Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1991-03-25 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 3-25-91/3-25-91 ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 6:49 p.m. I Approved: ~Jv....J '-R. ~~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California March 25, 1991 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:18 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I 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 WAIVER OF FULL READING Forsythe moved, second by Laszlo, 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 I PRESENTATIONS Mayor Wilson read adopted Resolution Number 4022, honoring and paying tribute to the memory of Mr. Al Lopez, and adopted Resolution Number 4025, changing the name of Regency Drive to Adolfo Lopez Drive, and presented the Resolutions to Mrs. Betty Lopez and family. LOS ALAMITOS HIGH SCHOOL GRAD NIGHT A representative of the Los Alamitos High School Grad Night Committee expressed appreciation for the past financial support from Seal Beach for Grad Night activities. She explained that the third such event, "Adventure in Paradise", would be held at the school and again include a party with games, music, entertainment, food, and conclude with a breakfast show, that one hundred ninety tickets to 3-25-91 the graduation celebration had been sold even before the opening of school, and that gratis tickets would be provided to those students unable to purchase same. The Council was invited to attend the graduation open house, and a city proclamation, placement of a Grad Night banner across Main street, and a financial contribution was requested. Staff - reported prior support had been in the amount of $500, and I if approved, the appropriation would come from General Fund reserves. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to place the request on the next Council agenda. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried MISS SEAL BEACH PAGEANT Mr. Mike Osborne introduced himself as Chairman of the Miss Seal Beach Pageant Committee, an event co-sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, and reported the City's support in the amount of $1000 last year allowed all costs to be covered and expenses of Miss Seal Beach to be paid. He said this year it is hoped that the pageant can be financed through fund raising, however financial assistance is requested to assist in entering Miss Seal Beach in the Miss California Pageant, and noted that this individual makes appearances on behalf of the City throughout the year of her reign. It was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over until the next meeting. PROCLAMATION Mayor Wilson declared the week of April 8th through April 12th, 1991 as "Building Safety Week." . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Moira- Hahn, Seal Beach, expressed appreciation for the Council action to forward the Archaeological Element to the Planning commission. She referred to a local news article regarding the unscheduled meeting of three members of the Archaeological Committee, disagreed with the opinion of the Assistant city Attorney that there was no evidence of a Brown Act violation, distributed a copy of a letter from an attorney that she said felt there had been a violation. Ms. Hahn said in her opinion, whether or not an action was taken, the members had deliberated on wording changes to the report of the Committee. Ms. Hahn stated her input as a witness to the meeting was not obtained by either the Acting City Manager or the City Attorney, and even if the three Committee members were unaware of the provisions of State law, she felt there was a violation of the Brown Act. Ms. Jane McCloud, Balboa Drive, said she wished to point out misstatements within the ballot argument against Measure B-91 with regard to placing Seal Beach in the commercial land development business, massive commercial development, the use of tax dollars to purchase the property, development of commercial shops, multi-story hotel an9 parking lot. She noted that commercial land development is not proposed nor is City purchase of the property, that any plan would be put to bid for developers, that Measure B-91 would allow citizens to develop a plan for the bluff area that would be reasonable, lower impact, and provide a tax base, development that would compliment the open space areas, place no development on the seismically unsafe lands, produce less traffic, and a golf course would increase tourism and bring people to the Main Street area.' Mr. George Telford, 13581 Medinac Lane, said based upon the discussion it appears there is a lack of knowledge of the Brown Act which applies to all governmental agencies and committees and that there are few exceptions to discussions -I I ..-; ._.d'\~~,'"":",, C'" '., .. ,. 3-25-91 ~. in open, public meetings. He noted a violation occurs when one knowingly violates the Act, is a misdemeanor, however said the law can be enforced through various legal methods. He suggested that all committee members should be made aware of these laws. Mr. Telford expressed concern with an allegation that members of the City Council have been criticized, and pointed out that a difference of opinion should not be construed as an insult. Ms. Wendy Morris, 1729 Crestview Avenue, voiced objection to the argument in support of ballot Measure A-91, stated the Mola plan was developed after the seven hundred seventy-nine plan was rejected by the Coastal Commission, and that the Initiative is different from the plan that had been before the Council. She stated Measure B-91 was the result of the citizens Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Committee, not members of the Council, that the quote "the City of Seal Beach will be changed from a low density beach community to a more urban setting typical of areas further from the coast" was. contained in an environmental document