Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1991-11-25 11-12-91/11-25-91 ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, second by Hastinqs, to adjourn the meetinq until November 25th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. I AYES: Wilson NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastinqs, Laszlo, None Motion carried It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn the meetinq at 10:54 p.m. Clerk and ex-o of Seal Beach of the Approved: ,..h....L k;y? Mayor - Attest: I Seal Beach, California November 25, 1991 reqular adjourned session cancelled due to the lack of cussion. Seal Beach, California November 25, 1991 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in reqular session at 7:02 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo callinq the meetinq to order with the Salute to the Flaq. .1 ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Laszlo Councilmembers Doane, Forsythe, Hastinqs, Wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, City Manaqer Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberq, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk 11-25-91 WAIVER OF FULL READING Doane moved, second by Hastinqs, to waive the readinq in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of readinq shall be deemed to be qiven by all Councilmembers after readinq of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the readinq of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastinqs, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, made reference to the recent City audit which he said shows the need to reduce expenditures, objected to the cost for leqal services, suqqested tbat allowances for meetinqs and travel follow the Federal quidelines, and suqqested that both of these items be looked at to reduce costs. Dr. Anton Dahlman, 1724 Crestview Avenue, referred to a news article with reqard to redistrictinq that reported the percentaqe deviation between districts as 4.9 percent, yet stated his calculations show a 1.85 percent deviation which would mean all of Old Town could remain in District One. Mr. Laird Mueller, 8th Street, asked if there would be public input to the Main Street archway and the covered roof access structures issues. Ms. Beverly Casares, Seal Beach, alleqed that an Ocean Avenue property owner has placed a barrier across an adjacent stub street, is usinq that area for private purposes to access his qaraqe, and asked that this matter be looked into. She asked if there would be public input to the CRA item, said that if a moratorium is enacted it should apply throuqhout the City, particularly since a member of - the Council had informed her that a nine hundred square foot Leisure World unit could be substantially enlarqed. She suqqested that the doqhouse issue be submitted to the voters, objected to an advertised public hearinq reqardinq that issue prior to an action of the Council, stated that placinq more restrictions on non-conforminq properties will serve to devaluate property, can cause bliqht, and could eventually be redeveloped, which is not wanted. Ms. Casares said in her view people will not qive up access to their roof, that current violations will not be removed, and that placinq a moratorium would be opposite of prior public input. There beinq no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared ~R8 p~~i~ b~~riR~ closed. .M!~ UN",uu/dHT/t:Mi6 ~. I COUNCIL ITEMS APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS Citizens particiDation Committee The District Three appointment to the citizens Participation Committee was held over. DISCUSSION - FOUNDER'S DAY Ms. Dorothy Whyte, Candleberry Avenue, said as a result of the 75th Anniversary Celebration there has been discussion of holdinq an annual Founders Day event on the weekend nearest October 27th, the city's incorporation date, the event would be similar to the 75th activities which could include a parade, street faire, fireworks, childrens carnival arts and crafts sale, dance and/or any other activity that would encouraqe broad participation by Seal Beach citizens. Ms. Whyte read the various points of the Founders Day proposal which included, in part, the involvement of the Parks and Recreation Commission, fundinq throuqh donations, use of the 75th Anniversary loqo, I , , . 11-25-91 creation of beautification and recreation projects as c~v~c qoals, that the Founders Day celebration and activities would serve to unify the community, provide common qoals for businesses, civic qroups, individuals, and city qovernment, provide activities and participation for persons of all aqes, promote special projects and membership of civic qroups, be beneficial to business, and provide needed funds for City beautification and recreation projects. She noted that the Coordinatinq Council and Chamber of Commerce have indicated an interest is such annual celebration. After brief discussion there was a consensus indicated by the Council to refer this matter to the Parks and Recreation commission for discussion, and that input be invited from the Coordinatinq Council and the members of the 75th Anniversary committee. I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "c" throuah "J" Councilmember Hastinqs requested that Item "H" be removed from the Consent Calendar. Hastinqs moved, second by Doane, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item "H", as presented. C. Approved reqular demands numbered 85998 throuqh 86148 in the amount of $601,404.78 and payroll demands numbered 47842 throuqh 48021 in the amount of $222,671.01 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. Approved the minutes of the reqular adjourned meetinq of Auqust 26, 1991. Approved the minutes of the reqular meetinq of Auqust 26, 1991. F. Approved the plans and specifications for project Number 615, replacement of