No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1991-05-13 I I .1 4-28-91/5-13-91 Approved: ~~ i\ ;J0rito_J Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California May 13, 1991 The regular adjourned meeting scheduled for 6:15 p.m. to meet in Closed Session was cancelled due to the lack of ~SSion. . ne H. Yeo, ~tY ~ ty of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California May 13, 1991 The City Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular 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 Absent: None 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 Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, 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 PRESENTATIONS MAN and WOMAN OF THE YEAR Mayor Wilson introduced Mrs. Nancy Grgas and Mr. Scott Newton, 1990 Man and Woman of the Year. Each expressed appreciation for having been chosen as the recipients of this Award. 5-13-91 MISS SEAL BEACH and COURT Miss Ashley McLean was introduced as Miss Seal Beach for 1991 as was her Court, Miss Amber Oliger and Miss Deborah Therlault. The young ladies conveyed their enthusiasm for having been selected for this honor. -- ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Carol-- Shouder, resident of the Cabo del Mar complex in Huntington Beach, a Mola development, said the residents have filed a legal action against the developer for structural defects, sound issues, and problems associated with toxic waste. She expressed complaints relating to the complex being built on a toxic land fill, leaking roofs and decks, improper drainage, deteriorating wood, inadequate stairways, etc., none of which have been corrected or repaired. Ms. Shouder suggested this developer not be allowed in the city. Ms. Marlene Burke, Cabo del Mar resident, concurred with the previous statements, reported the fact that the complex was built on a hazardous waste site had not been disclosed to persons purchasing the units, that a recent notice to the residents advises that the cost to clean the site will be approximately $7,000 per unit in addition to a previous $1,000 assessment that has yet to be reimbursed. She too urged that this developer not be allowed to build on the Hellman property. Mr. Lee Risner, 845 Driftwood Avenue, inquired as to whether three members of the Council signed the arguments relating to Measures A and B in their official capacity or as citizens. The Assistant city Attorney responded that they had signed in their official capacity as authorized by the Elections Code. Mr. Risner challenged a payment to be considered by the Council payable to Burke, Williams and Sorensen for legal defense of certain members of the Council. He stated the expenditure of funds must be neutral, that the law does not permit expenditures favoring or opposing ballot measures, and contended that the City Manager does not have the authority to retain legal services, as had been previously indicated. Ms. Joyce Risner, 845 Driftwood Avenue, suggested that the City look into and oppose the telephone company proposal to change the area code of Seal Beach to a code other than 213 or 714. Mrs. Risner objected to a recent campaign flier from Seal Beach citizens United making reference to the Initiative as the Mola plan, apartments and condominiums, and gridlock as a result of an additional three thousand vehicle trips per day or nine trips per household. She stated the Initiative, Measure A, is a zoning plan that ~ould be built by any developer, includes three hundr~d twenty-nine units, twenty- six acres of parkland, including restoration of Gum Grove Park, and more than forty-one acres of wetlands, and according to the League of Cities Planners Guide the twenty- three acres of commercial development proposed by Measure ~ would produce twenty-three thousand trips per day. Mrs. Risner noted the complaints made by residents of the Cabo del Mar, and reported contacting elected officials and staff in other areas having a Mola development, only to find there was satisfaction with their developments, Mr. LeRoy Brown, Ocean Avenue, stated there have been two palm trees planted on the Ocean Avenue park area westerly of 8th Street, and suggested that there be no additional~andscaping along the bluff, as he understood was proposed, allowing continued use of the area for casual athletic activities. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, voiced his objection to the Miller Volleyball Tournament and the associated consumption of beer which he said results in adverse impacts on downtown residents and their properties, and that photographs from the last Tournament would support his statement. Ms. 'Carla Watson, 1635 Catalina Avenue, said the Initiative is clear I I I . : ;.1. ~ 5-13-91 I that the seventy-five acre remainder of the Hellman property is designated for future development and is governed by the Initiative. She claimed that had the Mayor and councilman Hunt been present, revisions to the ballot arguments could have been agreed upon at the first court appearance, objected to recent Measure A campaign literature claiming Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, and Laszlo are planning a massive commercial development for the Hellman property, and stated the Initiative does not guarantee parks, tennis courts or baseball fields as has been claimed. Mr. Frank Ellsworth, Leisure World, stated a meeting planned by the Concerned Shareholders of Leisure World for the following Saturday has been cancelled because he was unable to obtain three Measure A supporters willing to present their views under the rules established. A young girl presented a bouquet of flowers to Mayor Wilson with the comment that she was one of the greatest Mayors the City has had. Mr. James Goodwin, 1405 crestview Avenue, spoke regarding toxic soils, noted inadequate toxic removal from other sites by Mola Development, and displayed a diagram based upon a 1986 BCL Associates EIR of potential toxic areas on the Hellman property, the result of oil and water deposits over a number of years, oil sumps, some of the areas also identified by the Leighton report. He said two tanks that previously contained diesel and mole gas, and now contain water, exist on the Weapons Station, they are old and are allegedly leaking into the ground water, and although a Health Department employee indicated the water flows away from the Hellman site, he suggested the water should be tested. Mr. Goodwin mentioned the Oakwood Apartment site was once felt to be dangerous, also that oil wells capped prior to 1950 should be inspected. Mr. Chris Verhultz, 224 - 14th Street, mentioned the legal action that involved him personally and asked for payment of legal fees relating to the ballot arguments, yet pointed out the judge ruled that all parties were to assume payment of their own legal fees, and objected to payment of the legal expenses of three members of the Council that he alleged were incurred by them acting as citizens rather than Councilmembers. