Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1991-07-22 7-8-91/7-22-91 pOlice officers themselves, and a undesirable relationship with the citizens. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications closed. I CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, July 22nd at 6:15 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council, to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 p.m. of the Approved: ~ "'.. L d~pt- Mayor I Attest: Seal Beach, California July 22, 1991 Beach city Council regular adjourned session for 6:15 p.m. was cancelled due to the lack of iscus ion in Closed Session. o ne M. Yeo, ty of Seal Beach I Seal Beach, California July 22, 1991 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Laszlo Councilmembers Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Wilson 7-22-91 Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, City Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Archibold, Assistant City Manager Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk ,I WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried AGENDA AMENDED The City Manager requested that Item "Q", Resolution Number 4070 establishing fees for services, be continued to a future meeting to allow further analysis, and that Item "S", water rate adjustments, be continued until the meeting of August 12th. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Scott Whyte, 4441 Candleberry Avenue, mentioned recent news articles with regard to the San Onofre Power Plant and the I need to restore one hundred fifty acres of wetlands as a mitigation measure and where Seal Beach wetlands were specifically mentioned within the targeted area. He suggested this would be an opportunity seek dialogue with the Edison Company for some type of enhancement program that they would fund as part of their mitigation plan. He added that it would not seem realistic that the pending lawsuit would preclude the City from moving forward to inventory funding and technical assistance sources possibly through the Coastal Enhancement Plan, Coastal Conservancy, Fish and Game, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The City Manager said he was not aware of anything being done with regard to the suggestions, however there is knowledge of one other project that has received mitigation conditions which is being looked at, and he felt there would be need to determine the parameters of pursuing the suggestions in view of the lawsuit. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications closed. 75th ANNIVERSARY LOGO Ms. Dorothy Whyte, Chairman of the 75th Anniversary Committee, explained that in the spring of 1990 the Committee adopted a 75th Anniversary logo designed and donated to the Committee by Mr. Ervin. She reported that the process to copyright the logo is moving forward, I requested that the Council adopt the logo as the official 75th Anniversary logo, that it be allowed to be used as an unofficial logo by the City for recreation or charitable events, and that it not be allowed to be used for financial gain by any entity. Mr. Mike Ervin was introduced and in turn said he was proud to present the original logo artwork to the City through the Committee, reiterating that it was not meant to be used for the financial gain of others. Mayor Laszlo expressed his pleasure in accepting the logo Qn behalf of the Council and the community, and asked if the designer had any objection to the city also using the logo minus the "75th Year" wording. Mr. Ervin said he did not. 7-22-91 COUNCIL ITEMS APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS I Beach commission Councilmember wilson appointed Mr. George Brown to fill the District Two vacancy on the Beach Commission for the unexpired term ending July, 1993. Environmental Oualitv Control Board Councilman Doane appointed Mr. william Hurley to fill the District Five vacancy on the Environmental Quality Control Board for the unexpired term ending July, 1994. Parks and Recreation Commission The District Three appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission was held over. Councilman Doane appointed Mr. Richard Davies as the District Five representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission for the three year term expiring July, 1994. Plannina Commission Councilman Doane appointed Ms. Mary Elizabeth Law as the District Five representative to the Planning Commission for the four year term expiring JUly, 1995. pro,ect Area Committee The District Three resident appointment to the Project Area Committee was held over. I Councilmember Hastings appointed Ms. Sandy Blair as the District One business representative to the Project Area Committee for the two year term expiring July, 1993, and appointed Mr. Clifford David as the District One resident representative for the two year term expiring July, 1993. Ad Hoc Solid Waste Advisorv Committee The District Two appointment to fill the vacancy on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee was held over. Councilman Doane reappointed Mr. Ernie Winter, who had recently resigned this position, as the District Five representative to the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Advisory Committee. citizens ParticiDation Committee Councilman Doane appointed Ms. Ethyle Rachlin to fill the District Five vacancy on the Citizens Participation Committee for the unexpired term ending July, 1994. Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to ratify all appointments. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I APPEAL - MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATION - 223 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD After brief comments, Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to consider this item after Item "X", the restriping of Seal Beach Boulevard. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried AB 939 UPDATE Councilmember Committee has Forsythe reported the Solid Waste Advisory been discussing three types of recycling, a 7-22-91 curbside program utilizing separation bins for newspaper, glass, and plastic, this program the most costly to residents as well as being associated with problems relating to theft of containers and increased truck traffic, a second program being curbside commingling, one container, sorted at a separate facility, yet having similar associated problems as the curbside program. Given the restraints of certain areas of the City, such as the narrow alleys in Old Town, councilmember Forsythe reported the Committee is considering a MRF program as the most appropriate for Seal Beach where, if one is not recycling, the trash is placed in one container, placed curbside, it is collected by the regular trash hauler, taken to a separation facility where the recyclables are sorted out, and although there would be a cost for the sorting, this would be the least expensive of the programs since there would be no cost for bins or additional transportation. She clarified that there would be some cost to the resident whether or not they are presently recycling, citing Newport Beach residents as an example who pay $1.25. She pointed out that the present refuse hauler is willing to renegotiate the current trash contract to include a recycling element, as had been discussed by the Committee, that there will be negotiation of the annual gate fee on the basis that the amount of refuse going to the landfill is reduced by twenty-five and fifty percent by State mandate, therefore the City should realize a reduction of that fee equal to the saving as a result of reduced tonnage, and there will also be an attempt to recover some monies from the recyclables. Councilmember Forsythe reported the consultant has requested that a workshop be scheduled to review the programs under consideration, and suggested August 5th at 4:00 p.m. with the Council, Committee and consultant present and open to public comments. It was the consensus of the Council to hold a workshop on August 5th as requested. Councilmember Hastings stated she would be out of town at that time. REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE Mayor Laszlo requested that an item to establish a Redistricting Committee be placed on the next agenda. Question was raised with regard to a census recount. The Development Services Director advised that the Federal Census Bureau has not seen fit to increase the population of the city over the 25,098 figure, that they have also not developed a method to conduct a special census nor the cost. He noted the staff is presently reviewing and breaking out the block figures from the census data recently received. The Director said staff believes the shortage of persons reflected in the census figures is approximately 2000 to 2200 based upon the 1980 census, that the population figure does impact the City's revenues, yet the City Charter requires that the City be redistricted, and it may be at least a year before a special census could be completed. It appeared to be the consensus of the Council to place a Redistricting Committee item on the next agenda as requested. REPORT - SUNSET AOUATIC PARK Ms. Betty Blank, 10162 Redeye Circle, Fountain Valley, said the amended Master Plan of Parks was adopted in May, 1980 for the purpose of providing a countywide regional network of recreational facilities of sufficient size, disperse locations, and amenities to meet the regional recreational needs of present and future residents of the entire County. She mentioned her understanding that Sunset Aquatic Park consists of sixty-three acres purchased from the Navy at fifty percent of market value and thirty-one acres leased I I I ,.. I ~.'t = "i.:- , . 