Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1991-11-12 11-12-91/11-25-91 ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to adjourn the meeting until November 25th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. I AYES: Wilson NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, None Motion carried It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn the meeting at 10:54 p.m. Clerk and ex-o of Seal Beach of the Approved: ~~.,.L --' ~-,/ Mayor r - Attest: I Seal Beach, California November 25, 1991 regular adjourned session cancelled due to the lack of cuss ion. Seal Beach, California November 25, 1991 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:02 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. .1 ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Laszlo Councilmembers Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, City Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk 10-28-91/11-5-91/11-12-91 lerk and ex-o of Seal Beach of the I Approved: -1:..A-4-.;/ tL,.y L, Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California November 5, 1991 The Seal Beach city council regular adjourned session, scheduled for November 5, 1991, was cancelled and will be reschuduled at a later date. I day of November, 1991 Seal Beach, California November 12, 1991 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:03 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 Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, City Manager Mr. Colantuono, Assistant City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I CLOSED SESSION Mayor Laszlo announced that the City Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss legal matters. It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn to Closed Session at 6:05 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:01 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. The Assistant City Attorney reported the Council had met in Closed Session to discuss pending litigation in the matters of Wetlands Restoration society versus Seal Beach, Mola Development Corporation versus Seal Beach, and U. S. Government versus Montrose Chemical Corporation and orange County Sanitation Districts, no action was taken and no other matters were discussed. 11-12-91/11-12-91 ADJOURNMENT Hastings moved, 7:02 p.m. second by Doane, to adjourn the meeting at AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried :fh I lerk and ex-of of Seal Beach of the Approved: ~J;A-4141~r----- Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California November 12, 1991 The city council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:02 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: I Mayor Laszlo Councilmembers Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, City Manager Mr. Colantuono, Assistant city Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk 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 I AGENDA AMENDED Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to consider presentations prior to Oral Communications. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried 11-12-91 I PRESENTATIONS RESOLUTION NUMBER 4094 - HALLOWEEN HAUNTED HOUSE Resolution Number 4094 was presented to Council and read in full by Mayor Laszlo entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING THOSE THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUCCESS OF THE THIRD ANNUAL HALLOWEEN HAUNTED HOUSE." Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4094. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, LasZlo, Wilson None Motion carried Ms. Kathleen McGlynn, Recreation Supervisor, extended appreciation to the sponsors, donors, Recreation staff, and the children participating in after school Kids Time and Special Projects Club,. cooperation of the Lions and Lionesses, as well as Recreation Director, Mr. Osteen. Mayor Laszlo and the Council added their appreciation to the volunteers, sponsors, the Recreation and Public Works Departments for an outstanding Ha~nte~.House. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4095 - RECOGNIZING JUNIOR WOMEN'S CLUB Resolution Number 4095 was presented to Council and read in full by Mayor Laszlo entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE JUNIOR WOMEN I S CLUB AND THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY." Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4095. .1 AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Ms. Mary Johnson, CO-Chairperson of the Eisenhower Park Renovation project, extended appreciation on behalf of the Junior Womens Club to the city for being supportive of the project, to Mr. Bob Eagle and the Public Works Department, and to the many persons for their donations. Ms. Wendy Rothman, co-chairperson of the project, reported seventeen of the twenty benches have been sold that will be placed in the Park. The Mayor and Councilmembers commended the Juniors for their untiring efforts toward improvements in the community. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Laszlo proclaimed the Month of December, 1991 as "Christmas Seal Month." COUNCIL ITEMS APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS I Beach Commission Councilman Doane appointed Mr. Tom Sanders, st. Andrews Drive, as the District Five representative to the Beach Commission for the unexpired term ending July, 1993. Citizens ParticiDation Committee The District Three appointment to the Citizens Participation Committee was held over. Pro;ect Area Committee councilmember Forsythe appointed Ms. Loydean Lazich, Electric Avenue, as the District Three resident representative to the Project Area Committee for the two year term expiring July, 1993. 