water mainline in Seal Beach Boulevard between Electric Avenue and Pacific Coast Hiqhway, and authorized the city Manaqer to advertise for bids. I D. E. G. Declared a 1985 and a 1980 Kawasaki motorcycle as surplus and authorized their sale at public auction. I. I J. AYES: NOES: Authorized the city Manaqer to execute Standard Form Aqreements between the city and the County of Oranqe for federal fundinq of approved Community Development Block Grant Projects by the adoption of Resolution Number 4097 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ACCEPTING PROJECTS SUBMITTED BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE IN THE FINAL STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES AND PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY FOR YEAR XVII." Waived the fees for the use of the beach parkinq lot in conjunction with the 11th Annual Main Street Christmas Parade, as requested by the Seal Beach Business Association. Doane, Forsythe, Hastinqs, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried 11-25-91 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "H" - VACANCY - DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER ADVISORY COMMITTEE/PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE Councilmember Hastinqs stated she had an individual in mind for appointment to the DWP Advisory Committee. The city Clerk suqqested that the positions be declared vacant, I stated the notice of vacancy is required to be posted for a period of ten days, thereafter an appointment can be made, and explained that in addition to the Council appointments to the Project Area Committee, the Historical Society, the San Gabriel Parks Society and the Friends of the Library also nominate persons to serve on the PAC. Hastinqs moved, second by Doane, to declare a vacancy of the District One representative to the Department of Water and Power Advisory Committee and the vacancy of the Historical Society representative to the Project Area Committee. AYES: NOES: Done, Forsythe, Hastinqs, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSING/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - PRIORITY PROJECTS - YEAR XVIII Mayor Laszlo declared the continued public hearinq open. The City Clerk certified that notice of the continued hearinq had been posted as required, and reported receipt of a communication from Robert P. Kirchhoff, Board of Directors of Mutual 9, indicatinq that the Mutual did not choose to participate in the feasibility study for the conqreqate Care Facility. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, noted the response from Mutual 9 to the prior indication of the Council that the Care Center project may not be supported if either the Golden Rain Foundation or the Mutual were not in support, therefore that option is at the discretion of the Council, also that upon review by the County their feelinq appears to be that if a suitable site were found there could be funds available throuqh other aqencies and qrant proqrams to assist in development of that type of facility. With reqard to whether Interval House would have qreater opportunity for fundinq if they applied both throuqh the City and the county or throuqh the County directly, he reported it appears to be the position of the County to encouraqe the nonprofit orqanizations to apply directly to the County for their fundinq for those activities that involve more than one qovernmental jurisdiction, and it is felt the direct application process would not inhibit the County's ability to fund the orqanization at whatever level was felt appropriate. With reqard to the $20,000 request for the Youth Aftercare Proqram, the Director confirmed that the fundinq could be used to hire a coach and assistant for the McGauqh School playqround as lonq as it can be documented that fifty-one percent or more of the children served by the coach and assistant are from low and moderate income families, which could pose a difficulty to prove to the County. He reported the Los Alamitos School District advised that there are approximately one hundred sixty-two children from the community of Seal Beach that receive a subsidized lunch proqram, those children required to be from low and moderate income families, therefore there appears to be a potential to serve additional children at the after-school proqrams, particularly durinq the summer the $20,000 would allow the fundinq of twenty children durinq the summer or the equivalent of twenty children attendinq the youth aftercare proqrams. The Director noted that Mr. Drennan of the County H/CD Proqram was present to answer any questions, also that he had been in attendance at the meetinqs of the Committee where the various projects had been discussed. I .1 . 'j :'p,." . ' ... . ~' 11-25-91 I Councilmember Wilson said although it was a fine concept, she was not aware of the Congregate Care proposal until the last meeting, that she has received comments from Leisure World residents who indicated they knew nothing of the proposal and it was felt the Golden Rain Foundation and Mutual 9 should be involved in any consideration of such a- facility. She noted that surveys were conducted several years ago regarding a similar care facility which was strongly rejected, and suggested that this matter be held over to be considered in a future year. Councilmember Hastings questioned whether Leisure World residents would accept having such a facility open to the public. Members of the Council pointed out that the facility would be located outside of Leisure World, currently vacant land at the northwesterly portion of Leisure World, and would have a separate outside access via Beverly Manor Road. Councilman Doane reported he too received a number of calls and there did not appear to be much enthusiasm for the proposal. Councilmember Forsythe indicated concern