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral communications closed. I I MEASURE B-91 - ANALYSIS citing the importance for the voters to be informed, and since no analysis has been provided the voters of Measure B- 91 as to its impacts or benefits, Mayor Wilson invited the viewpoints of three individuals having specific knowledge and expertise. Mr. victor Grgas, 211 - 15th street, reported his employment of seven years with one of the nations ten most well known shopping center developers, formerly Assistant city Manager, Montebello, that position specifically relating to planning, public works, building, engineering, economic development, and redevelopment programs, Director of Development planning for the County of Los Angeles Community Development commission, currently serving second term as president of the National Council for Urban Economic Development, ten year licensed real estate broker, and offered his testimony as an expert witness. Mr. Grgas stated in his opinion Measure B-91 is destined for financial failure and if implemented would likely cost Seal Beach tax payers millions of dollars, that conclusion based on the fact that there is insufficient market support for a retail shopping center on approximately twenty-three acres at that location, and insufficient major public interest to anchor any shopping center here, without those factors it probably could not be financed, and even if it could be built to include a hotel and golf course it would not be financially feasible despite the need for considerable City subsidy. He said from a retail market. perspective the 5-13-91 problem that Seal Beach has and will have is that nearly fifty percent of the retail trade area is comprised of undeveloped and undevelopable open space. He stated the development proposal of B-91 would need to be three quarters the size of Rossmoor Center, it would be larger than Marina Pacifica and the Los Altos Center, three times the size of Pavilions Center, twice the size of the Leisure World I Center, and nearly three times the size of all of the Main Street commercial area, the total building area would be -- 250,000 square feet, over 1,500 parking spaces would be necessary to meet Code and tenant requirements, and a shopping area of this type and size would require a population base of 50,000 persons within a three mile area. Mr. Grgas stated that unless situated on a major .expressway or freeway, nationally recognized name chains could not solely rely on street traffic for market support, that Seal Beach Boulevard does not generate that amount of traffic flow, therefore it is unlikely that a major retailer could be secured, and cited Marina Pacifica and Rossmoor Center as long time suffering areas, and the potential impact on the Main Street area. Assuming that a major retailer commitment could be obtained, he said in order to have sufficient draw they would need to be large, powerful retailers, yet questioned if this community is willing to host that type of retail business and the associated impacts, and upon analyzing the B-91 proposal said it is evident that it is impractical and infeasible, and the city would need to subsidize such development $3.7 million annually for that' plan to work. Mr. Grgas noted that to date there has been no analysis of the B-91 proposal as opposed to the reams of analyses and studies of A-91, and questioned how the I argument in support of B-91 could claim that it is environmentally sound and profitable. Ms. Buffy Ellis, 215 - 13th Street, stated she has been a resident since 1979, her profession being transportation planning, specifically community based transportation planning, a masters degree in this field, working with a transportation planning consulting firm for over fourteen years, having conducted community transportation plans for seventeen different cities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties alone, with expertise in transit system design and traffic studies, circulation elements, EIR's, capacity analyses, and various congestion measures on a daily basis. Ms. Ellis said she found the claim that the B-91 proposal would reduce traffic and trips to be intriguing since it is common knowledge that commercial development produces a significantly higher trip generation factor than a comparable sized residential development. She stated that based upon the information provided by the ballot language there has been no study done of the commercial land use/hotel/golf course concept. Ms. Ellis reported she had calculated the estimated daily traffic that would be generated by the B-91 plan using the standard ITE trip generation rates for the uses proposed by B-91 along with the size of that land use, the calculation showed that the plan would generate a total of 16,514 daily trips, the specific breakdown of land use was over 14,000 I daily trips for the commercial development, 1,600 daily trips for the hotel, and approximately 440 daily trips for the golf course, which she said is a conservative figure. Ms. Ellis compared the B-91 calculations with the daily trips estimated to be generated by the residential plan of A-91 of 3,290 trips per day, or one-fifth of the trips estimated for B-91. Mr. Dennis courtemarche, twenty-six year resident, said he was a fifteen year employee of the" City, ten of those years as City Manager, in municipal government for twenty-six years, seventeen as a city Manager, currently City Manager of a Los Angeles County city of 60,000 population having an active redevelopment agency . . f.'~':"'.l t . ~. . 