Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1992-01-27 1-21-92/1-27-92 meet with the City Council. It was the determination of the Council that Mayor Laszlo and Councilmember Hastings meet with the Congressman informally on Thursday morning, January 23rd. I CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. ADJOURNMENT Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, January 27th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Doane, None Wilson Forsythe, Has~ings, Laszlo . . Motion carried The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent of the Council at 10:02 p.m. I Approved: lerk and ex-o r- Mayor of the Attest: Seal Beach, California January 27, 1992 The City Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:00 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, Wilson Absent: Councilmember Hastings Also present: Mr. Bankston, city Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION The Assistant City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel matters and a matter of pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), ,Mola Development Corporation versus City of Seal Beach. It was the consensus of the Council to . adjourn to Closed Session at 6:02 p.m. The Council 1;-27-92 reconvened at 6:43 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. The Assistant City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the matters previously announced, as well as pending litigation in the cases of Franchesi versus Seal Beach and Astenius versus Seal Beach, and that no action was taken. I ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 Approved: c C lerk and ex-o of Seal Beach of the Attest: Seal Beach, California January 27, 1992 I The City Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:03 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Laszlo Councilmembers Doane, Forsythe, wilson Councilmember Hastings Absent: Forsythe moved, second by Doane, to excuse the absence of Councilmember Hastings from this meeting. AYES: NOES: . ABSENT: Doane, Forsythe, Laszlo, Wilson None Hastings Motion carried Also present: Mr. Bankston, City Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Doane, 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. 1-27-92 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Doane, Forsythe, Laszlo, Wilson None Hastings Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. .1 I PRESENTATIONS Lt. Clifford, California Highway Patrol, presented a 10851 pin to Seal Beach Police Officer Joe Miller on behalf of the California Highway Patrol and the Automobile Club of Southern California. Lt. Clifford announced that Officer Miller is the first Seal Beach Officer to receive the award, recognized for having recovered ten rolling stolen vehicles between September i990 and September 1991 and the arrest of thirteen suspects, resulting in a recovery value of $100,000. Mr. Frank Brown, Automobile Club of Southern California, reported that through this program in a period of one year over 13,500 stolen vehicles have been recovered in the State of California with an estimated value of between $65 to $70 million dollars. He presented Officer Miller with an Auto Club commendation. Mr. Brown presented the Council with copies of a new law enacted in Mexico as a result of the number of stolen vehicles that enter that country, that now requires two months of proven United States insurance in addition to the required Mexican insurance to drive a vehicle into the country of Mexico, additionally the insurance must be in the name of the vehicle driver and if one does not have appropriate identification a bond must be posted in the amount of the vehicle, otherwise the vehicle will be escorted back to the United States. Mr. Brown also presented Chief stearns with a 10851 plaque to be placed in the Department listing Officer Miller. The Chief accepted with appreciation to the Automobile Club and the Highway Patrol, stated Officer Miller is just one example of the fine officers on the force, also noted his recent recognition by MADD for having made over one hundred drunk driver arrests in a period of one year and an upcoming recognition as the "Officer of the Year" by the Rotary Club. Mayor Laszlo and members of the Council offered their appreciation and congratulations. PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Laszlo proclaimed February 9th through 15th, 1992 as "Vocational Education Week." I COUNCIL ITEMS APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS Environmental Oualitv Control Board The District One appointment to fill the vacancy on the Environmental Quality Control Board was held over. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "D" throuah "J" Councilmember Forsythe requested that the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of November 26th be removed from Item "E" as she had not been present at that meeting, and Item "F" was removed for a typographical correction. Wilson moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the recommended action for Items on the Consent Calendar, except Item "E", minutes of November 26th, and Item "F", as presented. . D. Approved regular demands numbered 48705 through 48861 in the amount of:$191,670.61 and payroll demands numbered 86654 through 86804 in the amount of $635,410.55 as 1-27-92 approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. G. waived the insurance requirement of the College Park East Neighborhood Association to use the North Seal Beach Community Center for Association meetings, a cost to the Association of approximately $75 per meeting. I. H. Adopted Resolution Number 4118 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A CHARTER CITY, ESTABLISHING SALARY RATES, A SALARY AND WAGE SCHEDULE, AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND REPEALING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATES SPECIFIED, ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH." 1. Adopted Resolution Number 4119 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A CHARTER CITY, ESTABLISHING SALARY RATES, A SALARY AND WAGE SCHEDULE, AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION AND REPEALING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATES SPECIFIED, ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH." J. Adopted Resolution Number 4120 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A CHARTER CITY, ESTABLISHING A COMPENSATION PLAN, INCLUDING SALARY AND BENEFITS, FOR MANAGEMENT, CONFIDENTIAL, AND NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES AND REPEALING, ON THE EFFECTIVE DATES SPECIFIED, ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH." I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Doane, Forsythe, Laszlo, Wilson None Hastings Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "E" - MINUTES Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to approve the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of November 26, 1991. wilson AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ~ ITEM "F" - ORDINANCE NUMBER 11148 - CORNER LOTS / HOURS OF OPERATION / NON-CONFORMING BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / WOODEN DECKS The Director of Development Services requested that the paragraph