Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1991-03-11 ", 3-4-91/3-11-91 ADJOURNMENT Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, March 11th at 5:30 p.m. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Hunt Motion carried The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m. erk and ex- of Seal Beach Approved: ~d-J {{. W~ Mayor Attest: I Seal Beach, California March 11, 1991 The City Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 5:30 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 I Also present: Mr. Archibold, Acting City Manager Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk Mayor Wilson introduced Supervisor Harriett Wieder who was present for a workshop session regarding various issues of interest to both the County and the city. The Supervisor mentioned matters of traffic and transportation, water and air quality, hazardous waste, and the criminal justice system as being some of the issues of regional concern, many of which are mandated and impact the cities as well as the County. She noted that the items of discussion at this meeting relate to the fiscal status of the County and the impact on the cities, the Fire Department equity study and fees, the impact of Measure M, the Transportation Management Plan, and Waste Reduction and Recycling. Mr. Ron RUbino, Director of Management and Budget, reported the County budget is nearly $3.4 billion, the General Fund approximately $1.3 billion from which the various social and health care programs, law enforcement, courts, etc. are funded, the other funds basically restricted. He noted last year the County budget was $15 million short after cuts, that problem worsened as a result of State funding 3-11-91 reductions of trial courts, indigent medical services, and County justice systems, resulting in a $40 million shortfall. He said the result of that shortfall, without cutting public services, is reduction of capital projects, computer systems, and the contingency portion of the budget, leaving only $50 million discretionary monies over what is mandated. Mr. Rubino stated the County's share of property tax, which is sixteen percent of the one percent, the lowest in the state, and is the result of Orange County historically having had the lowest tax rate as compared to other counties. He pointed out that when the state reduced program funding it also gave the counties the option to recover costs through the jail booking fee, property tax administration fee, a business license tax, and utility users tax. He explained the $154 per jail booking fee was deferred by the County for one year however will be implemented July 1, 1991 with the cost to Seal Beach approximately $37,000 annually, that the administrative cost for property tax distribution is about one percent of that revenue. He noted that Orange County schools are being impacted the most although they receive the highest percentage of property tax, again as a result of the low tax rate in Orange County, and in counties where the schools receive a lesser percentage there is a state subsidy for daily class attendance. He stated it was thought unfair to impose the business license and utility users tax on only those residing in the unincorporated areas, the population of which is down to 158,000 persons. Mr. Rubino said it is felt wrong for the State budget to be balanced at the cost of the counties, in turn the cities and school districts, and it is expected the State will have an even more serious budget problem this year with an anticipated $7 to $10 billion deficit, therefore the State will likely continue to pass costs down to the cities, yet on a positive side the State is looking at broadening the sales tax and motor vehicle tax to help relieve the burden on counties/cities. Mr. Rubino concluded that Orange County has been fortunate to have a healthier economy and employment ratio than other areas of the State during the recession and in the budget process, yet the County will need to work closely with the cities to develop an equitable solution to the cost sharing. with regard to an increase of sales tax, Mr. Rubino noted that the State is looking to a one percent increase, the County Criminal Justice Facilities Measure "J" proposes a half cent sales tax increase, therefore a further increase may not be acceptable to the public. He pointed out that the proposed Boatwright bill would expand motor vehicle fees, distribute those fees to the cities and counties to replenish the monies lost through jail booking and property tax administration, however the State is looking to do the same thing and placing those monies in the State General . Fund. Supervisor Wieder reported applying the utility users tax to the unincorporated areas had been looked at however ,it was found that would not replenish monies the State is : taking away, also that there may be monies under Measure "J" to cover the cost of booking fees. I I Chief Larry Holms, Director of Orange County Fire Services, reported in August 1990 the Board of Supervisors directed the Department to work with the county Administrators office and the contract city Managers to look at a number of issues regarding fire protection and report back to the Board recommendations to meet the changing needs of the communities and unincorporated areas that are served. He said as a result of several meetings the Managers have presented issues to the County to begin a redirection of the process and identify organizational changes to give city I L 3-11-91 I governments more involvement in the operation of the Fire Department. He noted there has been a request to not move forward with the paramedic fee at this time until all issues can be addressed and there is a recommendation from the Task Force, however they are going forward with the fire prevention fees to encourage compliance with the Fire Code. He stated the City Manager's have also indicated desire to work together to maintain the regional fire system and services that presently exist. The Chief advised that a recommendation being considered is that the cost to contract cities be increased no more than the cost of living, or five percent, for the upcoming year until the equity issue is resolved. Chief Holms reported the Seal Beach contract has increased a total of fifty-five percent since 1982 when County service began, and those costs would have been much greater had the city continued to maintain the local department, also, the older City equipment in 1982 has been replaced with the exception of one truck which will be replaced in the next year. Councilman Hunt commended the services of the Orange County Fire Department to Seal Beach, however expressed his views that the contract cities have realized significant cost increases which, to those cities, means that they are in fact presently paying for the paramedic services where other areas are not, which is an equity issue. The Chief responded that there was a study done prior to the equity study to address the charges, cost formula, and how the fees will apply to the cash contract cities. He again said it is the opinion of the cities to not move forward with the paramedic fees until all of the concerns have been resolved. Councilmember Hastings requested a breakdown of fire and paramedic services, and the related costs. The Chief reported emergency medical responses in this community is approximately seventy percent however those responses are accompanied by a ladder or engine company, and noted the information requested is reported to the City on an annual basis. He explained that the original formula for establishing contract city costs was based upon the number of calls, assessed valuation, population, and square miles, that the paramedic fees being considered would be on a per call basis, the same cost no matter the city or area. Councilman Hunt said he believed that Leisure World has two vehicles that provide