5-13-91 I of 60,000 population having an active redevelopment agency dealing with many development issues. He said he was knowledgeable of what makes a commercial development successful, that the city in which he works likewise has a golf course and he was aware of the associated expenses. Mr. Courtemarche suggested that the cost of acquiring the property and the development thereof be considered, that a heavily used course having one hundred thousand rounds per year would require green fees of $60 to $75 to merely meet-- the debt service, which he said is far above the market in the area. He stated although he is an avid golfer he could not support the golf course proposal, likewise he did not support the prior nine hole golf course plan, a golf course serving too few people, also that the concepts that resulted from the Hellman Specific Plan Committee were not supported by facts. He offered that if B-91 is approved it would be necessary to retain another consultant, the city would continue to defend the Mola suit, all impacting the City's finances, said he could not see the merit of the B-91 concept where the three hundred twenty-nine residential unit plan will generate considerable revenue to the City. Councilman Laszlo responded that B-91 is not a proposal for massive commercial development, rather a low development project, and used the Bixby clubhouse, restaurant and driving range as an example. He reported two golf course developers have said it is a feasible plan. Councilmember Forsythe recalled the land purchase was estimated at $30 million, however the golf experts have indicated that figure is based upon a residential zoning and if it were golf course use i~ would be less, that it was felt green fees of $16 could be increased by three times based upon the deman~ in this area, also questioned the traffic figures since B-91 is merely a concept proposal at this time, and noted that the advisory question proposes an either/or use, not a massive development or major retailer. Councilman Hunt said approximately one hundred twenty-five acres minimum are required for a golf course, yet assuming it were reduced to a small one hundred acre area, based upon the selling price of a single lot, the land would cost $15 million and the interest would be $1.5 million per year, the course would lose money given the cost of maintenance and the fact that green fees could not be three times greater. He cited as an example the Long Beach Recreation Park course having 155,000 rounds per year and realizing $550,000, and that land had been obtained for free. He concluded that a golf course on the Hellman property would be economically infeasible. Councilmember Hastings pointed out that the advisory measure is only a concept, an alternative to being inundated with more homes and traffic, B-91 suggesting open space and wetlands as the safest use of that project due to the earthquake fault, and said it is not inconceivable that a developer would want to put a golf course on that land. She thanked Mr. Grgas, Ms. Ellis, and Mr. Courtemarche for their input. Mayor Wilson questioned who would pay for the land costs for a golf course and wetlands on the Hellman site. I I WATER RATES Councilman Laszlo made reference to Mr. Hunt's previous request for a twenty-five percent penalty fee for excessive water usage, and suggested that issue be held over until after the election. He also mentioned a letter from the Municipal Water District that he said stated Seal Beach has a special situation and the water allocation is not adjusted for growth, which would mean that citizens would need to save more water if the Mola development is built, or pay more for the use of additional water. Councilman Hunt said he may wish to postpone taking an action on the twenty-five 5-13-91 percent penalty, that he was not certain it would be legal to penalize only the large users, also that conservation continues to be in a range of approximately twenty percent. SCAG AVIATION REPORT Councilman Laszlo made reference to a recent news article regarding the SCAG Aviation Work Program and airport sites, the Committee labeling the EI Toro Marine Air station and the Los Alamitos Reserve Center as the only workable airfield sites in Orange County, which would mean general aviation at the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center should the Army leave that location. I DAMAGE/REPAIR EVALUATION - MOFFAT & NICHOL - ALLOCATION OF FUNDS Councilman Hastings referred to a communication to the Engineering Department from Moffat & Nichol offering to do an evaluation of the condition of the pier and groin and make recommendations to the City at a cost of $8,500. Councilmember Forsythe suggested that this would be within the scope of matters considered by the Beach Commission, and noted there was an individual at their last meeting from scripps that discussed the possibility of an artificial reef. Staff advised that there is approximately $145,000 in the Groin Repair Fund. Councilman Hunt recalled that when the groin was last examined the extent of repair was in the range of $200,000, and over recent years it can be presumed there is now more repair necessary, however there are no funds available to accomplish those repairs nor the extension of the groin, likewise what is identified now may be invalid at such time as funds are available. Councilmember Hastings suggested that general obligation bonds could fund the repairs. Councilman Laszlo requested that the Engineering Department provide specifications for consideration at the next meeting, and it is likely funds could be found to accomplish a first phase of repair. Councilmember Forsythe again requested that this matter be referred to the Beach Commission for consideration. Consensus was indicated that specifications for groin repair be on the next Council agenda, and suggested that the Beach Commission may wish to call a meeting to discuss this issue. I HELLMAN RANCH/MOLA PROJECT - MEASURE A-91 Councilmember Hastings expressed objection to a political mailer that provided a postcard request for absentee ballot and contained false information claiming that the politicians are asking the citizens to spend tax dollars for a commercial development, also to a letter containing like statements from the Initiative Committee, the letterhead of which listing the Mayor and Councilman Hunt as A-91 supporters. She noted this political mail was distributed nearly three weeks after the Council had adopted a Resolution confirming that the intent was not to use tax dollars to purchase the Hellman land. Ms. Carla Watson, Seal Beach, said she would never support a massive commercial development nor anything that would infringe upon neighboring backyards as the proposed project does. She suggested that some of the previous speakers should look at this community anew from a clear, focused viewpoint, made specific reference to past considerations regarding the restaurant and development on the pier, and said as reported in a recent news article, even small municipal golf courses bring a tremendous amount of money into a community. Ms. Fay Dadbeh, 617 Taper Drive, expressed her opposition to the Mola development for three hundred twenty-nine homes, and suggested that if there is any doubt with the Initiative, B- 91 is an advisory measure of a concept plan that would not I .,."