Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1991-01-14 1-7-91/1-14-91 I future plans of the Center given the proposal of Bixby also for retail, suggested the need for additional police protection is one issue that should be looked into when considering any new projects, as well as water concerns, landfills, etc., and claimed the environment is being destroyed for the profit of developers. Mr. Ambrose stated a new EIR should be required for the recent Mola application. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. ADJOURNMENT with unanimous'consent of the council, Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting at 11:37 p.m. erk and ex-offl of Seal Beach Cl ci Approved: - ~~ 1;. '2/~ Mayor Attest: I Seal Beach, California January 14, 1991 The city Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:03 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Archibold, Acting City Manager Ms. Lynch, Assistant to the city Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I WAIVER OF FULL READING Hastings moved, second by wilson to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all councilmembers after reading of- the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, LaSZlo, Wilson None Motion carried 1-14-91 AGENDA AMENDED Mayor Wilson requested that Item "X", sister City Activities, be considered after the Rotary Club presentation. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to consider Item "X" as requested. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I Councilmember Hastings moved to consider City Council Items following Item "X", and stated her preference that Council Items be placed towards the beginning of the agenda in the future. councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. Discussion followed and objection was raised with regard to changing the agenda format to consider council Items prior to public hearings and legislative matters. Vote on motion to consider Council Items after Item "X" at this meeting. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, wilson None Motion carried PRESENTATION Mr. Ed Mccorick, representative of Seal Beach cities Rotary Club, presented the Council with invitations to the February 9th Annual Rotary Ball at which time members of the Council will be recognized for their efforts and the Policeman of the Year award will be presented. The Council expressed appreciation for the invitation. ITEM "X" - SISTER CITY BUSINESS/ACTIVITIES The Acting City Manager stated the Seal Beach International Friendship Association has requested authorization for the Recreation Department to host/coordinate sister city swim events and recreation activities for visiting Todos Santos youth from June 20th to June 25th, at the same time Seal Beach youth will visit Todos Santos for a baseball playoff exchange, also that Ms. Libby Gonzales of the Police Department be authorized to act as the city/International Friendship Association liaison to the La Paz/Todos Santos Friendship Association. In response to Council, the Acting City Manager explained that financial involvement of the city would include expenses of the Recreation Department to coordinate the swim events, and personnel costs of Ms. Gonzales while acting as liaison. It was noted that the visiting youths will reside with International Friendship hosts in both cities. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to approve the requests of the Seal Beach International Friendship Association. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried CITY COUNCIL ITEMS I Councilmember Hastings stated her displeasure with reporting inaccuracies of the local adjudicated newspaper, inflammatory language, inappropriate description of the decorum of the City council, and veiled attempts to intimidate the elected officials. She said she would not be intimated by the threat of recall as reported by the press, and would stand on her legislative record for the first two hundred thirty days, which she read in full. councilmember Hastings read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Lyons, 1513 Seal Way, regarding beach erosion as a result of high tides 1-14-91 I and surf, which stated in part that although the properties along Seal Way have a vested interest in the beach, the problem rests with all of Seal Beach in that those property values and resulting higher taxes help support the city, that some of those monies should be expended to help protect that tax base, and although much discussed, little has been done to resolve the beach erosion problem since the 1944 construction of the east jetty. The letter also mentioned the City'S acceptance of the beach from the Corps of Engineers many years past, along with a sum of money, and a contractual obligation for the City to maintain the beach in the then existing stable condition, the author stating that commitment by the City is thought to be a legal obligation that must be fulfilled, as well as a moral obligation to the citizens, and even though a hypothetical case, subsequent lack of action could be grounds for residents who suffer damages to possibly file a class action suit and/or insurance claims could be subrogated to seek reimbursement from the City. The letter stated a study