Resolution Number 4016 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF. THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN DEMANDS AND CHECKS FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS ON DEPOSIT WITH THE BANK OF AMERICA, SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK, WELLS FARGO BANK AND FIRST INTERSTATE BANK; AND AUTHORIZING ALTERNATE SIGNATURES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 3987." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4016 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 4016 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried I, RESOLUTION NUMBER 4017 - INSTALLATION OF HANDICAPPED RESTROOMS - PROJECT NUMBER 610 - MARINA COMMUNITY CENTER Resolution Number 4017 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT #610 - INSTALLATION OF '.(.. ,;~I:...;' : ,r.f!:1:.:.:.... ~ .~.~~~~ 2-25-91 ( HANDICAPPED RESTROOMS AT MARINA COMMUNITY CENTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN DOUBLE J CONTRACTORS AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4017 was waived. In response to Council, the Acting city Manager reported it was his understanding that as of this date the contractor had completed replacing several broken tiles and certain lighting fixtures that were his responsibility, that the handicapped restrooms were funded by grant monies, the asbestos removal from the General Fund. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Resolution Number 4017 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4018 - ASBESTOS ABATEMENT - PROJECT NUMBER 620 - MARINA COMMUNITY CENTER and RESOLUTION NUMBER 4019 - ASBESTOS ABATEMENT - PROJECT NUMBER 621 - NORTH SEAL BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER Resolutions Numbered 4018 and 4019 were presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT #620 - ASBESTOS ABATEMENT AT MARINA PARK COMMUNITY CENTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN DIVERSIFIED ASBESTOS TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH" and "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT #620 - ASBESTOS ABATEMENT AT NORTH SEAL BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN DIVERSIFIED ASBESTOS TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH. II By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolutions Numbered 4018 and 4019 were waived. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Resolutions Number 4018 and 4019 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4020 - PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - TURNPOCKET CLOSURE - EASTER PARADE Resolution Number 4020 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH BOUND TURNPOCKETS LOCATED AT THE MAIN STREET/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTION." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4020 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Resolution number 4020 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1331 - WATER CONSERVATION Ordinance Number 1331 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 26A OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONSERVE THE AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLY AND TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND SAFETY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1331 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Hunt, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1331 and that it be passed to second reading. 2-25-91 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4021 - C.A.R.E.S. PUBLIC FORUM Resolution Number 4021 was presented to Council and read in full by Councilmember Forsythe entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE 'I' CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOGNIZING THE SECOND ANNUAL SEAL BEACH C.A.R.E.S. PUBLIC FORUM." It was suggested that the Resolution could also be placed in the form of a Proclamation and provided to the Council for next meeting. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4021 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1332 - EXPANSION - SINGLE FAMILY NON- CONFORMING RESIDENCES - MODIFICATION OF ORDINANCE 1321 - URGENCY Ordinance Number 1332 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE NUMBER 1321, PROVIDING AN EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING EXPANSION REQUESTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 28-2407.A.2(i) OR SECTION 28-2407.A.2(j) AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF." The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, specifically noting that the proposed Ordinance is the result of a request of Council at the February 11th meeting, an amendment to Ordinance Number 1321, and will exempt only single family non-conforming I residences from the moratorium which are non-conforming due to some existing situation other than density or parking, and does not apply to duplexes or triplexes. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Urgency Ordinance Number 1332. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SIGNS Mayor ProTem Laszlo asked that this item be held over until the next meeting. Councilmember Hastings requested a definition of public right-of-way. The Director explained it is basically tQe public dedicated streets, sidewalk area, planter area between the sidewalk and curb, or an area where the city has an easement, also noted that the citizens do not pay taxes on a city right-of-way such as the parkway. He explained further that if it is the determination of the Council to allow signs in the right-of-way area that they be located in that landscaped area which is not detrimental to health and public safety. with regard to allowing the placement of signs in public parks, the Director stated the recommendation of staff is that there be no change to current Code, which does not allow signs in any public right-of-way, and the only reference to fees in the staff report has to do with a deposit to insure that the signs will be removed. , I, REOUEST - CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - MEETING SCHEDULE It was requested that this item be held over until all members of the council are present. SEAL BEACH CITIZENS UNITED It was noted that this matter had been discussed earlier in the meeting. ," .rlt~:.'tJ..:' " ," ~~.,. 2-25-91/3-4-91 I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor ProTem Laszlo declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Beverly Casares, Seal Beach, spoke in favor of Council Concerns being listed first on the agenda, also that the Closed Session listed at the end of the agenda be deleted since Closed Sessions are now held prior to the regular meeting, that the topic of the Closed Session be printed, also that city staff rather than the contract risk management firm process workers compensation matters. She suggested that the Acting City Manager prepare whistle blower legislation in the interest of all employees for consideration. Councilmember Hastings inquired if the City has an policy to protect employee jobs in the event they bring information forward. The Assistant city Attorney said he believed there is State legislation that would protect employee jobs that would likewise apply to the city. It was the consensus of the Council to request the City Attorney to research and prepare such ordinance for consideration. T~ere being no further comments, Mayor ProTem Laszlo declared Oral Communications closed. I, CLOSED SESSION The Assistant City Attorney announced that the city Council would meet in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 to discuss pending litigation in the case of Mola Development Corporation versus City of Seal Beach, and a personnel matter. It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn to Closed Session at 1:35 a.m. The Council reconvened at 2:04 a.m. with Mayor ProTem Laszlo calling the meeting to order. The Assistant city Attorney reported the Council had discussed the matters previously announced and gave direction regarding the pending litigation. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn until Monday, March 4, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. for a budget workshop. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 2:05 a.m. of the Approved: ~ ~.~~) Mayor Attest: I Seal Beach, California March 4, 1991 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 9:02 a.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.