/'1... . '.. .It _r' 5-13-91 I be enacted immediately if approved by the voters and would allow a choice. Mr. Harold Rothman, Seal Beach, said he felt everyone is trying to do what is best for the City, the advisory measure allows options to be left open, the control left to the city rather than a developer. He objected to the use of the initiative process in this manner, the Initiative proposing parkland however is placed in the midst of homes, and not as adequate as he would like to see, also that an acceptable choice of development on the Hellman land may be found somewhere between the Initiative Measure and the Advisory Measure. with specific reference to the Advisory, he said only twenty-five percent of the twenty- three acres could be built upon, equal to ten percent of the project area, and likely only six percent of that area would be utilized for specialty retail use, the worth of the completed project somewhere between $50 to $60 million, the retail generating approximately $700,000 annual sales tax and subject to the rate of inflation. He suggested also that if a golf course were developed there may likewise be a desire to include possibly eighty homes, where the worth of homes on a golf course would increase considerably. Mr. Rothman reiterated the importance of leaving options open, and concluded that he had once felt the three hundred twenty-nine homes may be acceptable, however not through the initiative process. Councilmember Forsythe referred to the recently held City Manager candidate interviews which brought forth new, fresh ideas, and upon describing her views regarding the Hellman Ranch, the final two candidates agreed that after residential development is in place and the development fees are paid, that type of development is a cost to the community in the long run. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:49 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:05 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "H" thru "0" Councilman Hunt requested that Item "H" be removed from the Consent Calendar. Forsythe moved, second by Laszlo, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item "H", as presented. I I. Denied the claim for automobile damages of Mr. Martin Bockstahler. J. Denied the claim for damages of Ms. Alice Smith and referred same to the city's liability attorney and adjuster. K. Received and filed the memorandum regarding the Notice of Preparation of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program EIR, and instructed staff to forward said Notice to the Environmental Quality Control Board and Planning Commission for information. I L. Received and filed memorandum regarding the Naval Weapons Station Draft site Inspection Work Plan, and instructed staff to forward same to the Environmental Quality Control Board. M. Received and filed the memorandum regarding the Final Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, and instructed staff to forward same to the Planning commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information. '5-13-91 N. Approved the plans and specifications for Project Number 613, Resurfacing of streets in College Park East, and authorized the Acting City Manager to advertise for bids. Approved the Lease and Operating Agreement of the First street Beach Concession between the City and Michael Hallett for the term of two years and eleven months, commencing June 1, 1991 and expiring April 30, 1994. O. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "H" - DEMANDS Councilman Hunt made reference to check number 83860 payable to Burke, Williams & Sorensen. He said it was his impression that the firm of the City Attorney selected the subject firm, questioned the authority to do so, inquired as to the services requested, whether there was authorization to prepare a writ against other members of the Council and certain citizens, and if it is legal for the City to pay these legal costs, particularly with regard to the writ. The Assistant City Attorney stated that their firm had not selected Burke, Williams & sorensen, and explained that a lawsuit was filed with the Councilmembers named as real parties of interest, a court appearance scheduled within a week from the date of service, that upon inquiry by members of the Council he advised them their firm could not represent them due to a conflict, however he felt there was I an obligation to inform all members of the Council that they had a right to representation if they so chose, and did ~ention law firms that they may wish to consider, three Councilmembers then determined to retain Mr. Tom Feeley of the subject firm, who was in fact retained by the Acting city Manager of their behalf. The Acting city Manager said he recalled discussing the names of attorneys to represent the three members of the Council with the City Attorney. The Assistant City Attorney explained that Mr. Feeley was retained to represent those members of the Council in the pending action, named as real parties of interest, that the cross petition for writ of mandate made reference to was against the city Clerk with the real parties of interest being those persons who signed the various arguments, and offered that upon consulting with his clients if a decision was reached that the cross complaint was the proper means to protect the interests of Mr. Feeley's clients, that would be within the scope of Mr. Feeley's assignment, The Assistant city Attorney clarified that he had not been present, nor was he aware of or privileged to the discussions between Mr. Feeley and his clients. He explained further that Mr. Feeley had been retained in connection with the action filed on the ballot arguments, a cross complaint was prepared to' that case, and was specific to those arguments. Councilman I Hunt said he could find no mention of costs in the billing detail relating to the filing of the writ by Mr. Feeley, and inquired if that cost was included in another item, if they do not intend to charge for that activity, or if that cost is yet to