of the Mola plan, noted that B-91 calls for wetlands, Gum Grove Park, a golf course, recreational areas, with construction on stable land to possibly include a country club, restaurant, pro shop, etc., and not large commercial development. Ms. Morris claimed the Initiative does not provide twenty-six acres of new parkland, rather slightly more than fourteen acres as Gum Grove Park currently exists, that the City will assume the cost of parkland maintenance after a limited period of ten years, that the forty-one plus acres is not entirely wetlands and will likely look as it does today, and said the wetlands could be restored through a number of funding resources or developer monies. She stated there will be more concrete with the Initiative plan, more water usage with homes as opposed to a golf course that can use recycled water, that the Coastal Commission required a clause to protect that body in the event of damages resulting from a seismic event on the Hellman property, that the claimed new standards of construction are untested, and said even though the advisory plan has not been approved, the Mola project was denied. Ms. Morris asked the procedures to make formal objection to the ballot argument. Ms. Wendy Rothman, Seal Beach, said the issue of the remaining seventy-five acres remains an uncertainty, yet will result in a legal action, and questioned who would pay the related costs. Ms. Rothman made reference to the argument against Measure B-91 which she claimed was an attempt to mislead the voters, that she had been informed the argument was prepared by the developers public relations firm who feels it will stand in court. She asked that the councilmembers who signed the argument remove themselves from the relationship with the developer and the public relations firm, also demanded that Mola be asked to drop the lawsuits against the individual members of the Council. She claimed the first amendment rights of every citizen is being affected. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, referred to statements in the argument against B-91, asked if the Council proposes to buy the Hellman Ranch, said the ordinance posing the advisory question did not suggest such action, and deemed both the Initiative and the Advisory measures to be zoning issues. Mr. Stark noted the resignation of the city Engineer, subsequent contract services of the same individual, and asked if a financial saving has been realized, inquired why monies were spent for recycling consultant services when there is a person in the community that has a recycling business, objected to recent comments in a newspaper regarding the City Council made by a member of the Chamber of Commerce, and stated that the citizens have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent as a first amendment right. He suggested various City mottos with reference to developers and I I , J- 3-25-91 development. Ms. Jody Weir, 636 Beachcomber Drive, said the scope Measure A-91, the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, encompasses one hundred forty-nine acres, provides 41.4 acres of restored wetlands, 26.4 acres of parkland that the city does not now own, and three hundred twenty-nine homes, that the plan was culminated more than a year ago after numerous public hearings. She stated her support for the plan stemmed from the lesser number of homes, and suggested that discussion of the issues be kept clear. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Seal Beach, expressed her objection to the recent newspaper comments by a representative of the Rossmoor Center and Chamber member directed towards three members of the Couneil, and objected to involvement of two members of the Council with the Mola Initiative. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. I '-' CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Mayor Wilson reported discussion at a recent meeting of the Transportation Commission focused on implementation of Measure "M" funds that included identification of projects, establishing priorities, problem categories such as freeway and ramp congestion, signal coordination, intersection congestion, and fund distribution. She said the CalTrans District Director and Deputy were present at that meeting and agreed to look into the Leisure World soundwall issue. Mayor Wilson reported receipt of a letter from the Census Bureau regarding the completion of 1990 census data and advising that those cities that elect by district need to complete their redistricting by November 1st. CONSULTANT SERVICES - BIXBY RANCH APPLICATION The Acting City Manager provided a brief overview of the March 25th sta~f report from the Director of Development Services, noted that this matter had been placed on the agenda at the request of members of the Council to allow further consideration of appropriate consultant services as part of the review function for the Bixby Ranch Company project application. He explained that as part of the review process the Council had approved the retention of consultants to assist the city in the public input sessions, staff review, public hearing process, and preparation of the Environmental Impact Report for the project, however by action of the Council the public input process had been suspended some time ago. The Acting city Manager requested direction as to the desires of the Council to either continue to utilize Claire Associates and EIP Associates under existing agreements, or determine to terminate the existing agreements and authorize staff to prepare new Request for Proposals for these services. councilman Laszlo was critical of a proposal to place homes within an area of helicopter flight paths and approximately four hundred feet from the runways, showed a diagram of College Park East, proposed project area, and the flight paths from the Los Alamitos Reserve Center, and stated his preference to cancel