11-1"2-91 Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee Councilmember Wilson appointed Mr. Robert Jaeschke, Del Monte Drive, as the District Two representative to the Solid Waste Committee. Wilson moved, second by Forsythe, to confirm the above appointments. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "E" throuah "0" Councilmember Forsythe requested that Item "H" be removed from the Consent Calendar, noting that she had been absent from that meeting. Wilson moved, second by Doane, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item nH", as presented. E. Approved the recommendation to the Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation to retain video tapes of the Planning Commission and city Council meetings. F. Approved regular demands numbered 85833 through 85997 in the amount of $410,537.15 and payroll demands numbered 47665 through 47841 in the amount of $204,402.68 as approved by the Finance committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. G. Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of August 5, 199~. I. Denied the claim for damages of Mr. stephen Sweet and referred same to the City'S liability attorney and adjuster. I J. Denied the claim for damages of Ms. Camille Mize and referred same to the city's liability attorney and adjuster. K. Denied the claim for damages of Ms. Susan Funk and referred same to the city's liability attorney and adjuster. M. L. Declared seven vehicles, as described in the November 7th memorandum from the City Engineer, as well as certain miscellaneous office and computer supplies, to be surplus and disposed of at the upcoming City auction. Approved Resolution Number 4096 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH BOUND TURNPOCKETS LOCATED AT THE MAIN STREET/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTION" (Christmas Parade). I N. Approved the Collective Defense Agreement by and amongst the Orange county Sanitation Districts and certain public agencies with regard to legal action of the United States Government versus Montrose Chemical Corporation and County Sanitation Districts of Orange county. 11-12-91 O. Supported and endorsed Resolution Number 91-122 of the City of Tustin, opposing any form of joint or full commercial use of the Marine Corps Air station, El Toro. I AYES: NOES: . Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "H" - MINUTES Wilson moved, second by Hasti~gs, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 12, 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Doane, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Forsythe Motion carried I . PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-91 - ROSSMOOR BUSINESS CENTER Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing open to consider the appeal of Planning Commission conditions of approval of CUP 18-91. 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 matter. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explained that the condition subject to the appeal is a requirement that Rossmoor Center submit a new planned sign program for Planning Commission approval within four years of the date of approval of CUP 7- 90, June 6, 1990, to bring the Center's signage more into conformity with current design standards and the city's zoning ordinance. He reported that this condition was originally recommended as a condition of approval for CUP 7- 90, that staff had included the condition with consideration of CUP 18-91 as a reminder as to what had been previously recommended and believed to have been adopted, however further research showed that this condition had been removed and not enacted by motion of the Commission with regard to CUP 7-90. The Director pointed out that the applicant is specifically requesting to install a new Rossmoor Business Center/City of Seal Beach identification sign at the Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way entrance into the Center, the dimensions of the monument sign proposed to be four feet by eighteen feet, a total area of 72 square feet with 33.75 square feet of sign area. The Director stated the Center has a sign program, however it does not comply with current city requirements as a result of being a pre- existing shopping center with signs that were in place prior to adoption of signage standards, and noted that there has been discussion of developing standardized sign requirements specific to the shopping centers as opposed to strip commercial areas, in other words there has been mention of whether the same type of signage should be applied to a forty acre shopping center as an example, as would be applied to an area such as Pacific Coast Highway. He confirmed that the proposed sign would be consistent with the provisions of the General Plan if approved. There was brief general discussion of shopping center signage. The Director noted that due to the non-conforming status of Rossmoor Center any free standing sign is required to be considered by the city, again explained that Condition Three had been included in the staff recommendation in error, it was approved by the Commission, therefore to remove the condition requires an action of the city Council, and confirmed that deletion of Condition Three would not preclude the City from requiring an updated sign program at I 11-12-91 a later time. There being no public comments, Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing closed. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4098 - APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-91 - AMENDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8-85 - ROSSMOOR CENTER SIGNAGE Resolution Number 4098 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #18-91, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #8-85 (ROSSMOOR BUSINESS CENTER, 12121 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD.)" By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4098 was waived. Doane moved, second by Wilson, to sustain the appeal of Edna wilson, deleting Condition No. 3 from the Planning Commission conditions of approval, by the adoption of Resolution Number 4098. I AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - APPROVED HEIGHT VARIATION - 1631 OCEAN AVENUE - MASTICK Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing open to consider an appeal of Planning Commission approval of Height Variation (MPR) 14-91 at 1631 Ocean Avenue. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported receipt of communications from Mr. and Mrs. Jim Arnold, 1609 Seal Way, and Pete and Barbara Arnold, 1613 Seal Way, in support of the approved Height Variation. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report and action of the Planning Commission, and explained that the basic issue before the Commission had I been impairment of primary view as a result of the requested thirty foot covered roof access structure, the approval of which was appealed by Mr. Michael J. Olson, 1514 Marine Avenue. Staff presented a video of the general area, the view looking towards the subject property and from the property of the appellant, noted that an impact of view would be basically towards the Naval Weapons Station and Pacific Coast Highway, it was also pointed out that several covered roof access structures exist along Ocean Avenue, are scattered throughout the area, and there are several three story residences along Seal Way. The Director noted the Council had been provided with an amended version of recent Planning Commission minutes containing additional discussion, and reviewed the options for council consideration. Mayor Laszlo invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state thejr name and address for the record. Mr. Michael Olson, 1514 Marine Avenue, requested an opportunity to rebut any comments made during the public hearing, objected to the wording of the Code relating to covered roof access structures, emphasized the importance of retaining an ocean view, and questioned the equity in allowing some of the structures while others are not, suggested there is need to compromise in this case, asked that a moratorium be put in place until the Code can be amended to tighten the covered roof access structure regulations in some fair manner, that CRA's should not take precedence over ocean view, and finally that they be phased out. In response to Council, Mr. Olson said he did not have an ocean view from the first or second floor of his residence yet acknowledged that he has a panoramic view from the third story roof deck of his residence. Councilmember Hastings noted that Mr. Olson would not haye an ocean view had he not been allowed the roof deck, also that those who are primarily entitled to I ~ 11-12-91 I such view are those who purchase property on Seal Way, Ocean Avenue, the Gold Coast, or Surfside. Ms. Carla Watson, 1635 Catalina Avenue, said most people feel very protective of Old Town yet most of the damage to the area has been done by those who no longer feel that smaller is better and are the expansionists with no concern for their neighbors. Ms. Watson said what originally began as the addition of decks led to allowing doghouses, covered roof access structures, and expressed her opinion that the construction of CRA's should be stopped and that the view of a neighbor should not be impacted. Ms. Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th street, offered that it is possible to access a roof deck on a second story, with an ocean view, simply by means of a stairwell, said the City was at fault by initially allowing the minor height variations, should not have allowed the covered roof access structures that can be up to seven additional feet over a third story, and until the existing provisions are repealed CRA's will continue. She suggested that elimination of a third story in Old Town should also be looked at, that it impacts the neighbors, the neighborhood, and expressed her feeling that it lowers property values. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, mentioned his on-going support for strict compliance with height limits, said the City needs to determine whether or not there is a height limit, without additional architectural design loopholes, also objected to allowing third stories, all of which he claimed to be special privileges. Mr. Warren Morton, Seal Beach, said building regulations call for maintaining a twenty-five foot height limit on twenty-five foot lots, stated no more covered roof access structures should be allowed and the Code should be likewise amended. Mr. James Mastick, 1631 Ocean Avenue, said he was under the impression that this meeting was meant for persons within three hundred feet of his property to express their views regarding his covered roof access structure, rather the comments are directed to CRA's in general. Mr. Mastick reviewed the background of his project, noted he was unable to construct his residence for which plans were drawn in 1988 and received approval, they were resubmitted this past summer, the area of the covered roof access structure has been reduced as requested, approved by the Planning Commission, that approval now appealed by a resident of the general area. He mentioned that his residence has been demolished, to further reconfigure the roof access stairway would be a considerable cost, that outside stairways pose problems, and cited the need to complete construction. He noted that in addition to the size of a CRA the Code provides that the structure is not to block a significant amount of someone's primary view, and based upon the definition of Webster's Dictionary, his interpretation of primary view would be a single line of sight, and recalled Mr. Olson's statement to the Planning Commission was that he had three primary views. Mr. Mastick said he has cooperated with the City, is not requesting a special privilege, the Code allows covered roof access structures, his structure meets the criteria of the Code, and asked that the Planning Commission approval be upheld. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Ocean Avenue, pointed out that Mr. Olson's residence is located behind the general vicinity of an existing two-story Ocean Avenue apartment building, approximately thirty years old, that will undoubtedly be rebuilt to three stories at such time as that property is sold, also that Marine Avenue is a distance of four dwelling units from the subject property, which would not be described as an ocean view property since the further one is away from the ocean the less view is realized, nonetheless claims a three-way view. She disagreed with prior comments that everyone in Old Town does not want covered roof access structures, said builders are constructing them because they I I 11-12-91 are a selling feature. Ms. Antoci noted that the owner of 1631 Ocean has received approval of plans for that property on two occasions, that her neighbors on Ocean and Marine Avenues have indicated no objection to covered roof access structures, and said it would be inequitable to deny this project. Mr. Tom Hall, 1606 Ocean Avenue, stated his support for the minor height variation and opposition to the I appeal, noting that covered roof access structures are allowed with certain stipulations, in this case the issue is impairment of primary view, which he described as something different than a speck on the horizon that would block a view of Pacific Coast Highway and the Naval Weapons station, and if that were considered as a significant primary view then anything built would fall within that category. He recalled that at the Planning Commission hearing Mr. Olson did state that this particular structure did not significantly block his primary view, and of greater concern was the approximate thirteen lots closer to his property that may construct covered roof accesses at some point in the future, the cumulative effect would therefore be of significance to him. Mr. Hall offered that if the appeal is granted the result would be that no one within three hundred feet of Mr. Olson's property would ever be allowed a covered roof access structure. Ms. Lisa Antoci, Dolphin Avenue, said she has an ocean view from a window in her two story residence which could be lost should her next door neighbor build a second story, yet after allowing covered roof access structures for this period of time she felt it would be unfair to now not allow them. Mr. Michael Boudah, 1513 Ocean Avenue, said although he had not previously met either the applicant or the appellant, both he and his wife support approval of the covered roof access structure, basically for I the reason that they add square footage to the interior of a home, and particularly for those dwellings located on twenty-five foot lots. He expressed his opinion that it was unethical for Mr. Olson to object to another person having such a structure when the dimensions of Mr. Olson's CRA are ten by thirteen feet. Mr. Boudah asked that the Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Joe Orsini, Seal Beach, made reference to a comment of a Marine Avenue resident in support of the CRA request, stating they presently have a view, and asked if it would be right to allow that to be taken away. Mr. Olson noted the reference to the issue of equity, one residence allowed a covered roof access and another not, and said he felt a stronger issue is what brings the value to the home and neighborhood, that the panoramic ocean view was the key factor in purchasing his home, and offered that if a dwelling is twenty-five feet there will be a view, however by allowing covered roof access structures there will not. He confirmed that the Mastick covered roof access structure would only block between five to seven percent of his view, however should there be others in the same vicinity there could be a loss of eighty-five to ninety percent of his view, and for those who would prefer to purchase a dwelling with a CRA, he questioned if they would prefer to buy a house with or without an obstructed view. Mr. Olson again asked that a I moratorium be placed on covered roof access structures, and pending that discussion he offered to withdraw the appeal, stated that Mr. Mastick should not bear the burden, that there needs to be a more equitable means in which to phase out covered roof access structures. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing closed. In response to a question of council, Mr. Olson said he presently has about a one hundred degree view from the pier to the Naval Station with an intermittent view of the ocean, a greater-view area than those residences on the shoreline. 11-12-91 I Councilmember Forsythe recalled that when the Code provisions regarding minor height variations were proposed for revision there had been an influx of covered roof access structures, some were very large, the regulations had been abused, a moratorium was established, and at that time it was thought that the adopted revisions would not adversely affect anyone, yet there have now been two complaints that. they are being abused. She said she was uncertain as to whether the regulations can be amended to a point where there will be no problems, that the number of CRAS are now affecting the view of everyone, and that it is possible to have a roof sundeck without the covered roof access structure. She indicated her preference to revert to the height limitiation, and in the interim place a moratorium on covered roof access structures. Councilmember Hastings pointed out the standard lot dimensions on the Hill are fifty by one hundred feet as compared to those in Old Town of twenty-five by one hundred seventeen feet, that the guidelines for covered roof access structures were developed through the public hearing process and although it was thought an equitable solution had been reached, stated there is not adequate room for an interior stairwell in a dwelling on a twenty-five foot lot without encroaching into the living area, yet such stairwells could be accommodated on the fifty foot wide lots. She said she understood the issue of view, however the further a dwelling is from the ocean the lesser the view, and noted that view is only one of five criteria for a covered roof access structure. She pointed out that Mr. Olson had no view from his first or second story, thus the doghouse to provide the view, and if that is what is needed to capture some view, it would seem to be fair and equitable. councilmember Hastings again noted the input through the public hearing process, and said if a decision can not be made in that manner, a moratorium could be considered, and the matter placed on the ballot. Mayor Laszlo was informed that the Planning Commission had felt this €RA had met the conditions of the Code. Mayor Laszlo indicated that he favored a moratorium and possibly an advisory ballot measure for those properties in the community that would be affected in order to resolve the issue of doghouses. The Assistant city Attorney advised that a moratorium could be in place for a considerable length of time by extending the original ordinance while amendments are made to the Code. Staff indicated there are no covered roof access requests pending before the Planning commission at this time, and offered to review plans that are in the process to determine if they include such structures. Councilmember Hastings asked if a covered roof access structure of up to seven feet could be placed on a dwelling of thirty-five feet. Staff advised that it could under current Code, however the dwelling in the case under consideration is thirty feet in height, the commission having restricted the height of the structure based upon the level of the second story roof deck, the commission also using caution to only allow the access to be as large as necessary to enclose the doorway. I I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4099 - APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION 14-91 - 1631 OCEAN AVENUE - MASTICK . Resolution Number 4099 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION (MPR) #14-91, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF THE PERMITTED 25 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT (30 FOOT HEIGHT PROPOSED) IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REMODEL OF AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1631 OCEAN AVENUE, SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4099 was waived. Councilmember Hastings 11-12-91 moved to deny the appeal and sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve Height Variation 14-91 for 1631 Ocean Avenue by the adoption of Resolution Number 4099. Councilman Doane seconded the motion. There was brief discussion with regard to placing a moratorium on covered roof access structures and consideration of any CRA's that may currently be in the process. Councilmember._ Forsythe stated she would vote against the motion for the reason that in her opinion all of the stipulations of current Code have not been complied with. I AYES: NOES: Doane, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson Forsythe Motion carried It was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to include an item on the agenda for a future meeting to consider establishing a moratorium on covered roof access structures. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council, to declare a recess at 9:05 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:15 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSING/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - YEAR XVIII Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing open to consider the Housing/Community Development Program for Year 18. 