with using whatever funds may be available for something as intangible as a study for the Care Facility, that her primary concern, as it was last year, lies with the level of funding for Interval House. Mr. Bob Drennan, representing the County H/CD Program, clarified that there would be no infringement upon the funding for Interval House whether they make application directly to the County or through the city and County. He explained that the County encourages local organizations to apply through their city mainly for the reason of support __ for their projects, however in the case of Interval House were there are several facilities throughout the County it has been suggested to them that they seek the support of the city, apply through the city as a pass-through, or make application directly to the County, that their application will be reviewed equally no matter. He noted that cities are encouraged to show their support for the projects of a specific group in the form of a letter to the organization that in turn is included with the funding application to the County. with regard to Interval House having obtained County as well as a portion of City H/CD funding in the past, Mr. Drennan again clarified that an organization such as Interval House may make application directly to the County, that the city in which they reside may independently have funding sources that can be allocated to the non-profit also, however if an application comes through a City in support of an organization and one is submitted by the organization independently, both are not funded because they are in essence the same application, and noted that organizations that are found to dOUble-dip may be penalized and/or future funding denied. with regard to assurance of funding, Mr. Drennan indicated that their funding would be as assured as any other applicant, each application reviewed by a project committee. He clarified also that if Interval House makes direct application, it does not impact the allocation to the City, and if there are two funding requests for Interval House the City's second project would then be given preference. Councilmember Forsythe said her understanding was that if Interval House were listed as the city's first project, that would simply be an assurance that Interval House would be considered for funds, and the second City project would then take precedence. Mr. Drennan added that would in turn indicate the City's support for the project of the organization. Councilmember Hastings again expressed desire to have an after-school coach and assistant at McGaugh School, which she said would serve a greater number of children than to send twenty children to extended daycare. Mr. Drennan clarified that the after-school program would not require justification based upon the entire school enrollment, only that fifty-one percent of the I I 11-25-91 children participating in the program are of low or moderate income levels. He noted a recent change of HUD policy that funding be designated to two or three qualified projects that can be completed in the short term and that other projects be moved up over the years. The city Manager inquired about the difference in administrative process in the case of Interval House making direct application to the County with a letter of support from the City as opposed to being included on the City application for a pass-through of funding. Mr. Drennan explained that the City would not be involved in the contractual requirements that they would if there were pass-through funding, Interval House would simply operate from Seal Beach and the contracts would be their obligation, however explained that there are some cities that require operations such as Interval House to go through the city application process. Ms. Robin Jaruszewski, Interval House, expressed appreciation for the continued support of Interval House, stated that Seal Beach has been and will continue to be their home base as long as the organization exists, reported that additional bed space was provided this past year, yet there is an ongoing waiting list, the organization is saving lives, and the need continues. She requested that city support of their program continue. The City Manager reported receipt of a communication from Orange Caregiver Resource Center requesting a donation of $600 to be utilized for two days of respite care for three individuals to be identified as residents of the City for family members of Alzheimers disease. He noted this request was received late, had not' been presented to the committee, therefore there was no staff recommendation. There being no further comments, Mayor LaSZlo declared the public hearing closed. I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4100 - HOUSING/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - COUNTY OF ORANGE - YEAR XVIII Resolution Number 4100 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE (YEAR XVIII)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4100 was waived. Discussion continued regarding preferences for prioritization of projects. With regard to the congregate Care Center, Mr. Drennan advised of the County's interest in several possibilities that have surfaced for such a facility in the general area but not necessarily at the location that has been mentioned, that the Leisure World Administrator has indicated a willingness to discuss a number of possibilities, that the County will continue to explore the options, and suggested that the Care Facility remain on the project list for a minimum amount of funding. Forsythe moved, second by Wilson, to approve projects by order of priority as: 1) Interval House, $80,000; 2) Orange Caregiver Resource Center, $1,000; 3) Youth Aftercare, $20,000; 4) Financial Assistance for Day Care Facilities, $20,000; 5) Public Facilities and Improvements (concrete grinder), $50,000; 6) Housing Rehabilitation, $20,000; and 7) Congregate Care Facility, $5,000. I I AYES: . NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4100 as amended to reflect priority projects as approved by the prior motion. ", roo .1.1 ~. ;"t : :. :" . 