listed as "9" be corrected to read "8", that Section also corrected to reflect Section 28-801 and Subsection (1) in the text. Doane moved, second by Forsythe, to approve second reading and adoption of Ordinance Number 1'48 as amended entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5- 91, AMENDING SECTIONS 28-2313, 28-2405, 28-1300(7), 28-701 AND 28-801 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." Doane, Laszlo, None Forsythe Hastings Motion carried I' ':";., . . :~ to ~'''. ., . '."; 1-27-92 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Doane, Forsythe, Laszlo, Wilson None Hastings Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-91 - 1120 CENTRAL AVENUE - STARK/BRENDELL Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing open to consider an appeal of Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit 12-91 relative to the after-the-fact modifications of previously approved plans for 1120 Central Avenue, Seal Beach. The city Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported receipt of one communication from Mr. Larry Peters in support of the appeal. The Director of Development Services presented an overview of the staff report relating to the appeal of Planning Commission denial of CUP 12-91. The proposal for after-the-fact approval of revised building plans to the ground floor area which, as a condition of the initial approvals granted in 1989 and the conversion to condominiums in 1990, required the provision of two double car garages for each of the two residential units located above the garage areas, a single tandem parking space for each unit along with some storage area adjacent to the tandem space for each of the units. He explained that subsequent to the approval and construction of the project it became apparent there had been modifications to the portion of the ground floor that involved the tandem parking and storage areas for something other than permitted by the approvals granted by the Planning Commission. He reported there was a meeting with the applicant to discuss various ways to resolve the issue with the suggestion that application be made for a Conditional Use Permit to modify the previously approved plans for whatever facilities that are now provided in the ground floor area. The CUP application was received and the Commission held public hearings on September 4th and November 6th. On November 6th the Commission considered a number of conditions to approve the request with certain modifications over and above what the applicant proposed as part of his initial submission and a proposal for further modification after the September hearing. The Commission then requested staff to prepare a number of proposed conditions for approval of the project for their review prior to taking a final action, those conditions reviewed with the applicant at the December 4th meeting, at which time the applicant indicated he could not agree to three of the eight proposed conditions, and the Commission then requested that a resolution be prepared for denial of the project. He noted that two resolutions were presented to the Commission for consideration on December 18th, one to approve the project subject to the conditions that had previously been considered, the other to deny the project, at which time the Commission took action to deny the request for modification, that resolution now the subject of this appeal. The Director described the various plans as this project progressed through the approval process: 1) the original application package showing two double car garages, a large storage area in front of the garage~, a laundry facility along the side, and no tandem parking; 2) the plan submitted to the Planning Commission initially Showing two double car garages, one tandem space for each unit in front of the double car garages, two separate storage areas, and a separate laundry facility, which was approved by the Commission in 1989; 3) the stamped, approved building plans for which permits were issued on April 2, 1990, showing tandem parking, two storage areas, and a reconfiguration of the laundry area; 4) the plans of the area, as represented by the applicant, as to what currently exists on the .1 I 1-27-92 property under CUP request 12-91 showing two double car garages with access from the alley, two separate restroom facilities, a kitchen area, where a laundry area was previously proposed, having a refrigerator, dishwasher, trash compactor, sink, ovens, cabinets, and showing a number of interior walls constructed in the area; and 5) the basic plan as it would have existed under the conditions of the I Planning Commission showing the two restroom facilities, the -- kitchen area where the applicant had proposed to remove several of the kitchen facilities as a subsequent amendment to the original application, as well as the Commission consideration of removal of the island cabinet area, and the condition that would have required removal of the first set of interior walls to make the recreation area larger. He noted the packet of information provided the Council contained the staff reports, exhibits thereto, and minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, the documents that allowed the original expansion of the property in 1989, the apartment to condominium conversion in 1990, and exhibits presented to the Commission by the applicant. The Director offered that the focus for the Council is to determine whether or not it is appropriate to grant modifications to the plans previously approved by the Planning Commission, if so, in what manner, and how the modifications should be conditioned to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code and General Plan. In response to inquiries by the Council, the Director said he believed the basic disagreement as of November 6th was with three of the eight conditions, removal of certain utility service lines that would serve the appliances that the applicant had previously indicated he would be willing to remove from the premises, removal of one of the bathrooms where the applicant contended both were I required pursuant to state law, and removal of the first interior partition wall, the applicant having indicated that was not appropriate and he should be allowed to divide the interior space in a manner that he deemed most appropriate. Subsequently, on December 4th the applicant indicated an unwillingness to agree to any of the conditions, including removal of certain appliances primarily due to his feeling that an agreement had been worked out between the city Attorney's office and his attorney thus the City was not upholding any such agreement. The Director confirmed that' this is a two unit condominium project, that the condition to remove the utility service lines was due to concern regarding the ease of reinstalling the removed appliances, the range top, dishwasher, oven, and refrigerator, should the service lines be merely capped. He said he believed similar appliances are installed in the two units, however was uncertain as to dishwashers. The Director noted an issue raised at the Planning Commission was the definition of kitchens, bedrooms, and living areas, that the interior room arrangement as proposed meets the definitional requirements of the Code for being a living unit, to which the applicant has clearly indicated that the area has never been utilized for living purposes, and there is no need to doubt his statement. He again confirmed that there are I kitchen areas in the two units, and with regard to removal of the bathroom he explained that there was claim by the applicant of a state requirement to have two bathroom facilities in a common recreation/spa area, yet representatives of the Orange County Health Department have indicated that if there are restroom facilities within three hundred feet of a spa area, separate restrooms within the spa area would not need to be provided, therefore the Commission determined that a second such facility was not necessary given the proximity of the residential units. The Director said he believed the main focus with regard to removal of the interior wall was to try to provide a larger .J . ... ..