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 Director of Development Services presented the staff report and recommendations of the citizens Participation - I Committee to submit five projects to be considered for funding: 1) feasibility study of a Congregate Care Facility in Leisure World, $50,000; 2) Youth Aftercare, $20,000; 3) Financial Assistance for Day Care Facilities, $20,000; 4) Housing Rehabilitation Funds, $20,000; and 5) Public Facilities and Improvements, a concrete grinder, $50,000. He reported Interval House had submitted a request to the Committee for $80,000 H/CD funding, however the county Department of Housing and Community Development representative had indicated that Interval House has also applied directly to the County, and recommended that the request of the City be combined and submitted by Interval House directly to the County, eliminating the need for the city to be involved in that request process. He noted that based upon that recommendation the Committee determined to not include Interval House in the City'S application, and suggested that a letter be forwarded to Interval House and Orange County Housing/Community Development expressing support of Interval House and recommending that they receive the entire requested funding from the County. The Director noted that the total funding request of the Committee for Year 18 is $160,000, and advised that the County prioritizes the numerous requests submitted. with regard to the funding request of Interval House, the Director reported that the County representative felt that their request would carry . I equal weight whether submitted by Interval House or through _ the City application. Councilmember Hastings asked if the Congregate Care Facility would be a Leisure World project under the auspices of the Golden Rain Foundation or an independent facility,.if the land is owned by Leisure World, and if it is to be donated. The Director reported a concern of the Committee had been access to the facility, whether access would need to be through Leisure World, the County having suggested a private entry area that would be . available to the general public, said he believed that the land is owned by one of the Leisure World Mutuals, and it 11-12-91 I was anticipated that the property would either be acquired by a private developer or a non-profit organization from the Mutual without direct participation by the Golden Rain Foundation. Committee member Edith Rachlin reported that 1.8 acres of the 4 acres is owned by the Golden Rain Foundation, the remainder is owned by Mutual 9, and it would be necessary for them to vote on selling or releasing the property. She said if the facility were in Leisure World with no exterior entry, it would then become an additional Mutual of Leisure World, which would defeat the goal to provide a low cost care facility for all persons of Seal Beach, and it was understood from a developer present at the Committee meeting that a one hundred thirty foot frontage would be necessary. Ms. Rachlin stated the request for $50,000 is to explore the concept of a care facility through a feasibility study. with regard to the frontage and entry issue, she noted that there is some land owned by Golden Rain just outside of that community that could be considered for such use, reported the Leisure World Administrator had shown an interest in this proposal, and offered to cooperate in any way possible, and she indicated there may be a variety of partnership arrangements that could be explored to provide such facility if the land were to become available. With regard to a concern expressed that the feasibility study was listed as the first priority project and that $50,000 may be the maximum amount of funding allocated by the County, Ms. Rachlin said it was her understanding from the County representative that the funding request for the Care Facility study would not infringe on the other projects proposed, and that there may also be other funding that could be sought. staff confirmed that it is unlikely that all of the projects will be funded, and confirmed that the intent of the Committee was to study the feasibility of placing Congregate Care Housing somewhere in the vicinity of Leisure World, the study to also look at other sources that would be interested in participating in such project, and noted there are a number of agencies that are required by State law to provide these types of facilities. Ms. Rachlin explained that the proposed facility would provide care for persons that are now handicapped to some degree and can no longer care for themselves, a facility for those persons somewhere between being self-sufficient in ones own residence and a nursing home facility. Mayor Laszlo stated he would be hesitant to designate the Care Facility as the first priority project unless there is a written statement that the Golden Rain Foundation support~ this concept. Staff confirmed that this item could be held over until the next meeting if the Council so desired. I I Mayor Laszlo invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state thejr name and address for the record. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, expressed strong objection to either suggesting or considering proposing an expenditure of $50,000 for a study that would benefit the closed community of Leisure World, stated there are no guarantees that anyone outside that community would be allowed use of the facility, and that there should be no subsidy of Leisure World whhere they have funds and own the land. He suggested that the youth after school programs and day care financial assistance is a much greater need. Ms. Robin Jaruszewski, Interval House, expressed appreciation for the city's on-going support of Interval House, and said the block grant funding of the prior year was vital to tl1eir work. She conveyed concern that Interval House may not receive the necessary funding through the county request, noted that two other shelters in Orange county have made their requests and received funds 11-12-91 through their home cities, that although Interval House receives support throughout the County, Seal Beach is the only city through which they have made application for block grant funds. Ms. Jaruszewski said should the City determine the appropriate process would be through a direct request to the County, she would ask that a member of the City staff be allowed to address the County in support of their funding I application. Ms. Isa Rogers, Interval House, clarified that the other two shelters mentioned are not part of Interval House, they are situated in other cities and have received funds through applications in conjunction with those cities. Ms. Rogers requested that the request of Interval House be included on the city's funding application for Year 18 as last year when they received a grant through the county and a grant through the City. Councilmember Forsythe said she believed the Committee was attempting to do away with the piggyback concept, thus allowing the City to obtain the maximum grant and Interval House could do the same by making application directly to the County H/CD. She suggested that prior to the next meeting there be further discussion with H/CD to determine whether or not the application directly to the County would affect the funding for Interval House. The City Manager suggested that upon closing the public hearing, the matter can be considered at the next meeting with further explanation of the elements of the city's application and a determination as to whether there would be a negative impact to Interval House by not being included on the City project list. He recommended that Interval House also clarify whether they have made application to the County, and whether they factored in a grant from the City thereby reducing the request of the county. He noted that-- cities with populations over 50,000 are governed by I different rules and amounts of money, the county falling into that group where they can fund projects on a broader base than a single community that must compete with other cities for projects. Ms. Jaruszewski again conveyed concern that full funding would not be realized under the single grant application to the county. Councilmember Forsythe suggested that representatives of Interval House provide City staff with the names of persons that had been contacted at the County, that staff could advise the H/CD that Interval House is of a broader base than just serving residents of Seal Beach, rather persons throughout the County, therefore may qualify for a larger grant. Ms. Barbara Carlson, prior resident of Interval House, thanked the Council on behalf of the women and children that have utilized Interval House services. The Development Services Director advised that the County requested that the application be submitted by December 1st, offered to meet with Interval House regarding their funding application as well as with representatives of Leisure World and the Golden Rain Foundation to obtain further information for the Council by next meeting. Mayor Laszlo requested information regarding the number of projects submitted and funding thereof for other cities over the past two years. The Director explained that the Youth Aftercare program 0"._1 currently exists however there is a cost involved, the project proposed by the Committee would subsidize those children participating in that program from low and moderate income families, and with regard to the number of children and qualification status, he said it would likely be necessary to contact the participating families to determine if they qualify under the income levels, and should there be remaining funds they could be made available to families that are not currently participating in the program. Mayor Laszlo suggested that additional information be obtained to determine if there is an actual need for such subsidy, which could impact the priority listing of projects. 11-12-91 I Councilmember Hastings recalled programs that used to allow children to remain on school playgrounds after school hours under supervision, as compared to the present Youth Aftercare which she deemed to be an extension of a daycare facility. She said her grandchildren do not have access to the McGaugh playground as it is used for daycare, and that she was not willing to underwrite a daycare facility of a private nature to serve only a few families. She suggested that the $20,000 proposed be used to hire an after school -- coach and assistant which would allow children supervised use of the public playground. The Director offered to seek additional information regarding the current program and the number of families involved. with regard to Housing Rehabilitation Funds, the Director said he believed there were two units assisted under that program last year at a cost of approximately $7,000 to $10,000 per unit. The Mayor asked if additional information could be provided, and suggested that the concrete grinder be considered as a priority project. Councilmember