the existing contracts and prepare a new RFP. Discussion continued. Mayor Wilson said she has made no comment to date as to her position on the Bixby proposal as alleged by Councilman Laszlo. Councilman Hunt said he also has not made a public comment, however in previous conversations with Mr. Laszlo he had indicated that any request for zone change would necessitate an acceptable EIR and benefits to the public, yet with regard to a change of consultants where approximately $25,000 has been expended for services to date, unless there is sufficient reason to select other consultants, the contracts should not be terminated. Councilmember Forsythe questioned the status of the EIR, and requested that she be provided with the data that had been '1- ',- , ~'.. ' . ' ~~ 3-25-91 I referred to by Councilman Laszlo, and any information that may be available for review to determine if it is the consultants who have recommended homes in the location that was mentioned. At the request of Councilman Laszlo, it was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over until the next meeting. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mayor Wilson noted the request from the Chamber to meet with the Council to discuss sales tax revenue proposals, and suggested that could be accommodated prior to the next meeting. Councilmember Hastings requested that there be time alloted at such meeting to allow a presentation by Mr. Bill Ashcraft, past manager of the F & M Bank and president of the Belmont Shore Business Association, an area similar to and having similar problems'to Main street in Seal Beach. Councilman Laszlo made reference to and read excerpts from a recent news article which contained quotes critical of the Council for not meeting with the Chamber, to which he responded with a review the Council schedule over recent months. He expressed preference that a meeting with the Chamber be held on Monday or Tuesday in the morning. Discussion continued. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to schedule a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce on Monday, April 1st at 7:00 p.m. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Wilson Laszlo Motion carried . CITY ATTORNEY ANALYSIS - INITIATIVE In response to several points raised for clarification by Councilman Laszlo, the Assistant City Attorney explained that reference to police powers is a general term used to describe the power of a city to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community. With regard to the use of that term to enforce conditions of approval of a project, he explained that to impose conditions on any project a reasonable relationship must be shown between the impacts of the project and the need to protect the public health, safety and welfare, as an example to the specific reference, he stated if the Initiative is approved and Mola Development were to sell their interest to another developer, at the time the City approves the subdivision map and imposes the $1 million requirement, and should the subsequent developer object to that requirement, argument would need to be made that the city is entitled to the $1 million in lieu of other exactions or conditions that the city is entitled to under State law. He confirmed that their opinion was that the Initiative is flawed in certain respects, that the legality of the Initiative could be challenged in court however the question is how successful a challenge would be, which is an issue that was not addressed in the Analysis. With regard to whether the Initiative would be legal if it were found to be inconsistent with the General Plan, he said that is an open question, that the Supreme Court addressed that issue in the Marblehead/San Clemente decision however said they would not resolve the issue at that time, and in the Lescher decision the Court said they were not certain that a General Plan could be amended through the initiative process and would wait for a future case. He said with.respect to this Initiative a court could possibly delete some provisions, leave others, invalidate the entire Initiative, or determine the Initiative to be legal. In response to a member of the audience as to whether there is any means within the Initiative or the law that would require the developer to con~truct the two hundred forty-eighth unit since the developer would not be required to restore wetlands, build parks, etc. until that point of the project, the Assistant I I 3-25-91 City Attorney explained that under the Initiative itself there is no obligation that the developer build any units, that it is in effect a zoning document, yet at such time as the subdivision map is considered the question will be whether the City can impose a condition that will guarantee construction of the units. Councilmember Forsythe said it was her understanding that given the diminished powers of I' the Council should the Initiative be passed, the only conditions that could be imposed on the subdivision map would relate to health, safety and welfare issues, and that construction guidelines, number of units, etc., could not be conditioned. The Assistant city Attorney advised that that issue has not been addressed. Councilman Hunt said if there is concern that the City may lose some benefits or guarantees, the City Council could proceed with a development agreement at any 'time if they chose to do so. The Assistant city Attorney again explained that a development agreement is typically submitted by the developer and then reviewed through the normal process by the city. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council, to declare a recess at 9:08 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:21 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE As a point of clarification regarding the unscheduled meeting of three members of the Archaeological Committee, the Assistant city Attorney explained that his comment had been that there was no criminal violation, that in order for there to be a criminal violation there must a decision made I and a knowing violation of the Brown Act, also that he had given no opinion with regard to someone pursuing the issue as a civil matter. He acknowledged that Attorney Blinderman's letter was basically correct with the exception of misquotes, specifically that to be a Brown Act violation there does not need to be a decision, that only true in the case of a criminal violation. He stated also that Dr. Telford had made a good point in that all committee members should be made aware of the Brown Act, and said he believed that staff has provided an orientation paper to members of all boards and commissions. The Assistant city Attorney again pointed out that he had given an opinion of this matter from a criminal violation standpoint, and confirmed that a majority of a quorum are not allowed to deliberate, and explained that he did not have facts to determine whether the Archaeological Committee members violated the Brown Act from a civil standpoint nor is it within the realm of city Attorney duties and responsibilities to make such decisions or render such opinions, that the responsibility of the City Attorney is to protect the city Council and city boards and commissions, however if it is felt there was a violation there are procedures for anyone to follow to refer the matter to the District Attorney for review and opinion. Councilmember Hastings pointed out that there was a change of meeting place without notice to the public and continued I discussion of wording of the Committee report. The Assistant City Attorney said he had been informed that the _ three members of the Committee had stated they had no knowledge of the provisions of the Brown Act. Councilmember Hastings said that the Attorney General's office has published a booklet specific to the Brown Act and requested the City Clerk to obtain copies to be provided to'all members of boards and commissions. As a point'of clarification, Councilmember Forsythe said that at the last meeting her second to the motion to accept the Archaeological Report was meant to be the original, unmodified report that had received consensus agreement of I I I , .t, 3-25-91 the Committee on January 7th. Mr. John Nakagawa, 12th street, requested that the City Attorney render an opinion on the Brown Act matter with regard to both criminal and civil violations. With regard to Resolution Number 4001 establishing procedural rules for Council meetings, after some discussion agreement was reached that the intent of the Resolution was that each member of the Council would be limited to a total of fifteen minutes for discussion of Council Items. Councilman Hunt acknowledged that Council Items "I" through "R" were topics he had placed on the agenda, and requested that Items "I, K, and Nil, the Redevelopment Agency Pass Thru's, Expenses for City Attorney, and Council Pay/Expenses, be removed from the agenda. WATER RATE STABILIZATION Councilman Hunt stated that water rates are going to increase whether or not the draught continues, that water professionals acknowledge the need for continued conservation accompanied by financial investments to capture and contain water that now flows into the ocean, desalinization, and techniques to reuse water. He noted that Seal Beach water is obtained from underground basins and the Metropolitan Water District, the cost of both sources to increase. Councilman Hunt suggested that water rates be increased by five percent, that those monies be placed in a water rate stabilization fund to offset a larger percentage increase at some point in the future. He asked that this matter be placed on a future agenda for consideration. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY/ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - ALLOCATION ADJUSTMENT Councilman Hunt requested that the Acting City Manager contact the MWDOC and OCWD and obtain an absolute answer as to whether or not they will make adjustments to the City's allocation in the case of unusual circumstances, as an example the Navy'S use of city water during the past month as a result of their pump not working. WATER RATES - IDENTIFIABLE LARGE USERS Councilman Hunt proposed a twenty-five percent penalty for large water users who do not demonstrate a five percent savings relative to the base year, July 1989 to June 1990, the penalty to be imposed only if citywide water use is likewise reduced by five percent. He stated the large users are presently identified, the Navy, Rockwell, Leisure World, and between twelve to twenty others, suggested that the calculations commence from the last billing period and be compared with the usage in the base year, and if the use is ninety-five percent or over, the twenty-five percent penalty be imposed, but again, only if citywide use is reduced by the five percent. PERSONAL SLURS - COUNCIL CHAMBERS Councilman Hunt referred to recent articles, letters, and public comments regarding personal attacks made in the Council Chambers. He suggested that the Council agree that unfair slurs should not be tolerated, and should such conduct occur that a one minute recess be called. o HELLMAN RANCH PROJECT - DOCUMENTS Councilman Hunt requested copies of the official documents relating to both the acceptance and the rejection of the Hellman Ranch project. 3-25-91 HELLMAN PROPERTIES - CORRESPONDENCE Councilman Hunt referred to a January letter from the Hellman attorneys stating objection to their not having been notified of a number of city considerations, to which the City had responded that they would be notified in the future, yet a subsequent communication again cites lack of I' knowledge by the Hellman family or their attorneys of City actions. Councilman Hunt requested that an ef-fort be made to provide them with any information relating to their property. The Acting City Manager confirmed that his office would be the likely communication link to Hellman. Councilmember Forsythe requested that staff open a line of communication with the Hellman family and continue same on a regular basis. The city Clerk suggested that the Council ' agendas could be forwarded to them by mail or by FAX. The Assistant city Attorney said there would be no objection to the open communication. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "S" thru "W" Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented. T. S. Approved regular demands numbered 83158 through 83347 in the amount of $533,828.20 and payroll demands numbered 44612 through 44791 in the amount of $213,983.28 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. Bids were received until 11:00 a.m., March 21, 1991, for Project Number 623, Concrete CUrbing and Planter CUrb Installation, Eisenhower Park, at which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: I JDC Engineering Damon Construction Company F.A.V. Engineering, Inc. NEFF Contracting corp. Ryco Construction, Inc. $24,623.00 27,581. 00 28,070.00 29,091. 00 35,644.00 Awarded the bid for Project Number 623 to JDC Engineering in the amount of $24,623, authorized the Acting city Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City, and allocated an additional $2,560 from General Fund Reserves to finance the cost of the installation of the brick pavers. U. Approved the minutes of the January 7, 1991 regular adjourned meeting. V. Approved the minutes of the January 14, 1991 .regular meeting. W. Accepted the resignation of Mr. Albert Totten as the District Four representative to'the Department of Water and Power Advisory Committee, and declared the position vacant. Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I AYES: NOES: JULY 4th FIREWORKS SHOW Mayor Wilson said in view of the Persian Gulf conflict and " . .,~ .\~ ~ ; 't '. '._ 3-25-91 t recognition of those who served, she would support , participation in the July 4th celebration to the degree that the City has participated in past years. Councilman Hunt referred to the City's 75th anniversary celebration that included a fireworks display, noted that July 4th celebrations are being encouraged as a tribute to the armed forces throughout the nation from federal to city levels, and suggested that whatever monies that are considered to be allocated to the joint fireworks display be spent locally with other planned activities, that it was his understanding the American Legion for one was planning festivities. Councilmember Forsythe suggested this item be held over pending receipt of additional information regarding planned local events on July 4th. Councilman Laszlo said he believed the cost of fireworks would exceed the $4500 to participate in the joint show, that downtown residents should be made aware if fireworks are planned, and suggested that the Armed Forces Reserve Center may be a more appropriate location for fireworks. Councilmember Hastings expressed some concern with fireworks in the downtown area based upon complaints, generally the result of alcohol use, received after various community events. This item was held over until the next meeting. I PROPOSED ORDINANCE - PERSONNEL - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION A proposed Ordinance was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 16A OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO PERSONNEL. II By unanimous consent, full reading of the proposed Ordinance was waived. The Acting City Manager stated the proposed Ordinance was being presented for consideration as a result of a Council request, deals with the disclosure of information, or referred to as whistleblowing, that would allow an employee to file a complaint with the Council within sixty days of an incident or event, prior to filing such complaint the employee would be required to exhaust all available administrative procedures, the Ordinance also setting forth procedures, provision for extension of time, and definitions. Staff clarified that the proposed Ordinance is essentially the same as State Code, modified only to reflect the city rather than the State, and incorporation of Memorandum of Understanding procedures. In response to Council, the Acting city Manager stated administrative procedures would be provided by him to the employees. Councilmember Hastings requested that this item be held over to allow for further review, also that a definition of administrative procedures be provided in writing. The Acting City Manager noted that the proposed Ordinance amends the Municipal Code, and has not been before the Civil Service Board. It was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over. I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1328 - COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Ordinance Number 1328 was presented to Council (or second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A CHARTER CITY, AMENDING THE COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES OF COUNCILMANIC DISTRICTS NUMBERED TWO AND FOUR OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND CORRECTING THE EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT ONE, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT THREE, AND COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT FIVE, AND AMENDING SECTION 2-70 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH. II By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1328 was waived. Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Ordinance Number 1328. Staff confirmed that certain technical corrections had been made to the legal descriptions of Districts One, Three and Five. Councilman Hunt again expressed his opposition to this action largely 3-25-91 because of staff costs, the fact that the existing boundaries are constitutional, and rather, a redistricting committee should be established as a result of the 1990 census data. Councilmember Forsythe recalled the letter received by the Mayor advising that the boundary changes are to be completed by November, and inquired if that can be accomplished since the City is contesting the census figures. The Acting City Manager said he believed the census data would be complete within three months. Brief discussion followed. I Vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance 1328: AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Hunt, Wilson Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1333 - APPEALS - PLANNING COMMISSION/ DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DECISIONS Ordinance Number 1333 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1333 was waived. There was discussion as to whether or not this item should be referred to the Planning Commission for review and comment. The Assistant city Attorney advised that the Council could take action on the first reading of the Ordinance and refer same to the Commission for review and comment prior to second reading. Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to approve the introduction and first reading of Ordinance Number 1333 and that it be referred to the Planning Commission for review and comment. I, AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried It was the to declare 10:30 p.m. order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, a recess at 10:20 p.m. The Council reconvened at with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4026 - COMPLETION - PROJECT NUMBER 612 - SIDEWALK RECONSTRUCTION Resolution Number 4026 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 #612, SIDEWALK RECONSTRUCTION CITY-WIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN JDC GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4026 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 4026. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4027 - CONDITIONALLY APPROVING MINOR PLAN REVIEW 13-90 - NONCONFORMING APARTMENT - 123 - 8th STREET Resolution Number 4027 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONDITIONALLY APPROVING MINOR PLAN REVIEW 13-90 TO PERMIT THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING APARTMENT STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 123 - 8TH STREET." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4027 was waived. Staff recommended Section 1 and Section 6(d) be corrected to reflect the addition of 801 square feet of livable area. ::\ 3-25-91 I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4028 - CONDITIONALLY APPROVING MINOR PLAN REVIEW 15-90 - NONCONFORMING APARTMENT - 601 OCEAN AVENUE Resolution Number 4027 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONDITIONALLY APPROVING MINOR PLAN REVIEW 15-90 TO PERMIT THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING APARTMENT STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 601 OCEAN AVENUE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4028 was waived. Staff recommended Section 1 and Section 6(d) be corrected to reflect the addition of 1,109 square feet of livable area. The Assistant City Attorney advised that the public hearings have been closed on these items, that the attorney for the applicant may address the Council however any testimony should not be considered as evidence. Mr. Bill Bennett, Ocean Avenue, said he wished to speak to the one condition of concern, specifically the removal of a wall that the plans show as a separation of a bedroom and an office or study. He recalled a member of the Council indicating a philosophical problem with the statute in general where it would allow a project such as this yet would perpetuate the property for a number of years, to which Mr. Bennett said whether the wall remains or not is essentially of no effect because the project complies with the statute, meets the square footage requirements, does not change the number of units or number of bedrooms within the building, it merely allows, instead of one long room, an executive type unit with a bedroom and an office, and if there is concern with the statute it should be changed. Mr. Bennett stated also that the purpose of the statute was to allow the ten percent increase without a change of parking. He offered that in this case the applicant is only asking for an executive office area without a closet, that he had suggested to the applicant, who consented, that the city be allow to develop a means to monitor the building, inspect the property with appropriate notice, to ensure that the area is not used as a second bedroom, and offered that the applicant would be willing to provide marketing data to show that it is a one bedroom unit, also to allow inspection of leases as long as there was no violation of tenant rights, and the applicant.. has revised the plans to place storage cabinets in the garages to ensure the garages are used for their intended purpose of parking rather than storage. Mr. Bennett offered that to change something in the interior of a structure would fall under an architectural review situation, that there is nothing in the Code that allows the Commission or Council to act as an architectural review board, that requiring the wall to be removed for this project is something that has never been done since the statute was adopted, yet the Commission has previously approved dens, studies, family rooms, etc. Mr. Bennett said there is no objection to the other conditions imposed by the Commission, that the project will enhance the neighborhood, most of the neighbors have been contacted and favor the project, and requested approval of the project without removal of the wall to allow an executive unit. He submitted a petition that was circulated by the applicant, Mr. Brown. I I Councilman Hunt acknowledged his concerns and the confusion of this