-, \' ..... . ....t't.~..,.... .,~. 1-27-92 I area for recreation purposes. A concern of the Commission was the division of the rooms, the kitchen facilities, and the restrooms, that could lend itself to conversion to a residential unit, indicated the size of the subject area is approximately eight hundred forty square feet, and although there was no purpose for the rooms specified on the plans, the applicant had indicated that the rear room would be the location of the spa, the other possibly a card or game room or an office for the condominium association. with regard to parking, the Director explained that each unit has a double car,garage, two spaces side-by-side, and as approved by the Planning Commission and the building plans, there is an additional tandem space to the front of the standard spaces, however the tandem space was not necessary to meet the parking requirements. councilman Doane announced that at the request of Mr. Stark they had met for about one hour at Mr. Doane's home, that he had assumed, although it had not been implied, that Mr. Stark would be meeting with all members of the Council, and upon finding that that did not occur, he offered to excuse himself from this matter if that were felt appropriate. The Assistant city Attorney advised that the decision must be based upon the evidence received at this public hearing, therefore at the conclusion of the hearing if it is felt there was something told to Councilman Doane that might have an influence or impact on his decision it should be stated for the record that there was additional material provided to the Councilman at the meeting with Mr. Stark. Mayor Laszlo noted two communications from Michael Cho and indicated his question would be as to Mr. Cho's involvement in this matter. 1 Mayor Laszlo invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this matter to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Bruce Stark, appellant, acknowledged that he had met with Mr. Doane, discussed the appeal and other matters pertaining to the City, the intent being to bring him up-tO-date on what has transpired prior to assuming his Council position, also said he had sent a packet to all members of the Council pertaining to his presentation at this meeting, which contained nothing new or different from what he had discussed with Mr. Doane. Mr. Stark said the first plan that was described by the Director never reached the Planning Commission, was rejected by a member of the Planning staff then under the direction of Mr. Knight, claimed those plans were destroyed as well as rejected, and the staff had suggested that they be redrawn with tandem parking. He stated the project was designed for condominiums, originally with a common area for the condos, meets the requirements set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Number 1162, and the desire for amenity features and quality housing. Mr. Stark said his appeal requests equal protection under the law as provided by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that he was not asking for a special privilege, merely what is provided by the city Code, the appeal based upon the lack of consideration by the Planning Commission and staff of accessory use, and the obvious bias of the Commission, he also claimed that the minutes of a Commission meeting were incomplete where the author of Ordinance Number 948, Mr. Antos, had testified to the genesis and existence of accessory use. with regard to the issue of being an after-the-fact approval, he said neither he nor the City was to blame, that he had a contract with a duly licensed contractor who was to have secured the necessary permits which he admittedly did not. Mr. Stark stated that an accessory use is permitted in the residential high and low density zones, yet the staff report projects that the subject area could be used for something other than ,I 1-27-92 a common area for the condominium owners, also noted that the City has approved the parcel map and the CC & R's which he imagined have now been recorded. Mr. Stark acknowledged his criticism of the Director and the planning staff as well as the Commission since the Mola issue, and suggested that what is hoped to be accomplished by denial of the Conditional Use Permit and the compiling of this record is I to teach him a lesson for speaking out on the Mola project. He said the condominium project meets the goals of the Housing Element, that accessory uses were added to the Code specifically for condominiums, noted that he had provided the Council with examples and photographs of the condominiums on Montecito and at Old Ranch, having the same amenities as his project, and made reference to the California Code that requires uniformity of zoning regulations, thus he would be entitled to the same amenities as the other condo projects. He recalled that at the September Commission meeting there was agreement to continue the matter and have the City Attorney present at the next - meeting, also a suggestion that the city Attorney and his attorney meet to resolve whatever the city felt was a problem, that there was a consultation and an agreement was reached that if the range top, oven, refrigerator and dishwasher were removed the area could no longer be considered a living unit and could be approved without staff opposition, the staff in turn recommended that it not be approved, and when this was brought forth to the Commission the response had been that the City Attorney could not negotiate for them. with regard to the presence of Mr. Cho, Mr. Stark noted Mr. Cho to be a licensed attorney yet accepted a menial intern position with the City, subsequently became a Code Enforcement Officer, represented I himself as such to the Orange County court, however the Civil Service Board has never approved his position title, - and alleged that Mr. Cho was being used by the Director and Planning staff. Mr. Stark again expressed his opposition of the Director and Planning staff as being incompetent and tools of developers in their official capacity, even though they may personally be nice. He said by the City's own policy, if condos are allowed to have amenities for the owners, then he too is entitled to such amenities, in his -- case the common area has the same amenities as the other units, is meant for parties and