7-22-91 I from the state, the lease arrangement based upon the expressed condition that the area be developed into a public aquatics park, and according to the County Plan an aquatic harbor park is defined as having facilities typical of both a regional harbor and park including onshore camping. Ms. Blank pointed out that the Seal Beach Council had supported Plan "B" having ninety-eight overnight campsites and one hundred thirty-two dry boat storage areas, the Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission also supported Plan "B", yet the Board of Supervisors voted against Plan "B" and supported the desires of Huntington Harbour residents, and based upon the 1990 Orange County population projections the two hundred boat storage areas proposed would serve .000867 of the population, yet if the ninety-eight overnight camp sites were utilized by 10,000 families on an average of 3.5 days per year, 35,770 recreational vehicle camping days would be realized annually, which she said was the intended use for this facility. Ms. Blank continued, speaking of the recognized need, yet lack of overnight facilities along the coast, in turn assuring coastal access to many inland residents. She noted also that the supervisors changed the name to Sunset Marina Park with no mention of regional park. Ms. Blank urged the Council to continue to support Plan "B" and that the State Lands and Coastal Commissions be so advised, and offered to provide background information for the information of the Council.' Mr. Irwin Gilbert, Buena Park, State Director of the Southern California Good Sam Club, reported there to be three hundred fifty members in Seal Beach and sixteen thousand members in Orange County, that eighty percent of their members are sixty years of age or older, that there has been a portrayal that overnight campers are vagrants and thieves, as well as concern with traffic expressed. Mr. Gilbert spoke in favor of the mix of uses proposed by Plan "B" which he said would serve the greatest number of people. He urged continued Council support for Plan "B" rather than Plan "C" as revised. Mr. Morgan Rogers, Los Alamitos, said he had provided information to the Council in March relating to Sunset Aquatic Park and pointed out that the Park is within the boundaries of Seal Beach, noted also that the City does not have an adopted Coastal Plan. He indicated his belief that comments will be required of the City when the plan is before the Coastal Commission and State Lands even though the subject land is partly leased from the State and partly owned by the County. Mr. Rogers said included in the information previously provided were details regarding a consultant study of existing marinas in the County, the study concluding that the first choice would be that the County buyout the remaining term of the leasehold interest of the marina, the second choice was for County ownership under a private operating agreement upon the expiration of the existing lease in eight and a half years, and it was concluded that the County should not continue under the existing ground lease arrangement as it creates the least current and future dollar return. Mr. Rogers mentioned recent news articles that report sole source negotiations with the existing leaseholder for an additional thirty year lease, the County to spend $5 million to upgrade the Park and loan $3.4 to the lessee, the leaseholder would then pay the County eighty percent of the net profit from the operation in lieu of twenty percent of the gross payment. He offered to provide the city Manager with the information to which he had referenced. A member of the Council indicated an understanding that the Board of Supervisors were reconsidering this item as a result of a potential or alleged conflict of interest,regarding the consultant, an objection to the County spending $8.4 million for a $5.920'- I I 7-22-91 return was also raised. The city Manager said there has been an indication by three members of the Board to not extend the consultant contract, and it is unknown what affect that would have on the Plan at this point. There was an indicated consensus to forward the Council adopted Resolution in support of Plan "B" to the various agencies mentioned. -J CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "G" thru ilK" Councilmember Wilson requested Item "I" be removed from the Consent Calendar, Councilmember Hastings requested Item "G" removed, and a member of the audience requested Item "H" removed. Councilmember Hastings requested a correction to the TRAN documents under Item IIJ" to reflect the current Mayor and Councilmembers. Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items "G, H, and I", as presented. -I J. Approved Resolution Number 4067 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PROVIDING FOR BORROWING OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 AND THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF 1991 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES THEREFOR, APPOINTING A FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND BOND COUNSEL AND APPROVING, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES AND AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH II as amended. K. Approved Resolution Number 4068 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN DEMANDS AND CHECKS FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS ON DEPOSIT WITH THE BANK OF AMERICA, SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK, WELLS FARGO BANK AND FIRST INTERSTATE BANK; AND AUTHORIZING ALTERNATE SIGNATURES, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 4050." I AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "G" - DEMANDS Councilmember Hastings noted payments to three individuals that she believed to be retired police officers, asked what the payments were for and the meaning of the code ADPP. The City Manager indicated knowledge of retirement status of two of the individuals, also that they are currently acting as part-time court liaisons. Councilmember Hastings suggested that there be a recruitment for the part-time position rather than using retired disability officers in order to I avoid past situations. The City Manager noted that with a number of positions not being filled staff is looking to transfer certain duties and assignments, and explained that this particular job description has been reviewed and amended and will be presented to the Civil Service Board at their next meeting, the job description necessary to conduct a recruitment. The Assistant city Manager advised that ADPP stands for Advanced Disability Pension Payments, a requirement under the Labor Code, explaining that once the City retires an officer they continue on ADPP until such time as the Public Employees Retirement System places the _ 7-22-91 I individual on their payment rolls, afterwhich the City requests reimbursement of the ADPP. He noted also that no employee on a part-time basis is entitled to PERS benefits, the employee does not contribute to that System nor does the part-time employment affect their retirement wage, however there is a restriction as to the number of hours that can be worked per year without jeopardizing their retirement benefits. with regard to other payment inquiries, staff reported a payment to Cal State Long Beach was registration for a public executive skills program for Mr. Archibold, payment to BoPark Enterprises related to alley repair, Nobest, Inc. believed to be a partial payment for a Public Works project, and payment to st. Anne's Church was for cleaning and maintenance relating to the MORE Program. Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to approve regular demands numbered 84573 through 84658 in the amount of $618,566.56 and payroll demands numbered 46055 through 46266 in the amount of $231,690.21 as approved by the Finance Committee, and that warrants be drawn on the Treasury for same. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I ITEM "H" - CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - SPENCER Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, asked that the city Attorney read the contents of the claim, she also read a recent newspaper editorial alleging restricted access to various documents and/or information from the City. Mayor Laszlo noted his intent to request that a public information policy be developed for future clarification as to what mayor may not be released. Ms. Corbin claimed that records she has previously requested have not been provided, that State and Federal law should be followed as it pertains to documents, and insisted the claim be read in full. The Assistant City Attorney explained that the claim itself is considered a public document, that once submitted by the claimant there is no expectation of privacy, however the concern of the liability attorney is that generally there are other individuals mentioned in claims who do have privacy rights, and there is a potential exposure to the city to reveal information regarding the other persons mentioned. The Assistant City Attorney read the January 2nd, 1991 claim of Mr. John Spencer in full as submitted by the claimant. Ms. Corbin asked that there be a policy established to allow access to claims, and indicated her understanding of the need to delete certain information from those claims. Forsythe moved, second by Wilson, to deny the claim for damages of JOhn-Spencer and that same be referred to the City'S liabilit~' attorney and insurance adjuster. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I ITEM "1" - MINUTES Councilmember Wilson noted the name of the Mayor on pages 10 and 15 was incorrect. Hastings moved, second by Wilson, to approve the minutes of the February 11th, 1991 regular meeting as corrected. It was noted that Councilmembers Doane and Forsythe were abstaining as they were not present at that meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Doane, Forsythe Motion carried It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 8:20 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:36 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. 7-22-91 In response to Council, the Development Services Director explained that the hearing relating to 223 Seal Beach Boulevard is an informal hearing as opposed to a formal, noticed public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 91-175 - SUBDIVISION - 112 CENTRAL AVENUE - LURASCHI Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing open to consider -- Tentative Parcel Map 91-175 for properties located at 112 Central Avenue. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported no communicatio~s received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explaining that the request is to subdivide the subject property from its current one residential lot to four residential lots of 30.14 feet in width by 100 feet in depth, and in conjunction 'with the subdivision, the applicants are proposing to demolish three residential structures containing eight units and construct four single family homes, the owners have also offered to donate the structure located at 112 Central to the city which is known as the Krenwinkle house, built in 1913, and in the 1940's was relocated to the present site from Anaheim Landing. He explained that the proposed Resolution would accept the granting of the Krenwinkle house subject to the city determining an appropriate location within the community to relocate the structure for an appropriate use, that determination not anticipated to be necessary for about a year. The Director noted a concern of the Commission had been the provision for low/moderate income housing in the Coastal Zone, the determination of the Commission was to comply with the provision of the Government Code, therefore the Resolution reflects the exemption that when less than ten multiple residential units on a single property are being demolished the developer is not required to make provision for replacement housing for low/moderate income persons. He explained that should the subdivision be denied the applicant would be allowed to construct 5.54 units on the subject property under existing zoning, also due to the size of the lot a third story would be allowed to be constructed at the rear of the property. The Director clarified that should the City accept the offer of the Krenwinkle house the hope is that an appropriate location can be found to avoid interim storage of the dwelling. In response to Council, he advised that a development agreement is a negotiated matter between the developer and the City, and in this case it was not felt necessary because of the control provided by the conditions of the parcel map, confirmed that the Historical Society had been contracted with regard to the Krenwinkle house, and again explained the exemption under the Government Code applicable in this case where replacement housing is not required. The Director explained that the related fees are subdivision fees, recently adopted by the Council, of $10,000 per new residential lot for subdivisions of fifty or less lots, to offset impacts to the City's parks and recreation facilities. I I Mayor Laszlo invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th Street, stated he was representing Annabelle and Robert Luraschi, that they have reviewed the staff report and the proposed Resolution with conditions, and that it was acceptable. He requested that the City Attorney review the letter offering the dedication of the Krenwinkle house, or if another form of irrevocable offer is desired that would be considered, noting that the offer is being made at this I _Hot, . ' 7-22-91 time to allow the City the opportunity to make arrangements for an appropriate location. Mr. Antos requested that the subdivision be approved. There being no other comments, Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing closed. I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4069 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 91-175 - 122 CENTRAL AVENUE - LURASCHI Resolution Number 4069 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 91-175 AND CERTIFYING ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6-91, PERMITTING THE SUBDIVISION OF A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL LOT TO FOUR (4) RESIDENTIAL LOTS (112 CENTRAL AVENUE)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4069 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Resolution Number 4069. The Assistant City Attorney offered to contact Mr. Antos if it is determined necessary to develop some other form of agreement relating to the Krenwinkle house. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BAY CITY VILLAS - 1600 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY and 336 - 17th STREET - WATSON Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing open to consider a Development Agreement for the Bay City Villas project comprising eleven single family residences and a total of 3,000 square feet of commercial/retail space located on three separate commercially zoned lots. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services noted the Council had approved first reading of the Zone Change Ordinance at the June 24th meeting, that action on the General Plan amendments had been postponed until all documents relating to this project could be considered at one time. The Director reported the Planning commission discussion focused on park fees for the residential construction, initially $90,000 to which the developer had agreed, however there was a proposed requirement for an additional $20,000 for park mitigation impacts for the current residentially zoned parcels which have never been developed for residential use to which the developer objected and the Planning Commission eliminated as being inappropriate. He stated a second concern was the number of units of low/mOderate income housing and the related fee if the developer did not provide such housing, the determination of the Planning Commission was to accept the provision as proposed, to require one new low/moderate income unit in the coastal zone or within three miles of the coastal zone or the payment of a $15,000 fee that would be placed in the city's low/moderate housing fund and could be used to subsidize the cost of an existing housing unit. He mentioned that the applicant filed their application for the residential and commercial project with the Coastal Commission however has since expressed concern that the development agreement may delay the approvals at the Commission level which in turn could affect the close of escrow, and has requested consideration of a means other than the development agreement to ensure the conditions of the project. The Director suggested that the Council could act on the first reading of the Ordinance and that staff and the City Attorney could attempt to develop a method to accommodate the request of the applicant that would be acceptable to the city prior to second reading. In response to Council, the Director reported the concern of the Planning Commission Chairman had been whether a low/moderate unit could be provided for the $15,000 within the City, that I 7-22-91 it was explained that the unit would not necessarily need to be within the city, that it could be within the coastal zone or three miles thereof, that the fee was based on a formula used