be forthcoming. The Assistant city Attorney stated he did not have the information to answer that question. councilmember Forsythe said it was likely there was no charge because there was no action taken on the cross complaint since the issue was resolved by that time, and again stated the matter could have been settled on the first court date except that the attorney representing the interests of the Mayor and councilman Hunt, who were not 5-13-91 I present, was directed by someone to not accept the changes agreed upon by the other interested parties. Councilman Hunt acknowledged that they had not been present, and claimed the first court appearance was merely to set a hearing date. Councilmember Hastings said the three members of the Council were more than willing to not have legal representation initially, the intent being to let the court review the matter and make a decision, however upon the understanding that the other two members of the Council were being represented, a decision to retain an attorney was not made until Wednesday prior to the Thursday court date. Again in response to Councilman Hunt, the Assistant City Attorney explained that if the cross complaint was filed in the pending case and named the city Clerk as the respondent and others as real parties of interest, it would be appropriate for the City to assume payment of that cost. Councilman Hunt said he had no argument with paying for the defense in this matter, however he could not justify payment of costs relating to those persons initiating a lawsuit. . Councilman Laszlo noted that a suit was filed on March 29th by Hunt and Wilson naming the City Clerk as respondent and the remaining members of the Council, and that the cross complaint was not filed until five days later. It was again pointed out that it would not be illegal for the Council to authorize payment to Burke, Williams & Sorensen for services in case number 653732, the original petition, and actions consolidated therewith. Discussion continued. In response to an inquiry of Councilman Hunt, the Assistant City Attorney stated he would review the telephone charges of their firm on the billing submitted for payment. Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to approve regular demands numbered 83642 through 83855 in the amount of $655,338.24 and payroll demands numbered 45153 through 45324 in the amount of $203,771.90 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Hunt Wilson Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4038 - FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 90-124 - 242 and 242-1/2 FIFTH STREET Resolution Number 4938 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 90-124." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4038 was waived. The Development Services Director reported this action divides one 50 foot by 117.5 foot lot into two separate buildable lots and meets the minimum lot size requirements. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4038. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4039 - ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER - CREATING SALARY RANGE Resolution Number 4039 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CREATING A SALARY RANGE FOR THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4039 was waived. The Acting City Manager confirmed that there is an existing job classification for the Assistant City Manager position, however there is no current salary range. It was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over until the next meeting. 5-13-91 RESOLUTION NUMBER 4040 - CREATING BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Resolution Number 4040 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CREATING A BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4040 was waived. The Acting city Manager noted a change to Section 4 of the Resolution to read "the City of Seal Beach will permit the Chamber of Commerce to nominate two voting members..." and recommended that the date for submittal of a final report either be deleted or revised in Section 6(c)., The Assistant city Attorney made reference to Section 6, stating it should be made clear that the marketing report and funding thereof would require further consideration by the Council at some future time, that the Council would have the opportunity to review any survey prior to its distribution, in other words the City is not committing to a marketing analysis until receiving recommendations from the Business Advisory Committee, also that it would be a policy decision as to whether the city or the Chamber would assume the cost of preparing and mailing said survey. Members of the Council reported objections to an assessment for a marketing study by certain Main Street business persons, a suggestion made that such funds be accumulated and used for Main Street improvements, also the proposed $50 fee and the application of same to the various types of business licenses was discussed. Discussion continued. Mr. Dennis Pollman, Chamber President, said the marketing study was a suggestion of a marketing firm, the intent of the Business Advisory Committee was to look at the feasibility of a marketing study, that the Committee would also be available to assist businesses with problems they may be encountering. Mr. John Baker, outgoing Business Association President, referred to the Downtown Revitalization Study in the 1980's and more recently the Retail Sales Tax Advisory Committee, the recommendations of which have never been implemented. He said members of the business community are willing to spend their time and effort to improve the business climate, however nothing has been nor can be done without the assistance and cooperation of the City, as an example cited a prior request to construct an archway over Main Street near Pacific Coast Highway, yet the Council took no action to grant permission to raise funds for that purpose. As a point of clarification, Mr. Pollman said the intent was that the survey be conducted by the city, on City stationary, returned to the city, opened and tabulated by the Committee, with the Chamber assuming the cost of reproducing and mailing the survey. After further discussion, Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4040 as amended, deleting the third and fourth recitals as drafted, incorporating the wording change to Section 4 and establishing the date for the final report as July 1, 1992 as recommended by staff, and language would be added to set forth the Chamber's agreement to assume the cost of printing and reproduction of the survey, and a sunset clause of July 1, 1992 would be inserted. ' AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 10:10 p,m. The Council reconvened at 10:24 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4041 - OPERATION DESERT STORM Resolution Number 4041 was presented to Council and read in full by Mayor Wilson entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND I I, I 5-13-91 RECOGNIZING THOSE WHO SERVED IN OPERATION "DESERT STORM." Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Resolution Number 4041 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4042 - HONORING CAPTAIN STEPHEN T. HOLL - COMMANDER - NAVAL WEAPONS STATION Resolution Number 4042 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH HONORING AND RECOGNIZING CAPTAIN STEPHEN T. HOLL FOR HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4042 was waived. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4042 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1335 - LIFEGUARD DEPARTMENT - CITATION POWERS By consensus of the Council, Ordinance Number 1335 was held over until the next meeting, as requested by staff. I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4043 - COMPLETION - LAMPSON AVENUE MEDIAN IRRIGATION - PROJECT NUMBER 616 Resolution Number 4043 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 #616, LAMPSON AVENUE MEDIAN IRRIGATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN BOPARK ENTERPRISES, INC. AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4043 was waived. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4043 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4044 - ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS - CITY STREETS Resolution Number 4044 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS ON CITY STREETS AND RESCINDING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4044 was waived. In response to Councilmember Forsythe, staff reported the speed limit on Bolsa Avenue was raised from twenty-five to thirty- five miles per hour approximately ten years ago. Councilmember Forsythe pointed out that McGaugh School is now an elementary rather than a middle school and there are many young children walking along Bolsa during peak traffic hours, there is considerable congestion due to sports activities and the Calvary Chapel, that complaints have been received regarding access to Bolsa from side streets as a ' result of traffic speeds, and persons do not honor the stop sign at Seabreeze. She expressed her feeling that thirty- five miles per hour is too fast a speed for being adjacent to an elementary school, and asked the procedure to have the speed lowered. The Acting City Manager described the procedure for conducting speed surveys, taking into consideration prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements, accident records, highway, traffic, and roadside conditions, and utilizing the standard eight-five percentile which is an assumption that that percentage is driving at a safe speed, and if adjustments -5-13-91 from that percentile are made it is likely citations could not be issued. The Assistant city Attorney explained that speed zones are not enforceable unless established by a study, and suggested that the Council could direct the city Engineer to do an additional study of the particular street to determine if a lower speed could be justified. Councilman Hunt offered that due to the peculiarities of I Bolsa Avenue, he believed the request of the council would be that the survey be done at such time tha~ would most favorably give the opportunity to lower the speed limit as close to twenty-five as possible for the full length of that street. staff noted that the speed limit is twenty-five when children are present, or basically during school hours. The Assistant City Attorney said there appears to be a number of factors that could justify lowering of the speed limit on this particular street, suggested that the Council could adopt the proposed Resolution and direct staff to conduct an additional study on Bolsa Avenue. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4044 with the exception of Bolsa Avenue, and that staff be directed to conduct the additional survey and present a recommendation and justification to the council. The Assistant City Attorney recommended that this be done prior to July 1st when the speed limits expire. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried MILLER VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT The Acting City Manager present the staff report relating to I the application submit by the Association of Volleyball Professionals to hold the seventh Miller Lite Professional Beach Volleyball in Seal Beach, the past practice of allowing alcohol to be served from a VIP tent in the city's public parking lot, and the option to impose a permit fee for the use of the public beach. Should the Tournament be approved, it was the recommendation of staff that the VIP tent be denied, that a shuttle service for spectators be required, that a separate line item in the Tideland Beach fund for beach permit fees be established, and that a beach event permit fee be established based upon fees charged by other cities. The Assistant City Attorney stated it would be policy decision as to whether a permit fee would be imposed at this time, however confirmed that the city does have the power to impose a fee for use of the beach, the applicant having no vested right to the use of that location. Mr. Matt Gage said he was the Tour Director for professional beach volleyball events. He advised that their application was submitted seven months ago, that they are trying to conduct the best event possible for themselves and the City, and took exception to comments he had heard regarding the consumption of beer and said from his standpoint he felt the positive impacts are greater than the negative, and indicated their agreement to provide the shuttle service. With regard to Hermosa Beach charging a I $3000 fee, Mr. Gage acknowledged that they charge fees for'a number of things, including a filming permit, and their fees are presently thought to be excessive. He noted that Hermosa is the largest of the events, Seal Beach within the top five of the total of twenty, that the hospitality tent depends upon the city however is used at approximately half of the events, and is important to the sponsor in terms