services .. that would typically be performed by paramedics, which could serve to reduce the factor of cost for a senior community. The Chief confirmed that the response rate in Seal Beach Leisure World is less than in Laguna Hills. Councilman Laszlo noted attempts in recent years to have an opticon installed at the signal near the Beverly Manor Station. The Chief explained that the emergency signal preemption device clears an intersection for emergency units, that the intention is to identify prime corridors and intersections, which some cities are presently doing, and in the near future vendors for that equipment will be identified to the Board who will make the final decision on the purchase of those devices. He noted purchase and placement of the equipment would be based upon available resources, in some instances local jurisdictions are making the purchase from their resources or developer contributions. I I Supervisor Wieder stated that there had been discussion with City staff prior to the workshop regarding AB 939 waste reduction and recycling. The Acting city Attorney reported the deadline for submittal of the Plan required by AB939 is going to be extended. Mr. Stan Oftelie, Executive Director of the Orange County Transportation Committee, reported the passage of Measure "Mil, a voter authorized expenditure of $3.1 billion for 3-11-91 specifically identified projects, those affecting Seal Beach primarily the regional and local street and road projects, then major freeway projects and transit projects. He offered that Measure "M" monies can only be used for transportation improvement projects, and that an Attorney General opinion with regard to expenditure for emergency signal devices has been requested. Mr. Oftelie reported the I intent is to commence the projects in an aggressive manner, likely before the taxes are collected. He noted that prior , to passage of Measure "M" it was determined that fifteen percent of the monies would revert back to the cities, in turn the cities will make the determination as to the priority projects within that community, the formula based upon population, miles of arterial highways, and taxable sales. He added that a Growth Management Plan is a requirement to be eligible to receive the funds, that the City/County Coordinating Committee is presently establishing guidelines for preparation of that Plan that will have a minimum of conflict with State requirements for congestion management, that there is a need to participate with neighboring cities on inter-jurisdictional planning activities associated with growth management areas, also a seven year Capital Improvement Program and Local Pavement Management Program is necessary. He stressed the importance of having the Growth Management Element in the local General Plan to be eligible for the Measure "M" monies that will be distributed in 1992, also cautioned that if a city is presently allocating funds for street and roadway repairs or improvements, that practice should continue otherwise there is a legislative requirement to forfeit funds under Measure "M" and Proposition 111. Mr. Oftelie reported that in order to expedite the transportation improvements the County I borrowed $49 million at 5.4 percent interest, reinvested the money at approximately 8 percent, those monies expected to '.' be spent within the nearly nineteen months of Measure "Mil, and noted an effort to invalidate the tax was turned down by the Supreme Court, it was referred to a lower court where the challenge was summarily denied. Mr. Oftelie confirmed that Measure "M" monies are in addition to Proposition 111 and gas tax funds. Supervisor Wieder offered the services of Mr. Oftelie, through her office, to assist with the preparation of the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Bill Narang, Administrator, Leisure World, inquired as to the status of the Leisure World soundwall in the area where the freeway had been widened, noting that Leisure World and the City had set aside funds to advance that project on the priority list. Mr. Oftelie responded that the County Transportation Commission has established a special sound wall financing program, a revolving fund, for those projects on the State priority list, that list ranging from one through seventeen within the County, that the State reimburses the County for each soundwall constructed upon that project becoming the priority on the state list. He said it was his understanding that the Leisure World wall was brought before the Transportation Technical Advisory I Committee at which time the Committee suggested that if the City moved forward on the design and engineering, the - project would become a competitor for construction money, however determined the City should not be reimbursed for the design and engineering work, and at this point there has been no further response from the city. Supervisor Wieder suggested that contact be made with her office to determine the status of the Leisure World soundwall project. Councilman Hunt expressed his understanding that since the community of Seal Beach had offered to advance half of the construction monies, the City would be reimbursed those monies at such time as the project came up for construction ,... .... O. . ,. ,,"-" . .-: :".;.1:;: ':. ;, " " .. ~ . 3-11-91 I on the state list, that a primary contention was that the City was entitled to the soundwall based upon the sound readings at the time of the freeway widening or shortly thereafter. Mr. Oftelie said it was felt the city did not pursue the matter as a result of the denial of reimbursement for design and engineering of the project. The Supervisor offered to look into this matter and report back. Councilmember Hastings referred to a report written by Richard Lyon and the concern of residents regarding beach erosion, the east beach having eroded three hundred feet or within one hundred twenty-nine feet of the boardwalk, and said it is understood the beach at Huntington Beach is being nourished and questioned why the city of Seal Beach is not. Supervisor Wieder said the statement was incorrect, that Huntington Beach is receiving no more than Seal Beach. Mr. Larry Paul, Manager of Coastal Facilities, reported the nourishment project is part of a Federal Corps of Engineers obligation, and as part of that process, the down coast side of the breakwater at Anaheim Bay is slated to be renourished and has been with a local share of funds. He explained that beach sand comes from a north/south current, also fed from rivers and creeks, yet man interrupts that flow by placing breakwaters, jetties, etc., and as a result of the federal breakwater at Anaheim Bay the Corps has accepted and acknowledges its obligation and periodically nourishes the beaches on the down coast side, the funding based upon a formula of federal, city, and County monies. Mr. Paul again pointed out that if the sand loss is the result of a Federal project the Corps will take the responsibility, however whether there are federal funds available is another. question, and recommended that there be documentation as to the loss or gain of sand from the beach over a period of years. He referred to a Coastal California Study and $2 million to be used along the coast of Orange County over a five year period for the purpose of determining through highly technical means the waves, currents, onshore transport, water temperature, wave attack, etc., to determine what is taking place on the beaches, and will result in a planners handbook, coastal protection structures, etc. supervisor Wieder inquired if the City has corresponded with the Corps, and if so, requested copies of same. Mr. Paul offered that if the Corps does not acknowledge any responsibility, he would suggest that the California Department of Boating and Waterways has funds for such purposes, either by grant or planning assistance, Coastal Conservancy grants another option, also stated the Department of the Navy is periodically required to dredge Anaheim Bay and that sand, if compatible, can be placed on the beach. He explained there is approximately eight regulatory agencies to go through to accomplish a project of this nature, and takes approximately a year. Supervisor Wieder offered to assist in bringing the city together with the proper resources, and suggested that the city contact her office for a meeting. supervisor Wieder thanked the Council for allowing the workshop, also indicated her willingness to meet with representatives of the Councilor staff to discuss the twenty year Air Quality Plan and its impacts. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m. I I 3-11-91/3-11-91 Clerk and x-o of Seal Beach Approved: ~oL....v t. ~~ Mayor I Attest: Seal Beach, California March 11, 1991 The city Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:24 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 I Also present: Mr. Archibold, Acting City Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant city Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk 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 Mayor Wilson asked that agenda item "AA", the Beach Commission, be considered after item "A", proposed Resolution Number 4001. Councilman Laszlo moved a substitute motion, to consider item "AA" after item "G", campaign financial statement. Councilmember Forsythe seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4001 - ESTABLISHING PROCEDURAL RULES - COUNCIL MEETINGS Resolution Number 4001 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING PROCEDURAL RULES FOR CONDUCT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS. II By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4001 was waived. The Acting city Manager reported the Resolution had been revised pursuant to prior Council 3-11-91 I' discussion. councilmember Hastings asked that Section 5, the order of business, list city Council Items as section "g" and that Council Concerns be section "h", that the provision for Closed Session be deleted as it had been determined they would be held prior to the regular meeting, that Section 9(h) be amended to apply the fifteen minute limit on Council Items to all other agenda items as well, that the wording of section 11(a) be amended to read "each person desiring to address the Council shall approach the podium....and when recognized by the chair shall step to the microphone...", that section 11(b) be amended to insert the words "at the discretion of the Council" to read "the presiding officer shall not recognize the same person to speak more than once on the same subject except at the discretion of the city CounciL..", and with regard to section 12(d) stated she had no objection to persons in the audience showing approval by handclapping, therefore reference to handclapping should be deleted. Councilmember Forsythe expressed concern with deleting handclapping given the possibility of an organized disruption of a meeting, recognized an advantage to the public of having oral communications for thirty minutes at the beginning of the agenda, and that the improved wording suggested would be acceptable, however spoke for the balance of the agenda to remain as it is presently. Councilmember Forsythe noted that the agenda could be amended to hear an urgent Council Concern early in the meeting if deemed necessary, that she also had concern with having the public wait until later in the meeting for public hearings and legislative items. She spoke for listing a Closed Session at the end of the agenda should the need to meet arise. The Assistant City Attorney pointed out that the need to hold a Closed Session may not be known at the time of the previous meeting thus the listed Session at the end of the agenda allows the option for the Council to meet if necessary, yet the Council continues to have the option to schedule a Closed Session prior to the regular meeting. Councilman Hunt spoke in favor of Oral communications, Council Items and the Closed Session remaining at the end of the agenda, objected to limiting Oral Communications to thirty minutes, and cited public hearings and legislation as the most important matters to be considered. Councilman Laszlo expressed his opinion that Council Items and Council Concerns should appear at the beginning of the agenda, limited to fifteen minutes per speaker, immediately after Oral Communications, and that handclapping should be deleted. Mayor Wilson agreed that the agenda format should remain as it is with the exception of placing Oral Communications at the beginning, disagreed with having a second Oral Communication period, and spoke for holding Closed Sessions prior to the regular meetings when possible. I I Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4001 with the changes proposed by Councilmember Hastings. After further discussion Councilmember Hastings offered to consider placing Council Items and Council Concerns later on the agenda as long as they are separate items, with wording changes to Sections 11(a) and 11(b) as previously stated, Section 9(h) amended to impose the fifteen minute time limit, and that handclapping be deleted from Section 12(d), and moved same as a substitute motion. Upon clarification that the agenda format would remain as presently exists, that the Resolution would be amended to incorporate the various wording changes as suggested, that a thirty minute Oral Communication period would at the beginning of the agenda, a second Oral Communications at the end, and that - Council Items and Council Concerns be towards the end of the 3-11-91 agenda, Councilmember Forsythe seconded the motion. Concern was again expressed with regard to deleting the reference to handclapping, also with Council adherence to a fifteen minute speaking limit under Council Items. After further discussion the substitute motion was withdrawn and restated by Councilmember Hastings that the wording of I Sections 11(a) and 11(b) be amended as previously stated, that Section 9(h) provide for a fifteen minute limit per speaker under Council Items as well as other agenda items, that section 12(d) delete reference to handclapping, and Section 5 be amended to provide for City Council Items as subsection (g) after Oral Communications, that Council Concerns become subsection (m) before the second Oral Communications, Closed Session, and Adjournment. It was clarified that the new agenda format would be followed on a trial basis and if not workable, would be reconsidered by the Council. Councilman Laszlo seconded the substitute motion. The Assistant City Attorney suggested revised language of Section 12(d), Rules of Decorum, replacing reference to "handclapping" with "or any other type of demonstration..." The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the suggested revised language. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Hunt, Wilson Motion carried PRESENTATION Mayor Wilson presented a commendation to Ms. Joyce Risner from the orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks commission in appreciation for her services as a member of that Commission. Ms. Risner accepted the commendation with I appreciation. She suggested that the Commission is a body that could be a source of funding for improvements to certain City-owned land, and stated there is a commission Resolution for funding of Gum Grove Park improvements at such time as that area is owned by the City. Mayor Wilson reported her inquiry of the Commission for funds for groin repair and sand replenishment, to which it was suggested that Supervisor Wieder be contacted. PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Wilson proclaimed March 15, 1991 as the date of the Second Annual Public Forum Sponsored by Seal Beach C.A.R.E.S. Councilmember Forsythe announced that the program will be cablecast, that a telephone question and answer period will be held during the second hour of the program, and guests will be Chief Stearns, Officer paap, a local probation officer, and Los Alamitos High School students. The month of April, 1991 was proclaimed "Child Abuse Prevention Month" by Mayor Wilson. Mayor Wilson proclaimed March 10th through March 16th, 1991, as "Girl Scout Week in Seal Beach." I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, said it was his understanding the Building Industry has now joined the Mola lawsuit, and in his opinion the action came about as a result of the City signing a development agreement while having knowledge that the Housing Element was not in conformance with the General Plan, a fact that he felt was known to Mola Development. He said he would hope people want ~o keep the village atmosphere, some want no development, while others favor the Mola development and cite financial benefits to the City, "1t-:.1 , f....