for the development agreement for the Mola project, $150,000 per acre land acquisition cost or about $10,000 per unit, and given the land acquisition cost in Old Town that figure was increased by fifty percent. He added that a provision in the development agreement requires either the housing be provided within a certain period of time or if -- the unit can not be provided the in-lieu fee is required to be paid, also that testimony to the Commission indicated there were two bedroom rental units available in this community for $1,000 per month or less, which would be within the rental ratios that would allow a family of four with moderate income to rent those units without any subsidy. He explained further that the requirement is that a unit be provided, not necessarily a newly constructed unit, that could be guaranteed to be used for low/moderate income purposes. I Mayor Laszlo invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. James Watson, 101 Main street, Seal Beach, stated his acceptance of the report presented by staff, indicated his belief that some mechanism, possibly a letter agreement, could be prepared to guarantee the benefits to the City rather than a development agreement, and in response to Mayor Laszlo, agreed to bear the expense of any related legal costs. He explained that September is believed to be the Coastal Commission hearing, that the development agreement could likely affect that date, and in turn the close of escrow. Dr. Anton Dahlman, 1724 Crestview Avenue, said he was not necessarily opposed to the project, that it meets with approval of those persons residing in the immediate area, yet his concern was with low income housing. He stated low income housing was discussed at the initial commission review of the proposal and Mr. Watson had indicated an understanding that issue would be his responsibility if deemed necessary, also that the Housing Element requires two hundred eighty-five low income units over the next five to ten years in comparison to six hundred fifteen high income units, and if only one unit is required for each ten units, eventually a developer will be required to provide ten low income units to one high income unit, therefore in his opinion three or four low income units would be more appropriate for this project, and questioned the adequacy of the in-lieu fee of $15,000. He offered that what is considered a rental rate in 1991 will be increased by the rate of inflation by 1995, and that the subsidized rate will also increase, therefore the in-lieu fee should more realistically be $60,000 per unit. Dr. Dahlman again stated his support for the project, however noted his concern that another developer, the tax payers, or the city may eventually find it necessary to make up the difference in low income housing. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing closed. with regard to a City's inability to meet the low/moderate income housing requirements, the Development Services Director explained that the categories of number of units in the Housing Element are goals rather than mandates, and should a city be unable to meet that goal, the state does not presently have a means to force cities to require construction of housing. He noted the qualifying moderate income for a family of four is $62,500 which will support a monthly housing cost of $1566, and reported the applicant has provided a listing of three to four bedroom units in the community over the past year at a rent of less than that I I L ,.. 7-22-91 I figure, that a qualifying low"income is $38,000 per year, supporting a $10,000 annual housing cost or $900 per month, which would likely require some subsidy, and although most units in Seal Beach would not qualify for low income housing, the law allows the city to provide those units within three miles outside the coastal zone. The Director noted the next Housing Element is due in 1994, that the city will receive a preliminary housing needs assessment, and upon review should it be determined the numbers are not realistic, that determination can be documented and presented to the Southern California Association of Governments, the body that makes the final determination as to wh~t the goal of the city should be. He said he did not believe there would be a problem in this particular case given that there is a reasonable justification based upon present rental rates in the City, and the $15,000 could provide a unit for a period of time. He clarified that no credit is given for existing low/moderate housing, that the numbers are in anticipation of new families moving into the area, that the Housing Element may be amended at any time however the goals can not be changed until 1994, also that the Coastal Commission no longer take into consideration the low income housing issues when reviewing a project. I The public hearing was reopened to receive further public input. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, said she did not believe that the noticing requirements had been met for considering this item a second time by the Planning Commission, therefore the Council could not legally vote on this matter. The Director explained that the formal agenda packets were not distributed to the libraries or posted at City Hall . until early Monday morning prior to the Commission meeting, as opposed to Friday, as a result of the copy machine not working, however the matter had been publicly noticed through legal advertisement and mailed to property owners within the required radius of the project, also that noticing and posting requiremen~s had been met for the city Council hearing. The Assistant city Attorney stated that based upon the explanation the city is in compliance with the statutory noticing requirements for this project for both the Planning Commission and city Council, that there appears to have been technical non-compliance with the City'S posting requirements for the Commission meeting, yet there is full compliance with State law and City posting requirements for the Council hearing, therefore would not void a decision of the City Council. Dr. Dahlman offered that the hearing was actually held after midnight, therefore the day was Thursday and the posting requirements met. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach, said she did not oppose the project, however questioned what the consequences would be if the low/moderate income requirement is not met given that there are few such vacancies in the community. The Director reported the 1990 census figures indicated seven percent of the housing units were vacant, however that is not felt to be correct and that it is closer to three or four percent, and data has shown that there are units and apartments available that would fall within the moderate income level. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo again declared the public hearing c~srd. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1i4i'~ APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CITY VILLAS OJECT - WATSON Ordinance Number 42 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND JAMES R. WATSON FOR THE BAY CITY VILLAS PROJECT." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1142 was waived. Councilmember Wilson moved to approve first I 7-22-91 reading of Ordinance Number 1i42 and that it be passed to second reading. councilmember Hastings seconded the 'motion contingent upon development of an acceptable agreement between Mr. Watson and the city. Noting the $15,000 in-lieu fee, Mayor Laszlo said he would prefer a higher fee for future projects. The Director agreed that an adopted policy would be desirable. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I It was noted that proposed Resolutions numbered 4063 and 4064 and Ordinance Number 1339, all relating to this proposed project, would be continued until the next meeting. It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 9:43 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:59 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. AGENDA AMENDED Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to amend the agenda to consider Item "C", the appeal relating.to 223 Seal Beach Boulevard, at this time. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried APPEAL - PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION - MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATION - 223 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD The Director of Development Services reported this item is the result of a complaint received by the City regarding the storage of a trailer at the rear of the property located at I 223 Seal Beach Boulevard which is not in compliance with the Zoning Code. He stated staff initiated a Code enforcement '--~. investigation during which the property owner was advised of the violation and that the trailer should be moved from the required rear setback and loading zone. The Director advised that the determination of staff was appealed, heard by the Planning Commission on June 5th at which time the property owner asked to retain the trailer until such time as new zoning standards are established for that area, he reported four letters were received in support of allowing the trailer to remain as well. He reported the determination of the Commission was to deny the appeal with a recommendation that any Code enforcement regarding the trailer be stayed for a twelve month period while the City looked at new development standards along Seal Beach Boulevard. He noted that subsequently an appeal to the Planning Commission decision was filed by Mr. Charles Antos based upon the feeling that the Commission does not have the authority to direct staff to defer Code enforcement. The Director again clarified that pursuant to recent Council action regarding the right to appeal, this is a legal hearing to receive testimony, that residents of the area were notified of the hearing, however it is not a formal, noticed public hearing as it would be for a zone change, I General Plan Amendment, etc. The Assistant City Attorney advised that technically Mr. Antos was correct in that the Planning commission does not have the power to determine ~ that the Code not be enforced, yet they do have an ability to recommend amendments to the Code, and in this case staff is requesting direction with regard to this matter, to either amend the Code to allow certain encroachments, allow the owner to apply for a variance, or affirm the decision of the Commission which in effect reverses the determination of the Planning Director that the trailer should be removed. The. Director noted that the Council has authorized staff to initiate a study to develop new zoning standards for the 7-22-91 I area, which is currently in the process, also, other than the appellant, no other persons expressed objection to the trailer before the Commission. The Director stated there was not felt to be justification sufficient to allow the trailer to remain in its present location under any circumstances, and even though it allegedly serves as a windscreen for the preschool, the staff suggestion to the owner was to make application for a variance for a higher wall, the thought being that there may be more appropriate grounds for a variance for the height of a wall rather than for the trailer. Question was posed as to whether any hardship would be created by leaving the trailer or possibly would a hardship be created on the surrounding neighbors by removing the noise barrier from the preschool. staff indicated that there had been no hardship indicated to the Commission in either case except from the owner who felt it was inappropriate to remove the trailer until there was a clear direction that they would be allowed to increase the height of their wall, also cautioned that in speaking of hardship, care should be taken to not allow violations to continue as a hardship situation that would tend to encourage Code violations by others. Councilmember Wilson said she felt the view from the entire alley was unsightly, spoke in favor of moving ahead with new zoning standards that would allow the residents in that area to improve their properties, and that she felt the Planning Commission recommendation to allow a year to remove the trailer seemed reasonable. Councilmember Hastings expressed her feeling that a special privilege can not be granted in the case of a Code violation. I Ms. Seretta Fielding, property owner, stated that when she was looking to purchase the subject property six years ago she had discussed the problems that existed in the alley with the Planning Director at that time, that the trailer was not meant to be permanently placed, that it was a . temporary solution to the traffic and transient problems in the alley, and it had not been mentioned that it was a Code violation. She said an eight foot fence will not stop the noise, the wind, or the transient problems associated with privacy. She noted that she had been informed that the area was going to be considered for rezoning, she had joined the committee dealing with that issue, however the guidelines have never been implemented. Ms. Fielding stated that the trailer can be removed and the issue can be resolved by the rezoning of the area since she would be allowed to build a wall twelve feet onto the property that would reach a second story. She requested that the Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, proceed to implement the new zoning standards for Seal Beach Boulevard that will allow those properties to be improved, said there are a number of Code violations along that street, yet most unintentional, and noted a petition from adjacent neighbors on her behalf. Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th Street, stated the Code does not provide the right for a Planning Director to allow a - Code violation, and if such permission was given it was in error. He said the appeal is based upon the action of the Planning Commission, that upon the Planning staff determining there was a violation, it was appealed to the Commission, that body did not say there was no violation, yet chose to allow the violation to remain until such time as new zoning regulations are put into effect, to which he maintained that action to be in error and rather there should have been some type of approval process recommended. Mr. Antos said there is the ability at the present time for a person along Seal Beach Boulevard to seek a permit, possibly a conditional use permit granted for a specific period of time, to construct a two story windwall, attached I 7-22-91 to the building and across the yard, perhaps with two-story footings, and if it complies with the setbacks and Building Code construction it would serve the same purpose as the trailer. He added that since it would not be a fence but an addition to the building it would not be limited to six feet in height, commercial properties allowed to go practically I from property line to property line as long as the Fire Code" is complied with, and that the privacy factor could be accomplished by means of a keyed gate. He offered pictures of the trailer location. Mr. Antos suggested that the Council refer this matter back to the Commission for some type of a permit if the intent is to allow the violation to remain for a period of time. The Director again explained that a variance can not be permitted for something that is not allowed by Code, that the suggestion for a variance was to allow an increase of the wall height if the issue was a windscreen for protection of the children in the area, otherwise it would be necessary to amend to Code to allow trailers to remain in the parking and setback areas, which he said he was not certain that would be the desire of the city, also that there are no provisions where a Conditional Use Permit could be applied for in a situation such as this. The Assistant City Attorney indicated that his understanding from the property owner is that the trailer is necessary for a windblock, also used for storage, and suggested that a variance could be applied for to extend the wall height in the interim pending adoption of new zoning regulations, however there may not be special circumstances under which to legally grant a variance. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Ocean Avenue, took exception to this matter, stating that residents had been assured for a number of years that this I Code violation would be resolved. She related her personal experience of having to move a childrens playhouse to at -- least twelve feet from the white line of the alley, that regulation similarly applied to the parking of a vehicle. Mrs. Antoci acknowledged problems relating to transients, stated she understood that there could be no locked gates for safety reasons, and confirmed that the subject trailer is used for storage. She said if this Code violation is allowed to remain or if an increase in the height of the wall is granted, others will seek the same privilege. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, said many persons felt that the revitalization plan would never go forward, and the trailer should be placed in the same context as what was taking place in that area at the time. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, said he has spoken a number of times to the City's requirement of ten and twelve foot setbacks from the alleys, allowing the placement of steel posts at the property lines, and cars parking in the area. He suggested that a determination be made as to whether setbacks are required or not, the purpose of which is defeated by allowing the steel posts and the parking of cars, as well as an access problem for fire and trash vehicles, and if there are to be setbacks then that area should remain open for the intended purpose of providing a turning radius. Mr. Stark stated his opinion that all steel posts along the alleys should be removed, I even though they are evidently not a violation of the Code, _ that all other encroachments be removed as well, and urged _ that the zoning standards for Seal Beach Boulevard be developed at the earliest possible time that will allow those properties to be improved. In response to Council, , the Development Services Director explained that some poles exist as a protection for utility facilities and meters, that some persons have placed poles as a deterrent to damages from vehicles or parking on their private property, that there is nothing in the Code that would prohibit placing such a post on private property within the setback area, nor is there a provision to enforce their removal. 