of entertaining their clients, yet it is not uncommon to utilize a private facility to have a hospitality gathering. He said he believed the event has an economic impact, some of the benefits to the City being sales tax, parking fees, . ." '" 5-13-91 I parking citations, spectators and the television coverage a benefit where persons may return to the city at another time. A suggestion was made that the availability of the shuttle be incorporated with the media advertising of the tournament. Again in reference to Hermosa Beach, he explained that the sponsor pays for the filming fee, the permit fees are paid by the Association, and that the Association has a contractual budget with the sponsor for the tour. Members of the Council indicated they had no objection to the hospitality tent, however did not support the serving of beer, spoke for requiring the use of a shuttle, that signs be placed on roadways directing person~ to the parking areas, and that permit fees be somewhat comparable to fees charged by other cities, specifically the City of Hermosa Beach. It was also pointed out that a fee has not been imposed to hold this event in past years, the charges having been for services and clean up only. I Mr. John Baker noted that the applicant has committed to Seal Beach, that conditions can be negotiated, yet a decision needs to be made if the tournament is to be allowed or not. Mr. Bruce stark, Seal Beach, expressed his complaints relating to impacts on the community and residents as a result of past tournaments, the hospitality tent, and serving of beer. He suggested that if the event is approved what is needed is adequate police, a service to tow vehicles that are illegally parked in front of driveways, etc., possible placement of restrooms throughout the area, and that an agreement for permits, fees, and reimbursement of costs be obtained prior to the event. Mr. Don Ferraro, Main Street businessman, suggested that there may be a need for more control, however spoke highly of this and other special events and their positive impact on the business community, and asked that it not be prevented. Mr. Charles Antos, 17th Street, referred to the volleyball tournament and other special events as having an adverse impact on the downtown area, however offered that if parking, adverse behavior and other problem areas could be resolved, there could possibly be an acceptable event. He made reference to the CARES group and their goal to limit alcoholic beverage consumption, and to other cities that have determined to not allow open consumption, suggesting that Seal Beach should be able to follow suit. Mr. Joe Orsini, 701 Ocean Avenue, spoke in favor of the tournament, however stated he felt the staff should have anticipated the needs and negative impacts in the past and required adequate facilities. Mr. LeRoy Brown, Ocean Avenue, agreed that there is inadequate police enforcement for the event, however said the problem is not with the hospitality tent but with those persons who bring their own alcoholic beverages. Mr. Jeff Deckner, Seal Beach, suggested there be a means to recycle the containers that are left in the area. Forsythe moved, second by LaSZlo, to approve the Miller Volleyball Tournament subject to the conditions proposed by staff, that the shuttle service be advertised through the media, that appropriate fees be negotiated, that the City be assured of recovering all related costs for services, including additional police officers, tow services, restrooms, etc. Mr. Gage indicated his willingness to discuss the financial issues further with the staff as well as the concerns brought forth, however explained that there were six police officers on site for last years event, as well as approximately fifteen private security guards that were retained by the event. The Assistant city Attorney said he believed staff had adequate direction to commence negotiations regarding the fees, and that establishment of a I 5-13-91 beach use fee would be forthcoming to the Council for consideration at a later time. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson Hastings Motion carried REPORT - SIGNS ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY I The Director of Development services presented the staff report, this matter the result of a previous request from the real estate industry to place open house signs in the public right-of-way, current Code prohibiting signs or structures in the pUblic right-of-way unless certain permits are obtained. He stated the areas of concern that were addressed by staff were aesthetics, free speech, time, place and manner regulations, right to advertise, traffic safety justification, and public liability, and two options for consideration are to continue present city policy prohibiting signs in the public right-of-way, or direct that a provision be added to the Code that would delineate the allowable conditions under which signs could be located upon the public right-of-way, and if that is the desire of the council, due consideration should be given to aesthetics and free speech, noting also that should signs be allowed they could not be restricted to a particular type of sign. In response to Council, the Director stated most cities prohibit signs in the public right-of-way, yet some cities allow signs through a permit process for a certain period of time in a specific area, also that the City'S current Code prohibits political signs on any public right-of-way. He pointed out that if signs are permitted it would be within the options of the Council to determine the number of signs, I permit fees, time frames, etc. Council indicated their belief that in most instances an individual would not obtain a permit to place a sign. The Assistant city Attorney explained that if the City determines to allow the placement of signs on the public right-of-way anyone could apply for a permit to do so, the City would have no power to deny or regulate the contents of the signs, and recalled that previously the concern had been with safety and liability issues. Question was raised as to who and how enforcement would be accomplished, it was also suggested that realtors do have the ability to request the placement of a sign on a private property for a period of time. It was pointed out that City personnel would be responsible for removal of signs in the public right-of-way. Staff explained that the second option would allow placement of signs on the landscaped area between the sidewalk and curb rather than park properties. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, recalled the city initiated the prohibition of signs on public property and public right-of-ways for safety reasons after the last city election, and agreed that signs do clutter and pose a liability. Mr. Blake Hastings, Seal Beach, complained that there are local agents that leave real estate signs up longer than they should be, and suggested that provisions similar to the City of Irvine and the County could be considered, allowing only one sign on ~ach corner I no matter the number of open houses and local removal of the signs if they are left after the hour of the open house. -- Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th Street, cautioned against potential liability by allowing signs in the public right- of-ways, and agreed that real estate signs could be placed on private property with the owners approval. The Assistant City Attorney agreed with Council that an indemnification clause could be added to the permit, however there is question as to whether it would be enforceable and would likely not deter a liability action. Staff suggested that it may be advisable to discuss the liability issue further 5-13-91 with the City's liability attorney and the Orange County cities Risk Management Association before taking action. It was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over pending further report. I GENERAL PLAN UPDATES It was the consensus of the Council to hold over the matter relating to General Plan Updates, Conservation, Noise and Safety Elements. I COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilman Hunt indicated his desire that a water rate stabilization five percent increase be forthcoming at the earliest possible time, and restated his withdrawal of the request to place a penalty on the identifiable large water users for the reasons that the City is well below twenty percent conservation and because it may be illegal. He indicated his interest in the legal fees of the City's liability attorney for services rendered relating to the ballot arguments, clarifying that his request was not related to the services or payments relating to liability matters that are protected from disclosure, but in this case he was retained as legal counsel rather than a liability attorney. Staff concurred with-the request. Councilman Hunt requested that the staff return to the Council with procedures to go to step four or five of the City's water conservation policy, the reasoning being that summer is approaching and if conservation could be increased somewhat that would eliminate the need to purchase MWD water during those months, which has not been necessary as yet, also that MWD water will be very costly. Councilman Laszlo said MWD has stated the City'S allotment of water would not be increased as a result of additional housing units, therefore the citizens will suffer if the Mola project is built, also claimed that there was a conflict in the Hellman property land value figures on which Mr. Grgas had based his analysis, using $30 million this evening and $20 million previously. Councilmember Hastings invited residents of Old Town to attend the upcoming Planning Commission hearing regarding legal non-conforming uses and present their input. Mayor Wilson inquired about upcoming budget workshops, and noted that Long Beach is considering a nuisance ordinance to prohibit fishing, swimming and climbing on the banks of the San Gabriel River. The Acting City Manager offered to provide a schedule of budget sessions for consideration at next meeting, also that an ordinance could be prepared similar to that of Long Beach regarding the jetties. Mayor Wilson reported an effort to repeal the jail booking legislation, however similar legislation is now being proposed, that Assemblyman Tom Mays has written a letter to CalTrans in support of the soundwall adjacent to Leisure World, and that correspondence is being sent to Senator Bergeson requesting her support also. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, stated recent political literature regarding the Initiative refers to 41.4 acres of wetlands, which he said was incorrect, the actual acreage is 15.8 acres, the remaining area being a buffer, riprap, open water, non-wetlands acreage, claimed A-91 is a developers initiative, a developer with many lawsuits against him. He said if the Initiative is not approved there will be an opportunity for the residents to have whatever they want on that land, and he would support all wetlands, Mr. Blake Hastings, Seal Beach, asked which City Council Mr. Baker had made reference to. Councilman Laszlo responded he presumed 5-13-91/5-28-91 it was the previous Council. Mr. Hastings noted that the individual who had chaired the antique car show has indicated through a letter in the newspaper that he would no longer be involved in that major event due to a conflict with local businesspersons, which he said shows an inability of the Chamber and Business Association to get along internally. Mr. Peter Anninos made reference to a letter he I had forwarded to the Council regarding the cable company, and complained that public access persons are required to pay a $25 users fee intended for maintenance, yet certain cameras are inoperable for field use because they have not been maintained. Council suggested he take his concerns up with the Cable Foundation. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION The Assistant city Attorney announced that pursuant to the Brown Act the City Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss pending litigation in the case of WCAB 89 ANA 220239 and personnel matters. It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn to Closed Session at 12:15 a.m. The Council reconvened at 12:31 a.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The Assistant city Attorney reported the Council had discussed the mater of pending litigation previously announced, gave direction to the city Manager, discussed personnel matters, and no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn until May 28th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 12:36 a.m I the Approved: ~ cR. W~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California May 28, 1991 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:02 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: I Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hunt, Laszlo Absent: Councilmember Hastings