~(J.\i\ 6 t ,;' . ..01 iQl.. .... 'S'., 3-11-91 I yet one should look at what is causing budget problems in .. other cities, uncontrolled, rampant development, and this development is proposed to be built on dangerous land, the developer will make millions, then leave town. Ms. Linda stobbe, Seal Beach, read a letter addressed to the city council claiming that the information requested from the Archaeological Review Committee was not complete, that important data was hoped to have been added to the report before the information was called for, that Mr. Larry Meyers, Native American Heritage Commission, Dr. Keith Dixon, Anthropology Professor, Cal State Long Beach, the city of Irvine, and other experts and agencies, were called upon to provide additional professional information. The letter continued to state that it had been hoped all of the information could be brought together for a final report, however as a result of a stalemate the report has not been finalized, and it was requested that there be an opportunity to continue the Committee's work to complete the report. Dr. George Telford, 13581 Medinac Lane, stated he was impressed with the patriotic ceremonies at Council meetings, yet he wondered if the meaning of the flag salute, freedom of speech, etc. is understood. He said there is concern with the lack of participation in the electoral process, a' threat to the democratic way, and predicted no more than a twenty percent vote at the special election. He spoke regarding the distribution of leaflets, passing of petitions, harassment of voters, and relaxation of regulations in Leisure World, also condemned the legal action that included members of the Council, and stated if Mola wins the lawsuit the taxpayers will bear the costs. Ms. Joyce Risner, Driftwood Avenue, referred to a comment with regard to the cause of the Mola legal action, and responded that action occurred after the Hellman Ranch Project had been approved by the Council, the Planning Commission, and Coastal Commission, and what caused the plan to be invalid was the legal action brought by the Wetlands Restoration Society. She noted the project was overturned by the court because the Housing Element had not been updated, a situation similar to nearly seventy-five percent of California cities, the present Council then denied the project, and pointed out the right of the people to go to the initiative process. Ms. Carla Watson, Catalina Avenue, read excerpts from a California Planning Report regarding the increased frequency of developers, as well as large companies, filing lawsuits and naming individual Council members, to which she said many are being overturned. She deemed Mola Development as a stranger in the city, and those who support them are aiding and abetting the initiator of the slapped suit. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, spoke to Resolution Number 4001 and the right of the people to ask questions about the city, objected to the reference to or need for a Sergeant at Arms, and said handclapping seems to only be objectionable when one disagrees. He made reference to ordinances proposed to reduce the parkland dedication fees, to which he objected, and the decrease of minimum lot sizes to which he stated there is no definition of density, that current new construction is from property line to property line, no yards or lawns, that the minimum five thousand square feet should be maintained, and suggested that both ordinances be rejected. Ms. Beverly Casares, Seal Beach, made reference to a document from the city Attorney that was provided to members of boards and commissions in which it stated that questions shall be answered, and said when she asks a question it shall be answered and when an item is requested to be placed on the agenda it shall be at the beginning, not at the end, of that agenda. Mr. Mario Voce, 730 Catalina Avenue, offered that he once supported , 3-11-91 I . I 3-11-91 the Mola project, later changed his mind, that the Council' appropriately rejected the project, and he called for the removal of the political walls to Leisure World. Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th street, made reference to the item of discussion to place signs in the public right-of-way and urged that the City continue the present policy to not allow such placement, citing court cases and past local I experiences of damage, police and public works time to repair damages as a result of placing signs on the public right-of-way. A member of audience provided the Council with a letter regarding an upcoming hearing before the state Lands and Coastal Commission, the subject of which believed to be Sunset Aquatic Park improvements. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. COUNCIL ITEMS ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE In response to Councilmember Laszlo, Committee Chairman Mr. Ellsworth reported the last meeting of the Archaeological Committee was held in the City Manager's conference room at 7:00 p.m. with all members present and as well as three members of the public, tha& during discussion of areas of concern regarding the Committee's report there appeared to be no agreement or compromise forthcoming therefore Committee members Stobbe, Collier and Hoffman left the meeting. He said he had later been informed those members had gone to a local coffee shop where discussion continued regarding the wording of the report, however he was not present and this information had been reported to him. Councilman Laszlo asked if this incident would constitute a violation of the Brown Act. The Assistant city Attorney responded that there would need to be a knowing violation of the Act and action taken, as an example if there was a secret gathering and the product of that meeting became an action on the part of the City, there could be a Brown Act violation, however he was not aware if changes to the report were actually made in this case. Mr. Ellsworth stated he believed the Council had received a copy of the draft report prior to the time of the Archaeological Committee meeting. Councilmember Hastings said she believed that to leave the regular meeting, reconvene elsewhere, deliberate, and adjourn, constitutes taking an action. Ms. Beverly Casares, Seal Beach, reviewed the sequence of various occurrences since the Council called for the formation of the Archaeological Committee in August, referred to several instances of involvement of a member of the Committee in support of the Mola project, stated there was consensus agreement of the Committee report on January 7th, yet another meeting and changes were requested, and that three Committee members have now made changes to eighteen areas of the report. She read portions of the Brown Act regarding deliberations, and claimed the meeting by the three members of the Committee was a violation. Ms. Casares also mentioned letters from a Professor Berger and the Native American Coalition in support of the report submitted by Committee member