of the overall problem and plan of action is needed, the study should set forth the amount of erosion that has occurred, various alternatives for remedial action, and possible means to finance the programs. Mr. Ronald Kredell, 1633 Seal Way, reported that on this date the ocean was one foot from the top of the berm as a result of the high tide and surf conditions, that the highest potential for property damage is between Seal Way, Seal Beach Boulevard, Fourteenth street, and Pacific Coast Highway. He made reference to the Moffit and Nichol report that described the problems associated the beach, the groin, and the estimated cost of repair and improvements to resolve the erosion problem, suggested this matter be a first priority consideration of the Council, and reviewed the history of construction of the jetties, the groin, and beach problems. Councilman Hunt noted his concern with the condition of the beach, the rapid deterioration of the groin, the need to repair and extend the groin, and pointed out that a portion of the Ruby's contract is dedicated to a special fund for groin repair, that use of Redevelopment monies had been considered however subsequently used to acquire the Zoeter site, also that use of monies that would be generated from the Mola development had been considered for that purpose. Councilmember Hastings suggested a general obligation bond issue be investigated. Mr. Kredell noted that the Moffitt & Nichol report indicated that one hundred thousand cubic yards of sand placed on two thousand four hundred feet of the east beach would only build the beach out approximately forty feet, another suggestion was that the Long Beach barge be used at a cost of $578,000 per one hundred thousand cubic yards of dredged sand, or that sand be trucked. Councilman Hunt recalled that the size, or diameter of the sand particles determines the amount of sand that will be retained or washed away, the larger the particle the less chance of erosion. Discussion continued. There was no objection expressed by the members of the Council to investigate general obligation bonds as a means to repair and extend the groin. In response to Council, the Acting City Manager reported as of June, 1990, the Groin Repair Fund had a balance of $47,000 and that an additional $10,000 is anticipated for 1991. Councilmember Forsythe suggested that in addition to general obligation bonds, that State or Federal coastal improvement grants also be investigated. Councilman Hunt made reference to a number of questions that he understood had been posed to staff with regard to development on the Hellman property, questions that he felt any member of the public should be able to obtain an answer, I I 1-14-91 however the individual had been informed that the questions have not been answered as a matter of city policy. Councilman Hunt expressed his understanding if there is reason due to litigation that the questions have not been answered, otherwise he would request that they be answered at this meeting or that answers be forthcoming. Councilmember Forsythe noted the agenda item to consider I requesting the City Attorney prepare an analysis of the Hellman Specific Plan Initiative, and suggested that the questions posed by Mr. Verholtz could be answered as part of that analysis. The Acting City Manager stated there is a general policy when there are requests of staff that require extensive research or data collection that those requests be made through the council, however in this case, the questions being relatively easy, he believed that answers have been prepared and forwarded to the City Attorney for review as to their appropriateness given the existing litigation. Councilmember Forsythe noted a request from the Cable Communications Foundation to cablecast the Redevelopment Agency meetings at 7:00 p.m. and subsequently the City council meetings at 7:30 p.m., which would require an action to change the hour of those meetings. She referred to a staff memorandum regarding the speed limit on Bolsa Avenue and an upcoming review of that speed limit in March, 1991, and stated it is felt that the present thirty-five mile per hour limit is too fast given the elementary school classes at McGaugh, and requested it be reanalyzed and changed to twenty-five miles per hour as it was at some point in the past. There was further discussion of the request from the Cable Foundation. Hunt moved, second by Laszlo, to inform I the Foundation and Comcast Cable that the Council and Redevelopment Agency will continue to commence the meetings at the hours presently established at 6:45 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, wilson None Motion carried It was suggested that possibly the cablecast schedule could be revised to accommodate the 6:45 p.m. Agency meeting. It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 8:12 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:23 p.m. with Mayor Wilson c~lling the meeting to order. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - MINOR PLAN REVIEW 13-90 - 123 - 8TH STREET / MINOR PLAN REVIEW 15/90 - 601 OCEAN AVENUE - BROWN/SHELTRAW - RESOLUTIONS NUMBERED 4003 and 4004 Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider the appeals of Planning commission denial of Minor Plan Reviews 13-90, 123 - 8th street, and 15-90, 601 Ocean Avenue. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received for or against either of these I items. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report and explained that Minor Plan Review 13-90 was a request for an 801 square foot addition of living space to an existing apartment structure at 123 - 8th Street, the property nonconforming as a result of existing five units where current zoning would allow two units, three existing parking spaces where the Code currently requires ten, and an existing four foot rear yard setback as opposed to the Code requirement for a nine foot setback. He noted a provision of the Zoning Code allows expansion of a nonconforming residential structure up to ten percent of the allowable 1-14-91 I floor area subject to certain conditions, one condition being that no bedrooms are allowed when a property is nonconforming due to density. The Director reported the Planning Commission based their motion for denial on Section 28-210, a definition of what constitutes a bedroom which reads 'Bedroom means, for purposes of determining required parking spaces, all rooms other than a living room, kitchen, hall, pantry, closet or bathroom', also based on section 28- 2407 which stipulates that you may not add bedrooms to an existing nonconforming residential structure as part of the proposed expansion or enlargement. He noted that prior to 1978 the city did not allow any expansion of a nonconforming residential structures, between 1978 and 1982 certain small additions were allowed under the requirement of a conditional use permit, in 1983 the Code was amended to allow expansion of a nonconforming property only if the required parking was provided, and in 1985 the current provisions were adopted which allows an expansion up to ten percent of the allowable floor area however no bedrooms may be added if the structure is over density. The Director explained that in this particular case, based on section 28- 210, the Commission determined additional bedrooms were proposed even though they are not referred to as bedrooms on the plans. He reported the request for 601 Ocean Avenue is basically the same as that for 123 - 8th street, that four units currently exist where the Code would permit only two, that there are four existing parking spaces yet eight off- street spaces are required, there is an existing six foot rear yard setback where nine feet is required, and the request is to add 1019 square feet of living space to the nonconforming residential structure. The Director reviewed diagrams showing the existing structures and the proposed expansions, noting specifically the areas designated as a den or study was determined by the Planning Commission to fall within the definition of a bedroom. He offered that the options for consideration by the Council are to 1) sustain the recommendations of the Planning Commission; 2) sustain the appeal, grant the Minor Plan Review approval subject to appropriate conditions, including revision of the plans to eliminate additional bedrooms; or 3) if new, additional facts or information not previously considered by the Commission are presented, the Council may refer the matter back to the Commission for further consideration. He pointed out that an option that would normally be before the Council would be to approve the appeal as presented, however in this particular case there is not a provision under existing Code that allows approval of a Minor Plan Review which adds bedrooms, and to do so would require the applicant to apply for a conditional use permit for the addition of bedrooms without required parking and a variance for the less than required parking, explained that the applicant is requesting approval of the plans as submitted, and that under option two the applicant would be required to redesign the addition to eliminate the designated den or study, which would most likely be incorporated as a living room or larger bedroom rather than two separate rooms that would fall within Section 28-210. He again mentioned the concerns of the Planning Commission focused on the definition of bedroom as well as the size of these proposed additions even though they fall within the allowed ten percent. He noted the Code does not provide a definition of den. A member of the audience said the dictionary defines den as a cozy, comfortable place. I I Mayor Wilson 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. Ms. Mitzi Morton, 1-14-91 153 - 13th street, said when expansions of legal nonconforming properties were considered she did not believe that rear yard setbacks were taken into account, and that is an issue that should be addressed because there are a number of buildings, fences, and walls that are built to the alley which creates a problem for traffic, trash collection, as well as fire protection. She confirmed the intent of her I comments were that rear yard setbacks should be corrected rather than perpetuated. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, said he believed at one time there was an option of allowing an expansion of a limited square footage rather than the current ten percent, and although a number of persons are concerned with the size of these expansions, consideration should be given the applicant where an investment has already been made based upon what was thought to be an approval based upon certain provisions of the Code. Councilmember Forsythe said she believed the intent of the ten percent was for a one-time expansion, that since the structure is nonconforming due to parking, density, and rear yard setbacks, the addition of a bedroom is not allowed, and that nonconforming structures should be brought into further compliance with the Code rather than away from compliance. Mr. Mitch Sheltraw, Long Beach, project architect, stated that given the lapse of time since the project was submitted, he would demand the opportunity to review and cite from all of the relative minutes of the Planning Commission. He said they began the design process by meeting with the Planning Department, discussing the restrictions of 28-2407, that modifications were made to the preliminary design as a result of input of the Building Department, a subsequent meeting was held with the Planning Department, the documents were reviewed by Planning staff, I and with further modifications, agreed that the project was within the guidelines of 28-2407, would likely not meet opposition, also that similar projects have been approved. Mr. Sheltraw said to further the probability of acceptance of the proposed project, a search was conducted of past plan review files. He mentioned a number of additions which he claimed were of a similar description and size to the projects proposed, specifically Minor Plan Reviews 8-90, 20- 89, 11-89, 8-89, 5-89, 3-89, 2-89, 11-88, 6-88, 2-88, and 7- 87, and alleged that in many cases a bedroom closet was required to be removed and the area then referred to as a den, also that parking requirements were not met in most instances. Mr. Sheltraw stated the 601 Ocean property is fifty by one hundred ten feet, has four units, and that the projects he had referred to were mostly on lots half that size, therefore the square footage of their project is equally the same, and that the Planning Commission was merely interested in quantifying the ratio of parking. Mr. Sheltraw commenced a review of the minutes of the Planning Commission relating to the two plan reviews, read nearly verbatim pages one through ten of the October 3, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. with regard to seismic concerns Mr. Sheltraw charged that certain commissioners displayed lack of knowledge of the zoning text, questioned I why there was so much concern with seismic and liquefaction issues, and questioned the request for soils reports on the subject properties. with regard to action to delay the plan reviews as a result of not having reports from electrical and structural engineers, more information on den conversions, and a full property inspection, Mr. Sheltraw questioned the motion and delay when the projects were not past site approval, which would in turn mean that more expenses would be incurred. Mr. Sheltraw then read excerpts from the November 7, 1990 Executive Summary of issues regarding processing of development applications and ~ ..:.. '. .'1, 1-14-91 I geologic/seismic concerns. Mr. Sheltraw continued, reading from minutes of the November 7, 1990 Planning Commission meeting, page two, second paragraph, page seven, last paragraph, page eight, last paragraph, page nine, third and fourth paragraphs, page nine, second paragraph, and made reference to paragraph three with regard to the definition of bedroom. Mr. Sheltraw said Section 28-210, definition of bedroom, appears to have the greatest bearing on their projects, as that was the Section underwhich the denial was based, and reading the Section in a literal interpretation, one must ask if dens and studies are synonymous with the nature of living rooms, and if it is nothing more than semantics then they would call the rooms living rooms, the Code does not prohibit two living rooms, questioned why family room was not included in the exceptions, and concluded that section 28-210 has no bearing on his projects. He stated that when one reads the Code in a common sense interpretation the people who framed the Code are trying to prevent an increase of density and uses that would increase the parking problem in the city, also the interpretation of the Commission for future applicants who wish to enlarge an existing family room, is that it would be considered a bedroom by 28-210, and if for density sake a family room is considered a bedroom, then would not all applicants that have an existing three bedroom, two bath home.with a family room, be permitted to add another bathroom since that would fall within the parameters of the one bedroom, one bath ratio. He stated also that if one proposed to enlarge an existing garage area, beyond the existing one parking space as was required by zoning in 1974, one would be prohibited from doing so since 28-210 considers all rooms a bedroom other than the living room, kitchen, hall, pantry, closet or bathroom, and since Webster's definition of a room is any division separated from the rest by a partition that contains something, then a garage is no more than a room to store a vehicle and