11-25-91 AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:20 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:34 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. I PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - VARIANCE 7-91 - B-112 SURFSIDE - BYRNES Mayor Laszlo declared the pUblic hearing open to consider the appeal of Planning Commission denial of Variance 7-91. The city Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported receipt of five communications, one in support of the Variance, three in favor of maintaining a maximum of thirty-five feet in height, and one opposing further approval of height variances until a equitable plan is adopted, suggesting tiered heights for A, B, and Crows. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explained that current Code allows a maximum height of thirty-five feet in the Surfs ide area, that the request for variance would allow the new residence to be constructed at forty feet in height to the top of the parapet and thirty-seven feet to the roof deck. 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. David Byrnes, applicant, requested the opportunity to address any objections made to the variance request. Mr. Byrnes said he did not believe that the parapet should be considered as it was an oversight of the Planning Commission, and since it is only three feet in height it does not require a railing under the Uniform Building Code, also clarified that of the two communications submitted to the Planning Commission by residents of the area, one letter supported approval of his variance. He read in part the provisions of the Code for granting a variance, the purpose and required showings thereof, said he was looking to prevent discrimination, that special circumstances apply to his case, not special privilege. Mr. Byrnes said the special circumstances relating to his property is the method of height measurements in the past, mid-street to the height of the sand berm, and made reference to the use of that method of measurement for properties located at A-102, A-112, and A- 113, all of which are over thirty-five feet. He noted his property is located directly behind A-112 and A-113, and that his request for a twenty-four inch variance is merely to achieve parity with his neighbors, and the opportunity to construct ceilings in the residence of eight feet. Mr. Kim Middleton, B-110, stated he was opposed to any height _ variance except the roof access, made reference to the B-102 dwelling which he claimed is more than forty feet in height and has eliminated his view of Bolsa Chica and the Huntington Beach cliffs. He suggeste~ that some type of standard method be developed for the baseline measurement of building heights in Surfside, that he did not wish to now lose his northwest view, and noted that in Surfs ide any loss of view is a loss of property value. Mr. Middleton spoke for adherence to the thirty-five foot height limit. Ms. Leslie Bryant read a communication from ~er parents, William and Wanda vail, C-36, Surfside, opposing approval of the requested variance, any height variation to the current thirty-five feet, to any loss of view as a result of building heights, noting also that the subject residential dwelling is directly behind their property. Mr. Laird Mueller, 8th Street, spoke in support of adhering to the twenty-five and thirty-five foot height limits without I 11-25-91 variation. Mr. Byrnes acknowledged that his residence would block some of the view from B-110, yet claimed that is not a primary view, also that there is an illegal doghouse at B- 113 which impairs his view from B-112 however the primary view is straight towards the ocean, that his dwelling is approved at forty-two feet and said he did not believe that two feet will make a difference. Mr. Byrnes stated he di~. I not have funds to construct a roof deck at this time, confirmed that the parapet, an architectural variation, will be three feet, five feet and solid at the front. Ms. sonja Putney, C-34, indicated that plans for her family residence have been placed on hold pending the outcome of this variance, stated if granted, the same consideration should be given to all future homes in the area, offered her opposition to granting of this variance yet spoke favorably of covered roof access structures. Ms. Janice Kemp, C-39, expressed concern with the potential loss of view, and if this variance is granted everyone should be allowed a height of thirty-seven feet. Mr. Middleton inquired as to why there is even an ability to make application for an exception to regulations. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing closed. The Development Services Director clarified that the variance request is for the thirty-seven foot height and the height of the parapet for the reason that part of the application was for a covered roof access structure under the minor plan review process which was approved by the Planning Commission. He explained that with having roof access the Building Code provides and requires there to be" a parapet, thus the reason that the parapet is included under the variance request, and noted that existing Code I provisions allow for a parapet to be approved if it is not required by the Building Code under the minor plan review process. He noted condition two of Planning Commission Resolution 1651 denied both the thirty-seven foot height for the dwelling and the height of the parapet. The Director explained that if the appeal is denied the applicant would have the option of lowering the height of the structure to thirty-five feet with no parapet or roof access, or lower the height of the structure to allow for a parapet in accordance with provisions of the Building Code for a roof access patio area at the thirty-five foot height, in other words maintain the thirty-five foot height to the top of the parapet. With regard to a question posed by a member of the audience, the Director explained that State law allows for application for variances subject to certain findings. Hastings moved, second by Doane, to sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission denying Variance 7-91. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Resolution would be amended to incorporate the evidence and findings -- from this meeting, and presented for consideration at the next meeting. AYES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson I NOES: None~ Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1!44 - REAPPORTIONING COUNCILMANIC DISTRICTS Ordinance Number 1144 was presented to Council for second 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 1'44 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Doane, to adopt Ordinance Number 1144 as presented. .' . f " ~ ::- '- 11-25-91 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Doane, Forsythe, Wilson Hastings Laszlo Motion carried I OR ANCE ACTI IES Ordinance Number 1 45 was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR FILMING ACTIVITIES." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1145 was waived. The city Manager reported that subsequent to introduction of this Ordinance it was forwarded to the State Film Commission for review and comment, the Ordinance was found to be consistent with the legislative intent of AB 4680, and based upon comments received from the State two minor changes were made to Sections 8-5 and 8-8 of the Ordinance relating to days of advance notice and notification of residents and businesses within three hundred feet of the film location. The City Manager recommended that the Ordinance be reintroduced and considered for first reading. In response to Council, he explained that reference to the local Film Development Office shall be the office of the city Manager. Wilson moved, second by Forsythe, to approve first reading of Ordinance Number ~45 as amended and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I MAIN STREET GATEWAY ARCH The City Manager noted that the concept of a Main Street archway had previously been proposed to the City Council, in turn was referred to the Planning Commission, a public hearing was held and has now been referred back to the Council for consideration and further direction. Mr. John Baker, resident and business owner, recalled the Downtown Revitalization Study that was done several years ago, the result of which were discussions regarding the restriping of Main Street to increase parking, beautification, as well as signage to denote Main street, and given the limited area on which to place a sign a suggestion was made to consider an archway, possibly in the location where banners are presently hung south of Pacific Coast Highway. He said while on vacation he had observed an archway under reconstruction in the City of Weed in a location similar to that which is available in Seal Beach, and subsequently the plans and cost estimates were obtained. He suggested that even though it may be desirable to design an archway more to the character of Seal Beach, the request of the Council is to endorse the concept and authorize the Business Association to raise funds to construct the archway to call attention to Main Street. In response to Councilmember Forsythe he indicated a willingness to look at alternative signage, however noted that signs can not be placed along the State highway, there is no other public property, and asked if the plans from the City of Weed had been looked at. Councilmember Wilson suggested a scroll type of sign similar to that at the freeway exit be considered. Councilmember Hastings asked if a location in the City easement could be looked into. Staff responded that would basically be the sidewalk area between the curb and the properties that presently have service station use. Members of the Council reported less than a positive public response to consideration of an archway. councilmember Hastings inquired as to the priorities of the Association since there was a recent request to raise funds for lighting and benches and now for an archway. Mr. Baker said he felt certain the Association has a priority list of projects to benefit the I 11-25-91 city, and explained that upon discussing the street lighting with Edison and the PUC, the type of lighting system that was desired can not be done at this time therefore temporary lights will be used in the interim, offering also to focus on benches first if that is what is needed. Councilmember Hastings reported comments from some residents that an archway as well as benches become pigeon roosts. I Councilmember Forsythe indicated a desire to obtain public- input as to the type of sign that would be desired, to which Mr. Baker suggested there may be someone locally that would be willing to design such signage. Mayor Laszlo noted an apparent objection to an archway, that another type of signage may be more desirable, stated that CalTrans does allow some signs along highways, and it could possibly be beneficial for the City to declare Main street as historic. After further discussion, the City Manager suggested that action on this item be deferred for the time being, offered to contact California Main street to obtain examples of signage, dimensions, estimates of cost, etc., which he could share with Mr. Baker and the Business Association, and in the meantime the Association could commence a fund raising effort. Mayor Laszlo asked that the information be first provided to the Council