enjoyment of the owners of the condominiums, and stated the city is protected and has the right of inspection pursuant to the CC & R's, yet the staff report concentrated on a possible illegal living unit and lacked mention of an accessory use. With regard to the issue of bathrooms he stated the California Administrative Code requires mens and womens bathrooms where unrelated persons are using common bathing facilities, yet he acknowledged the correctness that if there are restroom facilities within three hundred feet of the bathing facilities only one bathroom is required, however the three hundred feet applies to how far the bathing facility is from the nearest bathroom, in this case it is outside, up an outside stairway, across a porch and into a unit to reach a I bathroom, which is more than three hundred feet. Mr. Stark said when he found that the city had reneged on the agreement between the attorneys regarding removal of the appliances, and to which he had notified the city that he would agree to, he then withdrew his consent, that the CUP was approved by the Commission on a four to one vote, staff was to prepare a resolution to reflect that action, however instead of approval, the matter was reconsidered on a motion by the one opposing vote, which is not allowed under parliamentary law, and the Commission subsequently denied the entire matter. He stated his belief that a request of Commissioner Sharp to remove cabinets from the area was a I l'~~' "':,'''' '., . ,..;.. .... ~'~f . 0:. -- ~ ,~ .......": ......,..: ' ':;' '-;. 1-27-92 I matter of vindictiveness since there is nothing in the Code that prevents cabinets in any location, he also asked that Councilmember Wilson remove herself from taking an action on this matter given her pending marriage to Mr. Sharp. In response to Council, Mr. Stark confirmed that there are two units of the condominium, that there is no space for recreational purposes within the units, the common area is proposed for entertainment use, and he mentioned an apartment complex at Second and Ocean that has an entertainment room adjacent to the pool, condominiums at First and Marina having a common area, each having approximately six units, the Riverbeach condos having a common area, the Trailer Park having a recreation area, and Leisure World having several. Mr. Stark requested approval of the accessory use for the condominium project that has already received city approval. I Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, cited this as an example of the problems that can arise as a result of being a civic activist, concurred that there appears to be a personal vendetta, and suggested that the law should be followed and the appeal approved. Mr. Charles, Antos, 328 - 17th Street, stated his support of the appeal. With regard to questions posed at the Commission meetings, he noted that there are not many condominium conversions that have amenity features primarily because the original apartments did not have amenity features separate and distinct from the apartments, however noted there have been some and made reference to Rossmoor Park Apartments as an example. He acknowledged that this project is somewhat different in that when reconstructed it was possible to add area for amenity features, and with regard to the area being turned into an additional unit he noted that there are two condominium units having two separate owners that would likely not look favorably on removing or converting the common area, that the common area is so designated in the CC & R's, likewise the City has the right of inspection as well as a requirement that the common area be appropriately maintained, and with the recordation of the map and the CC & R's there is a requirement to file a condominium plan that must show the common area, that to remain as such while the building exists, also noted that the CC & R's may not be amended without city approval. Mr. Antos said he did not see a problem with the common area or concern that this area may become a unit, and that it had been the responsibility of the contractor to obtain the necessary permits as prescribed by the contract and pursuant to state licensing law. He asked that the appeal be granted. In response to a question of Council, Mr. Antos noted that the Code requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit up to seven units in a complex, at that point there is requirement for one guest space for each seven units, in this case there is a two car garage for each unit, a total of four spaces required, and the project should not be required to also provide the tandem spaces unless the Code is amended to require same, and described the more common apartment to condominium conversions where no amenities had been provided before or upon conversion, yet other requirements of the Code were met. With regard to the number of units allowed on the subject property, Mr. Antos said it had been a nonconforming duplex, was improved as a major addition to a nonconforming building, and agreed that had the property been vacant it is most likely only one unit would be allowed based upon the size and shape of the property. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach, said as one that has requested Code enforcement for a long- time she had not been aware that it existed, however in this case she felt there is a civil rights issue rather than Code enforcement as a result of Mr. Stark's community activist I 1-27-92 activities. The city Manager explained that although there is not a specific job classification of Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Cho was employed under the classification of Intern, that Code enforcement is a functional responsibility that can be assigned, and now with the absence of Intern positions that function will be assigned to other personnel as is necessary. Ms. Norma Strohmeier, Seal Beach, spoke in support of the appeal of the Planning commission denial. Mr. Bill Orszewsky, 85 Riversea Road, indicated his belief that Mr. Stark has done everything necessary to allow judgement of his appeal, noted his observance of hostilities at many of the meetings, suggested that stability be brought into city government rather than innuendos and name calling. Mr. Michael Cho, Huntington Beach, said he was not present to speak either in favor of or in opposition to the application, rather he felt the applicant should be allowed to do whatever anyone else has done that has a large condo, whether it be a recreation room, spa, kitchen facilities, bathrooms, etc., because it would be rare to find a two unit condominium that has any type of common area, such areas .. generally left to a large development. He took exception, however to the way the area is proposed to be built, where based upon the Code, citizen complaints, etc., the attempt is to protect against bootlegged units, and in this case the design of the area lends itself to being converted to a third unit. He acknowledged as correct the statements that this might not be converted because the condo owners would not agree to a conversion, yet pointed out that until the condos are sold to independent owners the possibility of a sole owner of the units, as they presently exist or may in the future, could