Hahn, which she again stated was agreed upon by consensus on January 7th. Mr. John Nakagawa, 12th Street, stated he too attended the Committee meeting, noted disagreement between the members regarding the report, observed the three members leave the meeting, that he also went to the coffee shop however did not personally observe the activity of those persons. He offered that staff should have spoken with the members directly to determine what took place, that the Committee may claim they were unaware of the provisions of the Brown Act which could be either a . I I I " ...1''':\0;I! ., .. a. I . ~ . .. I 3-11-91 I violation or a misdemeanor. The Assistant City Attorney again explained that to be a misdemeanor there must be a knowing violation of the Act and action taken, that a Brown Act orientation paper has been provided to all city board and commission members, and the Acting city Manager had talked with the members of the Committee regarding this incident. He clarified that a recommendation from the Committee will require public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council prior to adoption. Mayor Wilson suggested that the draft report be held over until completed. councilmember Hastings stated the Acting City Manager did not have a consensus direction to contact the Committee. I Councilmember Hastings moved to accept the completed, documented report with attachments, transmitted by Committee member Hahn, and refer same to the Planning Commission for public hearings. Upon clarification that the referenced report was the original, unchanged report that received consensus approval on January 7th, Councilmember Forsythe seconded.the motion. Councilman Hunt said he did not believe there was a consensus of the Committee, and suggested they be called together to resolve the differences of opinion for a final report. Committee member Ms. stobbe stated there had not been a consensus report, and that the letters with the report provided to the Council had not been before the Committee. She asked that the Committee be given the opportunity to meet and come to agreement on a final report. Councilman Laszlo recalled that this Committee was established as a result of concern with the archaeological report and manner of archaeological investigation relating to the Mola project, and deemed the report submitted by the Committee members that met at the coffee shop as tainted. Discussion continued. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Hunt, Wilson Motion carried I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 9:40 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:52 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. CAMPAIGN STATEMENT Councilman Laszlo made reference to the campaign disclosure statement of the Initiative Committee, listed as 'Seal Beach Citizens for Parks, Open Space, and Responsible Government~ sponsored by Mola Development Corporation,' and inquired if that was the official name of the Committee. He noted $95,200 was reported as having been expended through December 31st, inquired as to the period covered of payments to the paid office personnel and why a dinner held for signature gathers had not been reported. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, questioned the $25,000 payment offered by Mola Development in the event the special election was called on February 25th. Members of the Council responded that the offer was not accepted. BEACH COMMISSION REPORT By action of the council, the Beach Commission report, Item "AA", was considered out of order at this time. Mr. Bill Scott, Chairman, reported the Commission has completed their study of water craft and speeds thereof and requested Lifeguard Dan Dorsey present the report. Mr. Dorsey read the March 5th report and recommendation that an ordinance be prepared giving water safety enforcement (citation) powers to Lifeguard Department personnel, and approval of an expenditure of $2885.40 to allow nine lifeguards (three 3-11-9i early personnel and six boat operators) to complete the Orange County Sheriff's Penal Code 832 class. Councilmember Forsythe reported she had the opportunity to participate and observe the activities and problems faced by Lifeguard personnel, largely the result of the growing number of boaters, water and jet skiers, wind surfers, swimmers, surfers, etc. She noted the Lifeguards currently have no authority to correct a situation and the alternative is to call for a police officer or the Orange County Sheriff, and spoke in support of authorizing certain members of the Lifeguard Department citation powers. Discussion followed. Mr. Dorsey said he believed the fine for a regular infraction is $50, that two guards man the lifeguard boat, that the training cost would not be recurring unless certified personnel were to leave the Department, and with regard to police officer status, he said he believed the city's liability attorney would responded to that question in the affirmative, however he was not certain that would be true since this authority would not allow the use of a weapon, handcuffs, etc., also that the Police Department previously indicated their support for the Lifeguard Department having citation powers which would reduce the calls for assistance. Councilmember Hastings spoke for citation authority for beach related violations also. Councilmember Forsythe stated the intent was that there be citation powers for water related incidents, that the training of nine persons would allow coverage of the various shifts, and with regard to liability, the lifeguards presently sign the citations as a witness. Again with regard to liability concerns, Mr. Dorsey said he believed that the thrust of Mr. Stevenson's concerns were a perception that this would be a new enterprise of the Lifeguards, yet the Department has performed in a manner within the concerns he addressed for a number of years. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to approve the recommendations of the Beach Commission to grant Penal Code 832 enforcement authority to Lifeguard personnel and authorize the expenditure of funds for training. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, wilson None Motion carried SEAL BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE At the request of Chamber member Mr. Bennett, this item was held over until the March 25th meeting. I 'I CHARTER AMENDMENTS and PERSONNEL RULES Councilmember Hastings said this item was placed on the agenda as a result of concerns with the Charter being out of date with State and Federal laws, particularly with regard to personnel rules. The Assistant city Attorney referred to a memorandum to the Council from Mr. Walsh of the City Attorney's office regarding these matters, noted that the Council had previously deferred action on these issues until the Grand Jury report was completed, that there had been I consideration of meeting in a study session, and pointed out that should there be a determination to make changes to the personnel rules, those would need to go before the personnel organizations. Councilmember Hastings recalled her review of the proposed personnel rules in comparison to the existing rules, submittal of those to Mr. Bruce Stark who made further comments, and that the recommended changes had been submitted to Mr. Walsh. She asked that the city Attorney's office review and make recommendations to bring the Charter into compliance with current law. ':i. . '\~-1"~ ..' l '. 3-11-91 I After brief discussion, Councilman Laszlo moved to direct the Acting city Manager to develop guidelines for a Charter Review Committee. Councilman Hunt suggested that a Charter Committee initiate the review and submit recommendations to the City Attorney. Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion. The Assistant City Attorney pointed out that in dealing with personnel matters the prime factor is the personnel rules as opposed to the Charter which is subject to interpretation, and their memorandum of December 6th recommended that the Charter contain language to allow that document to be consistent with state and Federal fair employment laws. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Hunt Motion carried The Assistant City Attorney recalled that there were revised personnel rules previously approved by the employee organizations, also amended rules provided by a member of the public, that could be provided to the Council for review. Councilman Laszlo noted the action of the Council to refer the report from the Archaeological Committee to the Planning Commission, therefore the committee, having fulfilled their task, should be disbanded. I COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilmember Forsythe noted installation of an electric gate at Oakwood Apartments and inquired if Oakwood could become a gated community without notification to the city. The Director of Development Services advised that Oakwood did obtain an electrical permit for the activated gate system, that there is nothing in the Code that would not allow them to secure their premises in that manner, also that provision has been made for emergency access. He explained there is a phone system to gain visitation rights, yet the parking lot is accessible by card gate. Councilmember Hastings requested that Oakwood management be contacted to ensure that there will be access for political purposes. Councilman Hunt made reference.to the potential financial problems that the City will face in the upcoming year, and instead of reducing staff and services he suggested the Council set an example by reducing their compensation to $125 and eliminate Council expenses, limit the assignments made to the city Attorney firm, and requested that the Acting city Manager be directed to review street lighting, street sweeping, tree trimming, and water fees prior to July 1st and report back to the Council. Councilman Laszlo stated recent news articles show Seal Beach to be in a better financial state than other southland communities. Councilmember Hastings mentioned her concern with the condition of the beach, and read a March 11th letter from Richard Lyons regarding beach erosion and the recommendations of a Moffatt and Nichol study to correct the erosion. Councilmember Hastings reported that this matter of concern was presented to Supervisor Wieder at the meeting held earlier this date, and it is hoped that grants and funding sources can be found so that corrective action can be taken before storms and high surf damage adjacent properties. Councilmember Forsythe asked the city Attorney to research whether redevelopment monies could be used to replenish beach sand. I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "J" thru "N" Councilman Laszlo requested Items "JII and "N" be removed from the Consent Calendar, and a member of the audience 3-11-91 requested Item ilK" removed. Hastings moved, second by Hunt, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items "J, K, and Nil, as presented. L. Denied the claim for damages of Mr. John Boag and referred same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. Approved the specifications for contract tree trimming and authorized the advertisement for bids. I' M. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "J" - DEMANDS Councilman Laszlo inquired about check number 83000 payable to the Orange County League for Laszlo and wilson, check number 83133 payable to John Scott for registration and per diem. Councilmember Hastings referred to check number 83134 and the identity of Michelle Scott. The City Clerk said 83000 was late reservations for the League General Meeting at the Red Lion Inn, and the Acting City Manager said he believed 83133 was for POST reimbursable police officer training. Councilmember Hastings also inquired of checks payable to Eric Tittle, Sunnyvale Hilton, and Santa Clara Marriott for Recreation Department personnel. Councilman Laszlo said it was his understanding that City policy allowed only department heads to attend out-of-town meetings I and training, and possibly there should be some pre-approval procedure. Councilmember Hastings inquired about the petty cash fund for the Police Chief and payment to Psychological Corporation, Inc., and spoke for limiting or eliminating meeting and travel expenses. Mayor Wilson noted that it is the responsibility of the Finance Committee to review the warrants prior to the meeting. Councilman Hunt said as a member of the Finance Committee he reviewed a number of such expenditures, most of which were for training, and the benefits derived have long been recognized. Councilman Laszlo agreed with Mr. Hunt, however offered that there are often training opportunities locally that could be taken advantage of. Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to approve regular demands numbered 92998 through 83157 in the amount of $1,011,659.19 and payroll demands numbered 44441 through 44611 in the amount of $269,492.43 as approved by the Finance Committee and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ITEM "K" - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - ENGINEERING SERVICES Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, asked if any financial savings I have been realized by contracting for City Engineer services, also if the Street Lighting Assessment District " requires a vote of the people. Mr. Stark was advised that a requirement of the Lighting District is that it receive review and update annually, also that it is not a new District, that it has existed for several years, and does not require voter approval. Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to authorize the Acting City Manager to execute the agreement with Willdan Associates in the amount of $7500 to provide engineering services for the Street Lighting Assessment District. ~ 3-11-91 AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I ITEM "N" - SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - LOS ALAMITOS/SEAL BEACH At the request of Councilman Laszlo, the Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement between the cities of Los Alamitos and Seal Beach was held over to allow for further information regarding the associated costs. I PUBLIC HEARINGS - APPEALS - MINOR PLAN REVIEW 13-90 - 123 - 8TH STREET and 15-90 - 601 OCEAN AVENUE - SHELTRAW/BROWN Mayor Wilson declared the public hearings open to consider appeal to Planning Commission determination on Minor Plan Review 13-90, a request to allow for the expansion of an existing non-conforming five unit apartment structure by adding an additional eight hundred one square feet of living space, and appeal to Planning Commission determination on Minor Plan Review 15-90, a request to allow the expansion of an existing non-conforming four unit apartment structure by adding an additional one thousand nineteen square feet of living space. The City Clerk certified that the public hearing had been noticed as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against these items. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, noted that the appeals to Planning Commission denial of the requests, based upon the Code definition of bedroom and expansion of non-conforming residential uses, was considered by the Council on January 14th and the applicant was allowed to submit revised plans to the Planning Commission. He reported the Commission recommended approval of the requests with certain modifications, that a single entrance be provided to a large bedroom that was originally a separate bedroom and den area, that as mucH of interior sub-walls be removed to comply with provisions of the Building Code regarding seismic strength, in addition the Commission imposed conditions requiring a recorded Covenant indicating that the units shall not be sold as having more than one bedroom until and unless the Code is amended to allow units to be converted to more than one bedroom, also. that the garages on the subject properties be available for use as parking rather than storage, that a stipulation be placed on future leases to the effect that the City retains the right to enter and inspect the garage areas to insure they are being used for that purpose. Mayor Wilson invited members of the audience wishing to speak to these items to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Bill Bennett, 311 Ocean Avenue, stated he was present on behalf of Mr. Al Brown, and that the concern lies with the condition that would remove the separation, making one long, large bedroom. Mr. Bennett said his concern was based upon the fact that Mr. Brown and his architect worked with the Planning Department, modified the plan to meet their requirements, the project was essentially approved by the Planning Department with only minor plan review by the Planning Commission, and the plans meet all current guidelines of the Code. He said the reason for the prior denial was the application of an antiquated 1969 definition of bedroom, that where that bedroom definition was meant to apply no longer exists, was not meant to apply to Section 28-2407 nor has it ever been applied to a request under 28-2407, yet there have been a number of requests over the years that have allowed dens, family rooms, offices, etc. He added that Section 28-210 is vague, ambiguous, and incomprehensive where by implication a dining room, family room, den, or home office would be defined as a bedroom. Mr. Bennett I 3-11-91 stated the projects proposed are modern and up-to-date, designed for the business or professional tenant with no children that would find a home office or study desirable. He offered that it may be necessary to revise section 28- 2407 with regard to allowable square footage and section 28- 210 should be deleted to create a meaningful definition of a I bedroom, however neither of those Sections should be applied retroactively, and suggested the Council consider what is fair in this particular case. In response to Council, the-- Development Services Director explained that Section 28-210 was placed in the Code at the time parking requirements were modified, in 1965 the number of parking spaces were based upon the number of bedrooms in the unit, in 1968 the Code was changed to require two parking spaces per unit irregardless of the number of bedrooms, yet Section 28-210 was not changed and there is no record of whether that Section was discussed or how it would be applied in the future, also in 1968 there was a change made for minor expansions to non-conforming uses, allowing closets, bathrooms, or closing of existing porches or patios, and a specific provision that no additional bedrooms could be added. The Director said it is likely the Planning commission may look at section 28-210 with their review of the non-conforming provisions of the Code however it does not appear they are leaning towards allowing new rooms to a non-conforming structure at this time, and may consider reducing the current ten percent allowable addition under a minor plan review. He offered that upon staff review of minor plan reviews over the past few years he noted there have been a number of circumstances where applications were submitted showing the addition of a bedroom, the Planning I Commission approved them, however required that they be designated as a den or study or use other than a bedroom. Mr. LeRoy Brown, 705 Ocean Avenue, made reference to the options ~efore the council, to sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission or sustain the appeal, and asked if the projects could be rejected entirely. Staff explained the history of actions on the projects, and most recently the Planning Commission approved the project with conditions, and only the condition that the wall and one doorway be removed is under appeal. Mr. Brown recalled a prior concern of the Council was the amount of financial investment the applicant has made to date, to which he said payment of architectural fees are contingent upon approval of the project, noted that the applicant had threatened a legal action if the projects were not approved, also that Section 28-210 must be complied with since it remains in the Code. He noted a staff response to the commission that projects may be denied if it is determined there is a health and welfare issue, which is likely in this case if the additional room is allowed, increasing the need for street parking, which effects the remainder of the City. Mr. Brown also emphasized the need for the garages to be used for parking rather than storage as they are presently. Councilmember Hastings reported she had received six telephone calls objecting to the projects, however she felt I there was no bad will intended by the applicant and his architect, or City staff in not being aware of the bedroom definition in the Code. The Director confirmed that there was no awareness of the bedroom definition until late November nor is there any evidence that this definition has been considered by the Commission in past approvals. Councilmember Forsythe noted that if the appeal were approved as requested by the applicant, the Council would not be in compliance with its Code. Councilman Hunt made reference to the request for fair treatment, however questioned what is likewise fair for the remaining residents of the area where vehicles will be parked on the street for . 3-11-91 I years to come, also that there seems to be a contradiction with the intent of the downzoning philosophy in the old town area and additions to non-conforming structures particularly with regard to parking. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, recalled that at one point in time the downzoning issue was so repressive that nothing could be done, thereafter the ten percent expansion to non-conforming units came about with as much parking as can be provided, yet there is now another attempt to revise the regulations, and questioned how the precedent established is recent years can not be considered. Mr. Bennett offered that when the ten percent expansion for non-conforming units was adopted it basically created an exemption from additional parking requirements, that he felt the Planning Commission agreed that the projects meet the intent of the Code, however have placed other conditions on the project, yet there is nothing that makes the proposed den definable as a bedroom, that section 28-210 has never has been applied to past projects thus should not be applicable to this project, and the projects fully comply with Section 28-2407. He suggested that if the Code is to be changed that is acceptable, however such change should not apply to these projects. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that had the Planning Commission denied the projects based upon the definition of bedroom there could be some question as to whether that decision could be upheld in court, however the Commission did not deny the projects, they were approved with conditions given their concern with parking, therefore consideration should be based upon whether there is now a nexus between the conditioned approval of the projects and the goals and objectives of the City. Mr. Brown voiced his opinion that those who rent the apartments need additional people to cover the high rent, , and in the case of the applicant's project he did not feel there would be only two persons in that unit. Mr. Larry Peters, Seal Beach, suggested that consideration should be given to the single family houses that are built and occupied by persons of a higher income bracket, with older, driving age children, which increases parking problems, as opposed to an apartment unit with a bedroom and a den, and with regard to obsolescence of apartments in Old Town he said he found it interesting that the City taxes apartment owners as a revenue source. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to sustain the appeal, reversing the recommendation of the Planning Commission, to approve both projects with the deletion of the condition. Councilmember Hastings said she hoped this would be the last of this type of ten percent expansion pending pUblic hearings and revisions to the Code reflective of the desires of the community. I AYES: NOES: Hastings, Laszlo Forsythe, Hunt, Wilson Motion failed I Forsythe moved, second by Wilson, to sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission for Minor Plan Reviews 13-90 and 15-90. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Wilson Laszlo Motion carried The Assistant the action of meeting. City Attorney stated resolutions reflecting the Council would be prepared for the next CLOSED SESSION The Assistant City Attorney announced the Council would meet 3-1:1-91 in Closed Session pursuant to the Brown Act to discuss pending litigation, Mola Development Corporation versus the City of Seal Beach, Zepada versus city of Seal Beach, and personnel matters. It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn to Closed Session at 12:29 a.m. The Council reconvened at 12:50 a.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The Assistant City Attorney reported the Council discussed the matters previously announced as well as a matter relating to initiating litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c), and no action was taken. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1328 - COUNCILMANIC BOUNDARIES Ordinance Number 1328 was presented to Council for first reading 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." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1328 was waived. Councilman Laszlo moved to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1328 and that it be passed to second reading. He reported a survey of seventy of the one hundred homes in the District Two portion of College Park East indicated support for the proposed change of boundaries. Councilmember Forsythe seconded the motion. Mayor Wilson referred to the new census figures showing a reduction of population to 25,098, suggested that the Redistricting Committee be established to consider any change of boundaries, and questioned the reason for taking action at this time. Councilman Laszlo stated there are areas of the City that will need to be recounted, such as Leisure World, and it may be two years before final census figures are known. Councilman Hunt said the law allows a change of boundaries between census years if they are found to be unfair, illogical or unconstitutional, and it appears those findings have not been made, therefore the proposed change could possibly be an illegal act whether or not there are persons involved in the proposed change. The Assistant City Attorney responded that there has been a determination that it is constitutional, and it would be at the discretion of the Council to find that the proposed boundaries are fair and logical and the new districts, as nearly as practicable, constitute natural areas of contiguous and compact territory, and provide fair representation on the Council, which does not apply in this case where the change does not include inhabited land. Councilman Hunt claimed the proposed change to the existing boundaries would make them non-contiguous since about fifteen percent of the subject property is presently contiguous to Councilman Laszlo's populated area and a far greater area is contiguous to Mayor Wilson's district, therefore it does not qualify as far as being contiguous, nor is there any unfairness involved, thus there is no justification. The Assistant city Attorney advised that should the motion be approved it would be deemed that the Council had made the findings, also since the Charter does not qualify the degree of contiguous territory, both districts could be considered to be contiguous. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Hunt, Wilson Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1329 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT/SUBDIVISION TEXT AMENDMENT 1-91 - PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE Ordinance Number 1329 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE I ~I II : I,,", '-. ~ 3-11-91 I 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 adopt Ordinance Number 1329 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson , None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1330 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 1-91 - MINIMUM LOT SIZE - RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM and HIGH DENSITY ZONES - PLANNING DISTRICT I Ordinance Number 1330 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 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 (RHO) AND (RHO) 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 moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Ordinance Number 1330 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, LaSZlo, Wilson None Motion carried I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1331 - WATER CONSERVATION Ordinance Number 1331 was presented to Council for second 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. The Acting City Manager advised of minor changes to the Ordinance, the word "stage" changed to "phase", Section 26A-15 had been deleted as it was inapplicable, and clarifying language had been added to the "mandatory compliance" provisions. Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Ordinance Number 1331 as amended. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4024 - CLOSURE OF TURNPOCKETS - PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY/MAIN STREET - ANTIOUE SHOW/SIDEWALK SALE Resolution Number 4024 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 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY/MAIN STREET INTERSECTION. II By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4024 was waived. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4024 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, LaSZlo, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4025 - CHANGING REGENCY DRIVE TO ADOLFO LOPEZ DRIVE Resolution Number 4025 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CHANGING THE NAME OF REGENCY DRIVE TO ADOLFO LOPEZ DRIVE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4025 was waived. Forsythe moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 4025 as presented. 3-11-91/3-25-91 .. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried It was the consensus of the Council to hold over until the March 25th regular meeting proposed Ordinance Number 1333 relating to appeals, proposed Resolution Number 4026 regarding completiop of sidewalk reconstruction, and reports relating to public right-of-way signs, and general plan. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council-, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, March 25th, 1991 at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. The meeting adjourned at I .;Jh lerk and ex-of of Seal Beach o clerk of the Approved: -g~i.~~ Mayor Attest: .... _I Seal Beach, California March 25, 1991 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:01 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 CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed session pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.9(a) and (b) to discuss a personnel matter, pending litigation, Mala Development Corporation versus city of Seal Beach, and a matter of potential litigation. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:03 p.m. and reconvened at 6:46 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The Assistant City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items previously reported, and had provided the City's personnel negotiator with specific instructions. I