issue, inequities between parcels of property, concern in approving projects that he believes violates the intent of the downzoning effort in Old Town, and perpetuates the problems associated with the older, nonconforming -. structures, particularly with regard to parking.. He said that the issue of the wall, archway, doors, etc. is of minor concern, rather the ongoing problems he had just stated, and th~t he would reluctantly support this request with the 3-25-91 understanding that staff will resolve the Code issue at the earliest possible time. Councilmember Hastings made reference to in-lieu parking, that it should not be granted in the future, and that Main street parking might be resolved by having validated parking in the beach lots, and use the accumulated in-lieu parking funds to buy a tram to move people from area to area, noting that the downtown area will always have a parking problem as it was not planned to accommodate vehicles as was other areas of the City. In response to the Council, Mr. Brown explained that there are three parking spaces at the 8th street property, four at the Ocean Avenue property, that it is his intention to install garage door openers and rOll-up doors, and that the garages will be used for their intended purpose. Discussion continued. The Assistant city Attorney explained that the Resolutions would be modified with respect to the leases to provide additional language to what presently exists as section 3(d) that the property would be identified as a one bedroom unit. I Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 4027 as amended to delete subsections (a) and (b) from Section 3, modified language of Section 3(d), and the corrected square footage as previously mentioned. The Assistant City Attorney stated the need that there be clarification that changes made to the Resolutions were based upon evidence from the last meeting and not from comments made at this meeting. Councilman Hunt agreed, stating his position is based upon the current reading of the Code from a legal standpoint, again, that the interior wall was not his concern but the expansion of nonconforming properties. AYES: NOES: Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson Forsythe Motion carried I Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 4028 as amended to delete subsections (a) and (b) from Section 3, modified language of Section 3(d), and the corrected square footage as previously mention. The Assistant city'Attorney again clarified that there would be some revisions of language to reflect the action of the Council in both Resolutions. AYES: NOES: Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson Forsythe Motion carried SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR MEETING It was the consensus of the Council to receive and file the memorandum advising that the regular meetings of the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Advisory Committee will be the last Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilmember Forsythe expressed support for providing new members of Boards and Commissions with orientation materials I such as information on the Brown Act. She reported the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee meetings are moving forward, the Committee is on schedule, and has identified paper products as a major problem in Seal Beach. Councilmember Forsythe asked that the Council refrain from using City Council sessions as a platform to express their views on the Mola Corporation and Initiative, whether they be for or against,. Councilmember Hastings referred to Mr. Hunt's suggested twenty-five percent penalty on large water users, and inquired if that would be legal since MWD will be imposing a similar penalty. Councilman Hunt noted that MWD will penalize the City rather than the individual user. . '. ~ 3-25-91/4-1-91 I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Norma strohmeier, Seal Beach, expressed her objection to recent remarks in the newspaper of Mr. Wilson, Rossmoor center, directed towards three members of the Council, and said she would boycott the Center until an apology is forthcoming. She offered her personal suggestions for a city motto relating to claims and lawsuits. Ms. Beverly Casares, Seal Beach, took exception to the Assistant City Attorney's opinion with regard to a Brown Act violation. Ms. Casares requested copies of all lawsuits filed in the last three years including the parties, court location and case number, and like information for cases settled. She requested that citizens be made aware of every warrant, to whom it is paid, what it is for, and questioned an expenditure for employee appreciation. Ms. Casares claimed that every department has a charge card, expense account, and most likely petty cash, said she would anticipate those types of accounts and expenditures will be cut, and department head salaries reduced. She cited the need for a city manager that is accountable, responsible, and who will take control, and said problems within City departments will be cured with the whistle blower ordinance. The Acting city Manager confirmed that an expenditure had been made for employee recognition of Police Department personnel, and noted that funds for employee recognition have been contained in the budget for approximately four years. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. I ADJOURNMENT By consensus of the Council, the meeting was adjourned until April 1, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. for a workshop with members of the Chamber of Commerce. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council, to adjourn the meeting at 11:25 p.m. erk and ex-o f Seal Beach clerk of the Approved: , ~-"') ~. 9/~~A..A) Ma or Attest: , I Seal Beach, California April 1, 1991 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:00 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