convert the units and rent them, and recalled a statement of Mr. Stark before the Planning Commission that it was never his intention to sell the units, rather this was being done for estate planning purposes, and he said if that is the case possibly the area would not be converted, yet the best way to avoid future Code enforcement is to plan today. Mr. Cho offered that it is possible to provide the common area within the conditions considered by the Commission, one requiring the removal of the main partition wall which presently creates two small rooms and if the intent is to install a spa, a greater area will be needed. Mr. Cho explained that a commercial spa would be required for a common area as opposed to the type" used for a private residence, is subject to certain county Health Department regulations with regard to equi-distance steps, depth, equipment, etc., noted that the necessary equipment can not be accommodated in the small room, and if the two bathrooms are to be provided it will be necessary that they meet institutional standards, therefore what presently exists will need to be removed to accommodate those amenities. He expressed his viewpoint that the applicant should have investigated the regulations before expenditure of monies and commencement of the project, claimed that the applicant is an experienced developer of properties in Seal Beach, Long Beach, and Idylwild, and reported having photographs of how the walls and foundation were altered to install the after-the-fact utilities for the bathrooms and appliances, at considerable cost to the applicant. Mr. Cho claimed that the applicant has made incorrect statements, one of which was that there has only been one inspection warrant issued in the last ten years, where in fact two had been issued in the past year and others were being sought pursuant to provisions of the civil Code. He noted also discovery of the listing of the applicant's Ocean Avenue home in a bed and breakfast registry. The city Manager asked that the Council confine the discussion to the issue under consideration, the Code, and interpretation thereof. Mr. Cho said as an attorney he I I I , t'." ~..~. .;..1: ..t~ '" ,..,,"V.": .,,;' .....\ ..' '\', 1-27-92 I has sworn to uphold the law, and within the law the Council and Commission have the ability to condition development to ensure that it remains as envisioned, and in this case suggested that the conditions considered by the Planning Commission be applied, that the majority of kitchen appliances be removed, the utilities in the wall be removed to prevent future reinstallation, that the rooms be designed in a manner to ensure they are adequate to accommodate a spa, and although the need for an office for a two unit condominium association can not be imagined, if allowed there should be no more than a low separation wall to avoid a future potential conversion. He challenged any claim that the subject units are low income housing, and cautioned of liability should the area ever be rented without having received the proper inspections. with regard to the need for a commercial spa, the City Manager confirmed that to be the understanding at this time based upon information from the County Health Department. At the request of Council, Mr. Cho described the area that had been proposed to house a spa, clarifying that there is inadequate room to accommodate a portable spa, let alone a commercial spa, without the need for modifications, that a commercial spa would need to be in-ground, thus would require further engineering to determine any interference with the foundation and footing requirements, that a minimum size commercial spa is about six feet in width, there would then need to be a four foot deck around half of the unit, hand rails, different electrical facilities that can withstand the moisture, and the equipment would likely need to be located outside the structure, which could probably be done, however there could then be problems associated with the setback requirements. If a spa is in fact going to be installed, he urged that it be properly designed, inspected by the city, and that future tenants, if there are no independent owners, be made aware that it is a common area. He explained further that originally there were utility lines in the walls and foundation where the tandem parking existed, to extend those lines to accommodate the appliances required breaking into the walls and foundation, which could impact the footings and structural integrity of the building, and that the condition to remove the utility lines was based upon the fact that 220 power would not be necessary for the recreational area especially since the same type of appliances are in the individual units. At the request of the Mayor, Mr. Cho read two letters dated January 24th, one to the California Coastal Commission regarding the addition of approximately nine hundred square feet without city or Coastal permits and impact on parking, the other to the Los Alamitos Unified School District relating to school fees as a result of the additional square footage. Mr. Stark said he had records from the Orange County Court showing Seal Beach having requested two inspection warrants over the period of a decade, one for an elderly lady and his, and in response to the comment that he is a large developer, reported the ownership of his home, and a community property interest on Central Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. He referred to the comments of Mr. Cho as factually incorrect on every point, stated the utilities had been inspected by City personnel, confirmed his objection to removing the utilities because it would mean destruction of the property, which he did not intend to do, claimed that he has paid the City more cash money than has Mola, that the units meet the definition of low income housing as set forth in the Housing Element, said he found Mr. Cho's remarks regarding school fees amusing since it is Development Services that determines and signs a notice to the School District as to the number of square feet being added, the I I 1-27-92 fees for same required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits, and if the plans were properly read it shows that no additional living space was added, in fact it was reduced, the increase was the garages that previously did not exist and the common area. As to how this ties into Mola he recalled letters faxed to the Trailer Park, subsequently published in the newspapers citing 1120 Central I' Avenue as 'a beautiful example of high density', and questioned why his property was singled out. with reference to comment as to County regulations for spas, Mr. Stark reported having provided the Planning Commission with a brochure as to the type of spa that can be put into the common area, no different than a water bed, and the regulations are not an Orange County matter, that they have been preempted by Title 22 of the California Administrative Code governing swimming pools, spas, etc. in a common areas, a copy of which can be obtained from the State Department of Health Services. Mr. stark said the real question is whether this project complies with existing city Code, stated it does, and although there could be speculation as to what it might be used for, the city has every protection to ensure that it will be used as was provided in the approved parcel map. He again stated his appeal is based upon equal protection of the law, the project either complies with the law or it does not, and noted that as yet no one has come up with one fact that says the project does not comply with City Code, and asked why accessory use is not being applied to other condominiums. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing closed. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council, I to declare a recess at 9:03 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:18 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. At the request of the Mayor, the Assistant city Attorney described the circumstances of the inspection warrant other than that for Mr. Stark's property, made reference to and read portions of a February 22nd, 1991 letter from Mr. Stark to the Development services Department in response to a request to inspect the Central Avenue property as a result of a complaint, that communication followed by a June 18th application to the court for an inspection warrant, however he indicated that issue is not relevant to the issue under consideration. with regard to the meeting between the city Attorney and Mr. Stark's attorney, the Assistant city Attorney referred to a letter dated September 24, 1991 to Mr. Stark's attorney in which Mr. Colantuono of the City's law firm explained his concern with Mr. Stark's apparent misunderstanding of the conversations with his attorney regarding the application, that he had not worked out a settlement, rather gave certain advice, as noted in the remainder of the paragraph, more specifically that staff would be prepared to make a recommendation as long as certain conditions were complied with and any other conditions the Planning Commission felt were appropriate to I ensure against a third unit. He explained that Mr. Colantuono was acting in a capacity as he would in any type of settlement discussion, seeking agreement to certain conditions and subsequently recommend to the client that such conditions be accepted, as well as any other conditions the Commission felt appropriate. He noted also Mr. Stark's allegation that there was a motion to reconsider made by a member of the Commission who had voted against the prior motion, yet the minutes show that the motion was not to approve but for staff to come back with conditions, the 'motion by Sharp, second by Dahlman, to prepare a proposed set of conditions and draft a resolution with the conditions .~. ~..~ 1-27-92 I discussed above,' Mr. Sharp having indicated his desire to have everything in writing prior to a final vote, the conditions were considered, there was further dialog, a motion was made by Commissioner Law that a resolution be prepared to deny. He clarified that there was no motion to reconsider, nor was the CUP approved. In response to Councilmember Forsythe, the Director of Development Services confirmed that it is the interpretation of staff and the City Attorneys office that the request as submitted may not be approved without the issuance of a variance because of certain definitions in the Zoning Code relating to kitchen, bedroom, and living unit, that the original CUP approval in 1989 was to allow for the expansion of a pre-existing legally built nonconforming duplex structure, nonconforming because there were two units on a lot where the provisions of the Code at the time of application would have only allowed one unit on the property. Councilmember Forsythe noted her understanding that in 1989 staff had recommended tandem spaces in addition to the double garage spaces because it was felt the 840 square feet of storage area could have been easily converted into a living unit, and from the minutes it appeared as though agreement to that condition enhanced the Commission's decision to permit the CUP. The Director said he would be unable to answer questions regarding the change in the plans from the large storage area to tandem parking spaces since he was not with the city at that time, yet in 1989 when the Commission reviewed the proposed remodeling plans for the project the plans did include tandem parking spaces, and from the testimony he believed there was a difference of opinion as to how that particular set of plans got to the commission, yet those plans were approved by the Commission, the building permits that were sought by the applicant and his contractor for construction of the remodel that was approved under CUP 4-89 indicated that the tandem parking, storage area, and laundry areas would be constructed as part of that remodeling effort. Councilmember Forsythe noted that the approved plans did not include two bathrooms, a full kitchen, and two defined rooms that basically meet the City'S definition of a bedroom. The Director confirmed that those plans were submitted to the city as part of CUP 12-91, prior to that application the City had not received any plans for modification to the structure other than what was approved on April 2, 1990, pursuant to CUP 4-89. Staff confirmed that in their best judgement it is believed the modifications as submitted meet the definition of a living unit. Councilmember Forsythe said the claim that this project conforms to the intent of the Housing Element was rather vague and generic, and the approval as requested would appear to be inconsistent with the Code based on density not only for parking but also infrastructure. The Director indicated that if the council were to accept the position of staff and the City Attorneys office that the proposed configuration presented as part of the recent application constitutes by definition a living unit, then the prior statement is correct, however if the Council were to make a determination to approve a recreation and spa facility on the premises in such a manner where the definitional limitations are not imposed on the project, then the Council would be in a position to approve some use for the area such as for spa and recreation purposes, so long as they do not meet the definitional requirements of a living unit. Councilmember Forsythe noted that in a communication from the applicant it is claimed that accessory uses were not discussed by the Planning Commission, yet she-had found excerpts from three meetings where accessory uses were discussed. She referenced research of like condo conversions in Seal Beach basically I I 1-27-92 the same as this project, twenty-one condominium projects, ranging from two to eleven units, with no recreational facilities, one condo project of five units with a seven foot outdoor spa, the other projects consisting of sixty, seventy-two, and one hundred twenty-six units that include recreational facilities. She agreed with the concept of conditioning the project to preclude it from being utilized as a living unit in the future, and although too late, she recalled questioning allowing a nine hundred square foot storage area in the beginning. Councilman Doane noted that the impression he had gotten from the applicant was that the Commission had made a decision, then reversed that decision, which is not what he is now hearing. The Assistant city