for input. Ms. Beverly Casares, Seal Beach, recalled a Seal Beach sign that was once located near the American Savings building that was visible for some distance, however due to deterioration, much of which was the result of pigeons, was removed. She also suggested that the non-profit status of the fund raising organization be verified. Mr. Laird Mueller, 8th Street, said a Main Street identification sign may be acceptable, however an archway _ reminded him of a fun zone. He offered that only the first two blocks of Main Street could possibly be considered I historic, criticized the design of certain new buildings on the Street, suggested that the quaintness of Main Street should be maintained, providing a place where people will want to shop, and that there may be need for an architectural committee to review Main Street improvements. with regard to an indicated interest in an architectural review committee, staff advised that it should be established by ordinance, thereafter design criteria could be developed. It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 10:02 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:16 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURES The Director of Development Services reported this item is the result of Council direction stemming from of a recent appeal to'a covered roof access structure on Ocean Avenue. He noted the staff report sets forth the current Code provisions, the process to adopt an interim ordinance enacting a moratorium to allow further study of covered roof access structures, whether they should be banned or existing regulations revised for additional clarification, as well as the procedures to extend such moratorium. He pointed out I that an exemption to the ordinance could be provided for 1631 Ocean Avenue and B-112 Surfs ide where approvals have been granted for covered roof access structures yet building permits have not been issued, an additional application was submitted for 1517 Ocean Avenue however it was incomplete and plans were not submitted until this date, and an exemption for that property would be at the discretion of the Council. The Director stated that in order to place the Planning Commission in a position to consider the covered . roof access matter at the earliest possible time, a public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for December 4th b before that body dependent upon the desires of the Council. . ~ 11-25-92 I Councilmember Wilson noted adoption of revised requlations earlier this year, suggested that the requlations either be revised further or simply allow the Planning Commission to consider each such request on an individual basis. Councilmember Forsythe said she had felt the adopted revisions would alleviate an impact on neighboring properties, yet there have been recent communications and discussions regarding significant impacts on the view of neighboring properties as a result of covered roof access "" structures, suggested that there are other means to access a roof deck rather than a covered roof access structure, that as long as loopholes remain in the ordinance there will continue to be appeals, and indicated her preference to adhere to the existing height limitation. Mayor Laszlo said in lieu of placing a moratorium on covered roof access structures, he would suggest the issue be considered under public hearing at the earliest possible time in order to tighten the existing regulations, and that he believed the issue could be legally addressed through lot size. In response to Council, staff confirmed that in most cases the stairway to a roof deck is within the confines of the home, however it is understood that there are older CRAS that have exterior stairways. Mr. Kim Middleton, Surfside, said his roof deck is accessed by means of a wooden ladder, which is often inconvenient or impossible for some persons, that he has no plans for a covered roof access at this time however would like to reserve the right to consider one in the future. He suggested that possibly the areas mostly affected, Surfs ide and Old Town, should make the decision relating to doghouses, offered his opinion that although the location should be regulated, he had no objection to the height of those structures as opposed to a solid enclosure to the allowed height variation, noted as well that in the area of Surfs ide every inch of space must be utilized for living area given the size of the 19t5. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Seal Beach, said what may be acceptable for the Hill, Leisure World, or the College Parks may not be acceptable to downtown and Surfside where the lots are small, stated she had no objection to the covered roof access structures, that they are useful, and provide additional interior space. She suggested that there be no change to allowing CRAS in downtown and Surfside, yet given the greater square footage of the Hill properties CRAS could be prohibited if that were the desire. Mr. Laird Mueller, 8th Street, said he agreed in some respects that Surfs ide should be given consideration for covered roof access structures as a result of the lot sizes, however offered that houses can be easily constructed on twenty-five by one hundred foot lots in Old Town, that third story decks could continue to be allowed, but there should be no additional doghouses, in order words allow whatever the people want as long as it is twenty-feet or less in height. Ms. Beverly Casares, Seal Beach, questioned why a thirty foot height was approved for Seal Beach Boulevard if there is concern with view, likewise it is understood there may be a change to the Code where Crestview residents will not be required to abide by rear yard setbacks. She suggested that the covered roof access structures be put to a vote of those persons in District One. She claimed