7-22-91 I The Director projected a period of three to five months to complete the process for new mixed use development standards for those properties along Seal Beach Boulevard. with regard to taking action on the appeal, the Assistant City Attorney recommended that the Council affirm the need to remove the trailer, the property owner would have the option to apply for a variance for a wall, which in effect would stay the removal of the trailer, and in the interim staff would be processing the zone change. He explained that he could not envision that trailers would be allowed within the setback even if the zone change is approved, and as opposed to a statement that setbacks are meant to allow a turning radius, the intent of setbacks are for privacy, an avoidance to overcrowding, and provision for air space. Ms. Fielding said under current Code it was her understanding that the maximum allowed height of a wall is eight feet, which in her case will not shield the wind, deter the noise, or aid the privacy factor, that once the rezoning is in place it is her intent to improve her property commencing at the back of the building and go two stories which will alleviate the problems for the children in the play yard, that being her preference to expending monies at this time for an eight foot fence that will not resolve the problems. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that the only time a postponement of Code enforcement would be recommended is if an application is pending where the individual is exhausting their administrative remedies by applying for a permit, and in this case it may be likely that the wall that is desired could be approved through the variance process if the findings can be made. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach, said it is likely a number of persons would like a trailer in the rear yard, this particular issue has been ongoing for eight years, and suggested that Code enforcement be made workable, that there be no special privileges, and this being an opportunity to do so. Mayor Laszlo summarized the discussion as an urging to move forward with new development standards for Seal Beach Boulevard which in turn will allow Ms. Fielding to upgrade her property and remove the subject trailer, also that the downtown area is seeking strict Code enforcement. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Seal Beach, said she did not believe what is being requested is Code enforcement, rather equal application of the law, and in this case the trailer is not permitted, should be removed, and stated that if the Code is not enforced she was hereby making application for a permit to allow a trailer on her property. Councilmember Hastings moved that the property owner be directed to remove the trailer with the recommendation that application be made for a variance for the wall if that is the desire. Councilman Doane seconded the motion. Discussion followed with regard to accelerating the rezoning process, stricter enforcement of Code violations, and guidelines for use of setback areas. with regard to the use of the setback area, the Director noted that the subject property is within a commercial zone, that vehicles can be parked for a period not to exceed seventy-two hours, it can not be used for storage, and if the trailer could be moved on a periOdic basis it would technically not be in , violation. The Assistant city Attorney also clarified that permanent storage is not allowed in a setback, vehicles can not be stored on a permanent basis, and in this case there is evidence and proof that the trailer is used for storage and has been located in the same location for more than seventy-two hours. Ms. Fielding said she was unaware of violating the COde, that her request is for additional time only, and asked that there be a Code enforcement action for the property occupied by the appellant for the tandem parking of two cars each day. I I 7-22-91 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 11:11 p.m. The Council reconvened at 11:25 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. PUBLIC HEARING - EMERGENCY RESPONSE COST RECOVERY PROGRAM Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing open to consider amending Chapter 7A of the Code of the city of Seal Beach -- relating to an emergency response cost recovery program. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The City Manager stated that pursuant to the authority of the California Government Code governmental agencies are allowed to recover costs reasonably incurred by law enforcement in responding to emergencies caused by drivers operating a motor vehicle while under the\influence, including driving under the influence arrests and traffic incidents where emergency equipment is utilized. He noted that since the City does not presently have the mechanism to recover such costs, the first step to establish the Program would be by adoption of the Ordinance proposed. He explained that booking costs are presently known, that the cost of printing, citation issuance, actual vehicle and officer costs on a per minute basis are in the process of being determined. The Assistant city Attorney offered that the manner in which the statute was drafted it appeared to apply only to the use or influence of alcohol or drugs however the final clause was broader and included any intentionally wrongful criminal act. There being no publip comments, Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing closed. ORDINANCE NUMBER 11~- EMERGENCY RESPONSE COST RECOVERY PROGRAM Ordinance Number 1143 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 7A OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO EMERGENCY RESPONSE COST RECOVERY PROGRAM." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1i43 was waived. In response to Council, the Assistant city Attorney explained that the Penal Code provides a standard definition of intentional criminal act which is much more stringent than a traffic light violation as an example, and with regard to collection of costs from a person who may reside outside the community, the City Manager stated insurance companies would be a source, costs incurred would be invoiced to the individual and a court action possibly sought as well. Wilson moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1&43 and that it be passed to second reading. I I AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4071 - LOCAL CONDITIONS - MODIFICATIONS - NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. 1990 EDITION I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1441 - ADOPTING NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. 1990 EDITION The Assistant City Attorney noted that Resolution Number 4071 and Ordinance 1441 both pertain to adoption of the 1990 Edition of the National Electrical Code. In response to Council, the Development Services Director explained that if a proposed project includes the use of aluminum wiring it would require continuous inspections and an outside special inspector would be retained in such case, the costs to be reimbursed by the developer. He noted that there has been 7-22-91 I no proposal for such use in recent past, most likely due to the costs involved, and although it could be proposed for use in commercial and industrial development, it is no longer allowed in residential construction. Mayor Laszlo stated that aluminum wire was used in the College Park East development. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Resolution Number 4071 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1990 EDITION, ARE REASONABLY REQUIRED BY LOCAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH" and to approve first reading of Ordinance Number 1441 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1990 EDITION, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO SAID CODE, DELETING AND READOPTING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 5 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH", and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, LaSZlo, Wilson None Motion carried AVIATION SUB-CONSULTANT AGREEMENTS - BIXBY RANCH GOLF COURSE - EIR PREPARATION Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to hold this item over, as requested by Mayor Laszlo. I AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, LaSZlo, Wilson None Motion carried SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Wilson moved, second by Forsythe, to receive and file the report from the Director of Development Services regarding signs in the public right-of-way. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESTRIPING OF SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD The Development Services Director highlighted the report from staff addressing various concerns mentioned by the Council on June 10th. With regard to whether the County would be amenable to an amendment to the Bikeway Element of the General Plan, it was noted that since the area involved is not designated on the County Plan the bikeway would be a matter of local discretion as to whether an amendment of the Bicycle Element would be desired as part of the restriping program. with regard to the issue of liability in changing from parallel to diagonal parking, he reported the matter was discussed with the City's liability attorney who gave an opinion that there would be a potential for increased 'liability to the city as a result of diagonal parking, that research was conducted for a comparison of accidents on Main Street and Seal Beach Boulevard which appeared to bear out the opinion of the liability attorney, however the accidents on the angled streets tended to be minor in nature, the accidents on Seal Beach Boulevard being fewer yet involved more major damage to vehicles and persons likely due to the greater speed of the Boulevard traffic. with regard to liability in the case of pedestrian traffic crossing the Boulevard, whether or not there was a crosswalk, the liability attorney did not foresee that the striping would have an impact, particularly since parking is currently allowed on both sides of the street, also regarding the potential use of the southerly right-Of-way for an off-street bicycle lane area between the curb and the palm trees, the 7-22-91 attorney felt that there would be as much liability by placing bicycles off of the street as there would by placing the bike lane on the street. With regard to the proposed redesignation of Seal Beach Boulevard from a primary arterial, as shown on the County Mater Plan of Highways, to a commuter street designation, the Director reported staff has been unable to get a clear indication as yet from the County I as to whether they would support such redesignation, however it was indicated that as long as there is no reduction of the number of travel lanes on the street there would likely be no objection. The Director noted the decision to stripe one or both sides of the Boulevard is at the discretion of the Council, again explaining that restriping would eliminate the bicycle lanes. Councilmember Forsythe indicated her support for rezoning of the Seal Beach Boulevard properties, however stated she did not support losing the bicycle lanes or bicycling behind diagonal parking, that the majority of bicycle riders are children and there should be a designated bike lane for their use. She suggested that alternatives be looked at because the sole bike lane on First Street is not adequate, and it would not seem appropriate to remove a bike lane for the sake of seventeen parking spaces. She cited the potential for increased liability, the greater likelihood of children being involved in bicycle accidents with angled parking, also that developers are looking to bicycle lanes as a means of traffic mitigation. Mayor Laszlo said from his observance Seal Beach Boulevard is frequently used by bicyclists, that he would like to see the bicycle lane retained on the south side of the Boulevard and possibly allow bicycles to use the sidewalk area, the precedence for which was allowing bicycles to use the sidewalks near the Rossmoor Center for safety reasons. Councilmember Hastings I expressed her feeling that combining bicycle traffic with pedestrian traffic along the subject location could pose a danger, especially with the proposed mixed use. The Director explained that the width of Seal Beach Boulevard curb to curb is fifty-six feet, and if there is sixteen feet for angled parking, fifteen feet for each of the travel lanes, and nine feet for parallel parking on the southerly side, there would be two feet remaining for a bicycle lane, which is not a workable width, therefore the only way to provide a lane within the right-of-way would be to eliminate the parallel parking, and even if the present dirt area adjacent to the south curb were used it would be a restricted width due to the palm trees in that area. The Director recarled discussion of approaching the Navy to discuss using a portion of their property for parking, said he did not recall such discussion for bike lane use, however estimated the area between the palm trees and the Navy fence to be approximately three feet. Mr. Walt Miller, 221 and 229 Seal Beach Boulevard, commented on the July 22nd staff report, noted that the opinion of the liability attorney was that replacement of parallel parking with angled parking would result in increased liability, yet he did not state that removal of the bike lane would result in more liability claims nor did he indicate that claims have been filed as a I result of not having a bike lane on Main Street, which he claimed to be a major point. Mr. Miller said during the past eight years there were only two bicycle incidents, those being in the two hundred block of Main Street and resulted in no injury and minor injury. He pointed out that only one block, rather than three, is proposed for angled parking on the Boulevard which he said would equate to two-thirds of an accident over an eight year period, reported injuries to members of his family that involved parallel parked vehicles, and stated the facts do not support an increase of liability with angled parking. He added that the accidents that have occurred on Seal Beach Boulevard in its present configuration 7-22-91 I have been the result of speed, and posed the question of city liability if Seal Beach Boulevard does support commercial business as on Main street and the parking is not similarly changed, citing specifically the protection of driver and passenger with angled parking, as he said is demonstrated by the lack of injury accidents on Main street. Mr. Miller spoke of the necessity to have angled parking for commercial to succeed, and urged that the restriping plan be approved. Discussion followed. It was suggested that the viewpoint of the residents be sought with regard to the Seal Beach Boulevard bikelane, that the Navy be approached regarding the use of a portion of their property, a question was posed as to whether the First street bicycle lane would be considered to be adequate or if a second route would be desirable, and a specific opinion was given that there should be no loss of bicycle lanes. The city Manager suggested a motion that this matter be referred to the Planning Commission to consider ~stablishing or retaining a bike lane in the easterly portion of the community, and that the staff not proceed with the restriping of Seal Beach Boulevard until such time as the Council has had the opportunity to consider a bike lane designation for that area. In response to Council, the Director recall that in considering this matter he believed the Commission had dealt with the parking on both sides of the street as the primary issue, the bicycle lane a secondary issue. I Councilmember Hastings based her motion on the suggestion of the city Manager, and moved that this matter be referred to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not bicycle lanes should be provided on Seal Beach Boulevard, and that staff be directed to contact the Navy with regard to use of a portion of their land. Mayor Laszlo seconded the motion". Councilmember Forsythe emphasized her desire that the bike lane be retained. The City Manager noted the issue before the Council was the restriping of the Boulevard through which the bike lane would be lost, and his understanding was that the restriping would be acceptable as long as there is no loss of the bike lane or there is some bike lane access to the area, with direction that staff discuss with the Navy the use of a portion of their property, that the use of 821 funds be looked at, and that the Planning Commission explore alternative routes in the general area for council to consider and give direction relative to the striping. In response to Council, the Director advised that the current speed limit is thirty-five miles per hour on the Boulevard, and should angled parking be implemented the recommendation would be to establish the speed limit at twenty-five miles per hour. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion' carried I PLANNING COMMISSION REOUESTS - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS The Development Services Director presented the request of'" the Planning commission that the staff be authorized to investigate and schedule public hearings to 1) amend the provision of the Zoning Ordinance relating to prohibiting entertainment cafes from being located adjacent to existing residentially zoned areas, and 2) increasing the in-lieu parking fees currently imposed on certain commercial businesses within the City. The Director explained that the in-lieu parking fee matter would relate to all of those businesses that are subject to the in-lieu program which is and has been for a number of years $100 per space. A 7-22-91 consensus of the Council was indicated to authorize the staff to proceed. COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilmember Hastings made reference to recent news articles relating to the Police Department, a lawsuit alleging a quota system, which she said brought to mind the Grand Jury Report and from which she read excerpts regarding Police Department procedures, citizen complaints of discrimination, harassment, and enforcement of the law, and the conclusion of the Grand Jury that the complaints had a valid basis with,respect to operation and employment procedures. councilmember Hastings reported discussion of-- these matters with various persons and one police officer, and stated her desire to establish a citizens committee to act as a mediation board, the members appointed by the Council, as a means to determine if complaints are valid, the complainant would assume responsibility for the complaint, and the police officer would be accountable for his procedures and action~, as a means to possibly circumvent claims and lawsuits and legal costs. Councilmember Hastings asked that this matter be placed on the agenda in a format to allow an action to create such committee. The city Manager indicated an uncertainty as to whether guidelines could be prepared for the next agenda. Mayor Laszlo suggested that four to six weeks be allowed to prepare guidelines. Mayor Laszlo noted there have been complaints with regard to obtaining information from the city, and said he will be requesting the Council to consider adoption of a public information policy. The city Manager agreed with the concept, suggested that staff draft a pOlicy for Council consideration. The Assistant city Attorney noted that a public information policy has been a point of discussion, yet from his experience the City has provided a great deal of information to many persons. He noted however that one area that has been an issue is that of claims to which there are competing interests, one side being the public right to know, the other side being the privacy of individuals as well as an increased exposure for the city, as an example the news article alleging quotas, the following day a lawsuit was filed, and although the City expects to prevail, there are expenses incurred in the interim. He pointed out that the goal of the city's liability attorney is to prevent legal actions against the city and in turn decrease legal costs, which is a valid interest, yet the public in turn has a right to know, and offered that this matter will continue to be addressed for a resolution, and although the City has been complying with the law, nothing prevents the city from releasing more information as long as it does not jeopardize the city's interests and encourage additional lawsuits. He confirmed that once a complaint is filed the city is generally served within a short period, that he understood past practice has been that such documents are obtainable by the public from the court, however the City could legally provide such documents for citizen review once served if that is determined to be the policy, yet again noted the concern with the potential of additional legal actions as a result. The city Clerk confirmed that once a legal action is filed, the city is generally served within a short period of time. Mayor Laszlo reported a request from Mr. Mick Hellman for a meeting, that meeting was held with Councilmember Forsythe, the City Manager, and a member of Mr. Hellman's firm also in attendance, during which Mr. Hellman indicated concern with not having,been included in prior city discussions, that assurances were given that they would be included in the future, it was also pointed out that they do have agreements I I I .' ., 'dlt;, . 7-22-91 I with Mola Development therefore those matters could not be discussed, and there was expression that the Hellman's would cooperate and work with the city. Mayor Laszlo offered congratulations to those who were involved with the recently held Rough Water swim, stated it was an outstanding event and promotion of the City, and requested that a recognition be forthcoming. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th street, said in view of the apparent intent to provide more information to the public, and given the questionable behavior over time of certain employees and elected officials, he would suggest that a code of ethics be researched and considered, and if adhered to, may result in positive rather than adverse press, or if such code exists, he alleged there are a number of people who have not read or are not adhering to it. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Seal Beach, stated her support for establishing a committee to review alleged injustices, took exception to current policy of blacking out the names and addresses of persons from police reports, and disagreed that divulging such information would lead to copy-cat claims. She claimed that the citizens have a right to know what is taking place, and cited as an example a prior payment to the city's liability attorney for services that were either not known or not divulged. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, took exception to the opinion regarding public documents, stated public documents are public, including financial records, ,also spoke for proceeding with an ethics code. The Assistant City Attorney noted that there are a number of exceptions to public records including financial records, claims, litigation, etc. Ms. Lee Cambria, Seal Beach, spoke regarding the discussion relating to steel posts, and said even though a property owner may have the right to place a post in the setback, they do not have the right to jeopardize other property owners, citing as an example a fire truck that could not get through an alley in the vicinity of Dolphin and Ocean which resulted in a house being destroyed by fire because the posts made it impossible for the fire truck to maneuver. She also objected to allowing cars to park next to those posts. Ms. Cambria said she felt her safety is being jeopardized by the steel posts, and requested the Council to direct the Planning Commission to look at this matter. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT Forsythe moved, second by Laszlo, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, August 5th at 4:00 p.m. for a workshop with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and the consultant regarding AB939 Source Reduction and Recycling Element. _I AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meet in 12:55 a.m. 7-22-91/8-5-91 Approved: I Attest: Seal Beach, California August 5, 1991 The city council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 4:01 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Laszlo Councilmembers Doane, Forsythe, Wilson Absent: Councilmember Hastings Solid Waste Advisorv committee Members/ReDresentatives Present: Members Antoci, Baker, Erickson, winter Absent: . None Vacancy: One I~ Also present: Mr. Bankston, city Manager Ms. Bennington, Secretary to the City Manager Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk Mr. Perry, Kleinfelder, Inc. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications at this time. JOINT WORK SESSION - AB 939 PRELIMINARY DRAFTS - SOURCE REDUCTION ELEMENT/HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT Mr. Perry introduced himself as being associated with the consultant firm, Kleinfelder, Inc., retained by the city to assist is producing the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. As a point of background he explained that the adopted Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 effectively required each city to become aware of and responsible for the amount of solid waste being generated and to develop a plan that would recycle, reduce, and reuse twenty five percent of that waste by 1995 and fifty percent by the year 2000, the plan to document how each city is going to accomplish the waste diversion goals, the guidelines for such setting forth what must, at minimum, be addressed I~ within the. planning document. Mr. Perry gave a brief overview of the decision process of the Advisory Committee _"~ over the past six months to develop a plan that will ensure the City will achieve its diversion and recycling goals based upon the solid waste practices as set forth by the Act, the most important being source reduction, reducing the amount of waste generated or preventing the generation of such waste, the second step being recycling, which is the separation of recyclable materials that are made into another usable, purchasable product, another step being composting or bio-degradation, turning greenwaste or