Attorney again indicated that the minutes clearly reflect the actions of the Commission, that it is not uncommon for an applicant to assume that an approval has been received when there is a request that a resolution be prepared to approve, however pointed out that an approval is not final until an action is taken on the resolution, and in this particular case the Commission carefully requested that conditions be prepared for consideration first. In response to the Assistant city Attorney with regard to the meeting - with Mr. Stark, Councilman Doane confirmed that he could base his decision on the evidence presented at this meeting. Councilmember wilson requested clarification that the improvements made were not those for which permits were issued by the city and are in violation of the Code. The Assistant city Attorney confirmed that the subject improvements have not received the necessary permits, are in violation of the Code, and explained further that the applicant made application for a CUP, certain plans were approved, and any modification to those plans require further CUP approval, similar to that under consideration. He said the issue is not whether this is accessory, the applicant is requesting approval however both the Council and Commission have the discretion to say either yes or no to this application, it is a nonconforming use, the position of the Commission that this was an inappropriate use was defensible, however'they did try to resolve the matter through conditions. Councilmember wilson noted the full kitchen, two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and said she understood there had been three mail boxes for the two units. The Director said he believed there were three mail boxes, the explanation given by the applicant was that when you purchase a group mail box structure the minimum size is a three mail box unit. He also clarified that the issue of accessory use was addressed in a staff report to the commission, the discussion of same also reflected in the minutes, in response to a comment regarding a statement being omitted from the minutes he explained that the minutes of september 4th and November 6th, 1991 provide the testimony of Mr. Antos, and although the minutes are not verbatim they attempt to reflect the general tone and comments from the meetings, those minutes were approved by the Commission, and the opinion was that they adequately reflected the comments of those that had spoken before them. The Director mentioned that there have been a number of comments by Mr. Stark that this was a matter of retribution in response to the applicant's position on other projects in the community as well as the staff doing some crystal balling as to intent, to which he responded that staff may also be a victim of crystal balling, that the intent in dealing with this issue was nothing more than to get the application before the City so that the proper permits could be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, no different than any other individual in the community would be treated who had done work after a conditional Use Permit had been approved and subsequently I I I 1-27-92 I revised their plans for something other than what had been approved by the city. He noted reference to someone having applied for a variance on this item, clarified that there has never been a variance applied for, however there pad been some discussion in the staff reports and minutes of the Commission meetings that in order to approve the plans as submitted for this CUP application with the kitchen facilities, restrooms, and the interior room arrangements as proposed, the application would require a variance to be sought and approved because of the definitions in the Code of a living room, bedroom, and kitchen area, and because of those definitions the Planning Commission was informed by staff and the City Attorney's office that application could be made for a recreation and spa facility, but that project would need to be approved in a manner that does not also meet the requirements of a living unit. In response to Councilmember Wilson, he explained that eventually all construction that requires building permits in the coastal zone also requires approval from the Coastal Commission, in this case the City has not provided anything to the Commission pending the outcome of this application, yet if the City were to approve the modifications to the interior portion of this structure that is under consideration, final plans would then be submitted to the City and to the Coastal Commission for approval prior to the issuance of building permits. In response to the Mayor, the Director said he did not believe that the application under consideration has any bearing on low or moderate income housing, and whether or not the units would be available for low or moderate income housing would depend on the eventual asking price for the units when converted to condominiums, that the consideration of the Council at this point is what type of modifications, if any, could be approved for the utilization of the subject area in front of the two car garages that exist on the property at this time. Mayor Laszlo referred to the listing of a number of apartment to condominium conversions, the majority of which are two units, and have no recreational facilities, and said it would seem difficult for the subject units to qualify for low income housing with the addition of the amenities proposed. He said there appears to be two issues involved in this matter, whether Mr. Stark has a legal right to add the amenities proposed, the other being the issue of bootlegged units, there being some concern also should the units not be sold where it would be easy to bootleg the unit, and even if they were sold the independent owners could decide to do so, on the other hand there had been mention of safeguards to prevent that from happening. The Assistant City Attorney responded that because the property is already nonconforming and requires a Conditional Use Permit, the applicant has no absolute right to anything that has been added to the property, the Commission and Council have the discretion to deny the request based on whatever reasons are felt appropriate, some of which are set forth in the resolution of the Commission, or additional reasons with regard to whether it is an over concentration, further burden on parking, etc., likewise the Council has the discretion to approve the project, however it would be the recommendation of staff that it be sufficiently conditioned to ensure against a bootleg unit. Councilmember Wilson moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 12-91 subject to appropriate conditions to eliminate the unpermitted unit. Councilman Doane seconded the motion. The Assistant City Attorney made reference to the applicable conditions entitled Draft conditions of Approval, Conditional Use Permit 12-91, based on Planning Commission discussion of November 6, 1991, and included as Attachment "A" to the December 18, 1991 staff report to the Planning I I 1-27-92 commission. The Director of Development Services read the Draft Conditions of Approval, item "A" through "H", in their entirety. The Director clarified that if the CUP were approved