that the existing ordinance was developed to specifically require removal of the observadome, which she said could have been corrected through a definition of roofing material or through Code enforcement. Ms. Casares said a discussion of doghouses is in fact a discussion of height limits, which should also be placed to a vote of District One, regardless the width of a lot. Ms. Leslie Bryant, C-36 Surfside, said the access to their roof deck is by a ladder from a closet, which is inconvenient, and asked that the opportunity be available for them to have a I I 11-25-91 doghouse if they choose to. Ms. Sonja Putney, C-34 Surfside, agreed with the prior speaker, also that it should possibly be put to a vote of District One, and cited the covered roof access as a safety factor as well as convenience. She added that plans for their home have been postponed as a result of this matter, and pointed out the ability to entertain on the roof deck since there are no I yard areas in Surfside. Ms. Janice Kemp, C-39 Surfside, agreed with the safety factor of roof access stairs, noting that it is virtually impossible to reach a roof deck by ladder, and said she could support an election of District One regarding CRAS. Ms. James Mastick, 1631 Ocean Avenue, expressed his opposition to a moratorium, rather the existing ordinance could be strengthened. He cited covered roof access structures and interior stairs as a benefit to homes on small lots, where outside stairways pose a danger. He suggested consideration of placing a maximum size limit on CRAS where only a small percentage of views would be impacted. Mr. Mastick conveyed his frustration with having his covered roof access approved by the Planning Commission, appealed by one person, approved by the Council, and yet that approval is listed for further determination in the staff report. The Development Services Director explained that Mr. Mastick's access structure is proposed to exempted from the moratorium if imposed, however it would be at the discretion of the Council to not exempt any property since building permits have not been issued. He clarified that Mr. Mastick would need to obtain a building permit for the CRAS. Ms. Lee Cambria, Seal Beach, reiterated a past statement that Surfs ide and Old Town should be separated from the remainder of the city given the differences of lot sizes, etc., and that decks provide recreational space for I downtown residences. She objected to placing a moratorium, citing the additional costs and delay of construction for the homeowner, using herself as an example, rather the City should encourage the reconstruction of older units, and offered that if it is made more difficult to build a single family residential dwelling, persons will move from the City and the units will become rentals. Ms. Cambria said the ordinance as written poses a potential conflict for anyone who builds and casts a shadow on a neighbor, urged that a moratorium not be imposed, and that the Planning Commission continue as they are presently pending a possible measure for a future ballot. Councilmember Hastings agreed with the comment of Councilmember Wilson that the current regulations were considered in depth by the Commission and Council under a number public hearings, it was thought the regulations addressed all concerns, yet view and access have now been raised as a concern to a roof deck, and said she felt that the criteria for covered roof access structures can now be refined and tightened. The Director confirmed that size of the structures had been a matter of Commission discussion, suggested that that and any other issue of concern could b~ referred back to the Planning Commission, and if there is no clear consensus of specific issues, possibly a Commission study session could be held to determine the issues and concerns that are felt should be addressed, and subsequently I heard under public hearing. There appeared to be a consensus of the Council to proceed in the manner mentioned. COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilmember Hastings noted a meeting the following morning with Senator Bergeson and that she had requested the Development Services Director and the City Manager to prepare a packet of information pertaining to beach erosion, sand replenishment, groin repair, and groin extension, to be presented to the Senator at the meeting, also forwarded to Assemblyman Tom Mays, and Supervisor Harriet Wieder. . . 11-25-91/11-26-91 I Councilmember Hastings said although she would be unable to attend the meeting, Mr. Kredell and Mr. Lyon would be in attendance. Councilman Doane said he found the number of boards, commissions, and committees in the City to be confusing, including the membership and their responsibilities. He suggested that the Council should aware of what the committees are doing, work with them, be provided with copies of the minutes, attend their meetings, and if a committee is no longer necessary it should be disbanded. He commended the city Manager for developing a policy manual in which the duties and responsibilities, meeting times, etc. of the various boards, commissions, and committees will be addressed. r~ ~ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adjourn the meeting to the following day, November 26th, at 10:00 a.m. to meet with Senator Bergeson. 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 meeting' at 11:18 p.m. Approved: C lerk and ex-o C of Seal Beach -/~ ~JLl. of the I - Attest: Seal Beach, California November 26, 1991 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 10:10 a.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Mayor Laszlo Councilmembers Doane, Wilson councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings Wilson moved, second by Doane, to excuse the absence of Councilmembers Forsythe and Hastings from this meeting.