Hastings spoke in support of the financial assistance for day care facilities and an after-school care program. Committee member Rachlin noted that the Committee had agreed to meet quarterly in the future rather than on an annual basis, and noted that extended day care had been discussed with the idea of being available to all children, and the grant funds would be used for supervising personnel, not for the private daycare facility. Discussion continued regarding the type of after- school program that could be implemented. Mr. Stark said his comments in support of the youth programs were with the understanding that they were publicly operated in conjunction with McGaugh School, yet it appears the School.. is renting their facilities to a private organization, as they do with the church, and asked if the School has requested a CUP for those uses, suggesting that the city take a position on these matters with the Los Alamitos School District. I I It was the consensus of the Council to continue the public hearing regarding the H/CD Block Grant Program Year 18 and proposed Resolution Number 4100 until the next meeting. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council, to declare a recess at 10:18 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:25 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. ORDINANCE NUMBER lS4~ REAPPORTIONMENT - COUNCILMANIC DISTRICTS Ordinance Number 1f44 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A CHARTER CITY, REAPPORTIONING THE COUNCILMANIC DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND AMENDING SECTION 2- 70 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1144 was waived. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report with an overview of the considerations thus far, noting that the public hearing was held and closed at the last meeting. Councilmember Forsythe referred to the confidential memorandum from the office of the City Attorney setting forth certain legal constraints on the redistricting process, from which she noted the recommendation that the population deviation be no greater than ten percent without a substantial compelling reason, or as equal as can be. Mr. Colantuono explained that the districts should be as perfect as can be while reflecting the other appropriate considerations such as what constitutes a contiguous district, compact districts, neighborhood boundaries, etc., and that the degree to which perfection is not reached must be justifiable in those terms. He noted that in the case of 11-12-91 Seal Beach if the neighborhood boundaries are the prime consideration the ten percent goal will not be reached, and it is believed that the courts are saying to balance the goal of perfection in population with other appropriate goals, and it is understood that the goals will be compromised to some degree. As an example he explained that if it is accepted that some deviations of the neighborhood I boundaries are inevitable because to respect neighborhood lines creates deviations that are too great, and to the extent to which you draw an arbitrary line should be driven by population goals, in other words arbitrary lines are only justified by population and lines that do not respect population must be justified by something that is not arbitrary, a justification that can be upheld in court. At the request of Council, staff described Committee Proposal E with a District One population of 5158 or 2.75 percent above the ideal number, District Three population of 5078 or 1.16 percent above the ideal number, a difference of fifty persons, which would make the total spread between the highest and lowest district 4.92 percent. Forsythe moved, second by Wilson, to adopt the District One and District Three boundaries as set forth by the Committee Proposal E. Discussion continued with regard to considering Proposal C that would place Surfs ide in District Three, the various population figures and percentage differences of the various proposals. Mayor Laszlo moved a substitute motion to consider Committee Proposal E with an amended boundary line at Fifth street rather than sixth street. Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion. Mayor Laszlo also suggested that consideration I be given to equalizing the districts by again placing the condominium units in District Two rather than District Four. Councilmember Hastings contended that the majority of people in the downtown area want to remain as historic Old Town in District One. .. . . Vote on the substitute motion: AYES: Hastings, Laszlo o' NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Wilson Motion failed Vote on the motion to adopt Committee Proposal E: AYES: Doane, Forsythe, Wilson NOES: Hastings, Laszlo Motion carried COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Forsythe requested that the Special Legal Counsel for the Trailer Park be present at the next Redevelopment Agency meeting to discuss Trailer Park issues. She reported that the Beach Commission will be accepting public input with regard to the color of the Lifeguard Headquarters at their meeting of November 26th, and in reference to a news article this date she noted that if I President Bush succeeds with his proposed wetland legislation the Hellman Ranch wetland acreage will be reduced from twenty-five acres to five acres, and suggested that a communication be drafted to be forwarded to the President regarding that issue. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held.