with conditions, the tandem parking would be eliminated, the recreation area and spa would be allowed, with reduced kitchen facilities, and dependent upon review of the final plans by the Orange County Health Department, I one of the restrooms may be removed, and modification of the restroom plans as currently submitted. He confirmed that according to testimony of the applicant, at the time of modifications to the downstairs area, where a common laundry area had been shown on the plans, each of the units now have separate laundry facilities, the plans do not show the location of those facilities and there would be a requirement to inspect them to ensure compliance with Building, Plumbing, and Electrical Codes. Mayor Laszlo said if there is to be a recreation area he could see no objection to allowing a refrigerator. Councilmembers Wilson and Doane accepted an amendment to the motion to allow a small refrigerator that would operate on 110 volts. As a point of clarification, the Assistant city Attorney asked if it were the desire of the Council that staff prepare a resolution to approve the request, incorporating all of the conditions of approval. The Council indicated that to be the direction. The Assistant city Attorney advised that the resolution would be placed on the Consent Calendar for consideration at the next meeting. Vote on the motion to sustain the appeal, as conditioned: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Doane, Forsythe, Laszlo, wilson None Hastings Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BAY CITY VILLAS It was the consensus of the Council to cancel this scheduled public hearing pending consideration by the Planning Commission, to be renoticed for a future date, as requested by the City Manager. DISCUSSION - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS The City Manager noted a previous request of Councilman Doane for the opportunity to discuss the duties, responsibilities, and possibly the necessity for certain boards and commissions. Councilman Doane reported his attendance at recent meetings of the various boards and . commissions, and asked that this matter be postponed until a future meeting. COUNCIL CONCERNS Having viewed the two episodes of the television show being filmed locally, councilmemb~r Forsythe asked if the city has received the associated fees. The City Manager advised that they have been paid. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS I Mayor Laszlo declared Oral communications open. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, made inquiries relating to the City's reserve funds. The City Manager responded that the General Fund Reserve is primarily distributed between the Liability Fund and its Reserve and the Workers Comp Fund and its Reserve, approximately $500,000 as of December 31st, and confirmed it had been approximately $2 million five years ago. Ms. Corbin said there should be a mechanism in place so that it is known how funds are spent, and asked to be provided a breakdown of the expenditure of the reserves. Mayor Laszlo said there had been $2 million in 1985, between :;...l' .,., 1-27-92 I then and 1989 over $1 million was spent, however the mid- year budget will show that the reserves are now increasing, and noted that other cities are also having to expend their reserves. The city Manager advised that the expenditure mechanism is in place, stated there had been some concern at the time the budget was adopted with regard to appropriations throughout the year, however every staff report that comes before the Council shows the fiscal impact, therefore if there is a cost that was not included in the budget it is identified and the Council would then need to take a separate action to appropriate the necessary funds, he noted also that the budget reflects the prior and current years expenditures. He added that the budget fluctuates daily, that the Charter requires a $1 million reserve at the end of the fiscal year, which was met, explained that there are other funds within the General Fund that maintain a reserve account, the funds combined however each auditable separately. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach, requested the details regarding the recent Redevelopment refinancing, the interest rates, term of the loan, and all costs, fees and expenses. The City Manager offered to provide that packet the following day. Ms. Dorothy Whyte, Seal Beach, said on behalf of the college Park East Neighborhood Association she wished to extend an invitation to everyone to attend their public information forum on Tuesday, February 4th at 7:00 p.m. at the North Seal Beach Community Center. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, mentioned the cost for legal services in the month of November, half of which was attributable to the Mola litigation, however said his recollection was that in November the City was awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeals on that case, that he also recalled a news article that reflected the city as having a $700,00 deficit. He suggested that the city economize, stated his fear that the city will become bankrupt, and with current indebtedness and minimal reserves, he would suspect the City is close to insolvency. Mr. Stark suggested there be an elected city Attorney, clarifying however that he was not saying Richards, Watson & Gershon were not a good law firm, just that it is likely legal services could be obtained at a lesser cost. The Mayor again mentioned that the budget is improving and the City is not going bankrupt, Seal Beach in better shape than most cities. He reviewed a breakdown of legal fees relating to the Wetland Society suit, the Mola suit, and the Frachesi matter which was the result of erroneous reporting by a newspaper, noted that other cities are also complaining about legal fees, yet recommend against an elected City Attorney that in turn results in the hiring of additional attorneys and greater fees. Mr. Mike Cho, Huntington Beach, expressed his belief in the First Amendment, and to those who have inquired as to his involvement in this city he explained that he has come to Seal Beach throughout his life, he enjoys the community, and spoke in support of persons getting involved as a means of improving things. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications closed. I I CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, February 10th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent of the Council at 10:29 p.m. 1-27-92/2-10-92 lerk and ex-o of Seal Beach Approved: ~ ~ eo....L k..,Jh Mayor I Attest: Seal Beach, California February 10, 1992 The scheduled regular adjourned meeting to be held at 6:00 p.m. was cancelled due to the lack of Closed Session matters for discussion. da~of F~Uary, e M. eo, Cit~~ of Seal Beach 1992. I Seal Beach, California February 10, 1992 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 Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston,'City Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant city Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Hastings moved, second by Doane, 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. I AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral communications.