under 28-210 it is a bedroom. Mr. Sheltraw said he hoped the Council understood the inappropriateness of using section 28-210 as glossary definition, and should perhaps place greater importance on using a more current policy definition pursuant to the precedent set by the cases he cited. Mr. Sheltraw noted a request of the Commission to research past cases, which he had already done and found that five applicants in 1989 were asked to remove closets from existing bedrooms so they would be called dens, yet the Commission placed no validity on that data. He made further reference to commission comments regarding the relationship of parking to density and apartments to cars. Mr. Sheltraw said given the uncertainty of the world at this time, global concerns as to fair, just, and taking, he would ask that the Council look critically at the crisis at home, that what is being witnessed is a gross injustice as to the interpretation of a clear right that is and has been available to all property owners of legal existing nonconforming structures, a right that has been exercised to a great extent in the past and hopefully will be given a lease for life in the future. He said he would plead with the Council to give the proposed projects an unconditional blessing so as to restore their beliefs and the beliefs of the community that when they come to the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and City Council there will be assurance that security and law will be provided and justice will be properly served. Councilmember Forsythe read a portion of the last paragraph commencing on page twelve of the November 7th Commission minutes that reflected a dialogue between Commissioner I I 1-14-91 Dahlman and Mr. Sheltraw regarding the definition of dens and bedrooms, also read section 28-210 which reflects what is not a bedroom, and section 28-2407 which provides that the number of bedrooms can not be increased if the property is nonconforming due to density, and concluded that the Planning Commission had acted in accordance with the city Code. Mr. Sheltraw responded that he felt the Commission I was reaching for findings in these cases, and they should . not have been because the projects meet the criteria of the Code, again noted other similar projects have received approval. Councilman Hunt asked if Mr. Sheltraw was aware of the downzoning program that has been on-going in Seal Beach for a number of years, in principle whether he felt it was illegal or immoral to pursue that program, and in implementing that program with regard to nonconforming, parking, density, setbacks, etc., did he not agree that his projects violate the intent of the City. Mr. Sheltraw said he agreed with the intent in part, noted discussion having taken place relating to density, and suggested that in the interest of downzoning, six bedroom homes could be placed on their lots, yet if they chose to do nothing to the property it would sit idle in its present condition and would have the same impact on the community whether or not the improvements are done. He added that the Commission had ample time to receive input from the public, that they also had time to forward their concerns to the Council, and questioned why their projects were being singled out given the examples of past approvals that he submitted, some of which were permitted to have dens. Councilman Hunt offered that the City has an obligation to research the applicable laws as the applicant had, and that he felt the criticism of the Planning Commission was incorrect. Mr. Sheltraw asked I why city policy changed, and charged that the projects were denied simply because a member of the Commission did not like him. Mr. Al Brown, owner of the properties, said while addressing the Commission he had mentioned his investment in the projects to date of $10 to $11 thousand dollars for architectural costs, to which a member of the Commission responded that possibly he had invested too much. Mr. Brown stated he felt they had complied with everything in the law, that he has been treated unfairly, and that the issue will not stop at this point. Mr. Gordon Shanks, 215 Surf Place, made reference to Plan Review 13-90 where three parking spaces exist yet ten are required, and expressed his opinion that when a criteria is established it should not be deviated from, therefore if the requirement can not be met the request should not even be made, and especially in Old Town the parking requirements should be met. He noted also that opinions and interpretations of the Commission and Council differ as the members change. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Seal Beach, said that when application was made by this party for a minor plan review he most likely complied with the general regulations of the city, and at the same time her neighbor, having a twenty-five by one hundred foot lot, built two full rooms, referred to as dens, and was advised by the Building Department to not place a closet or heating "I unit in the upper room or it would be considered a bedroom. She offered that the City can not change rules retroactively. Ms. Beverly casares, Seal Beach, said in the past it appeared the Commission Chairman was practicing law and suggested tapes of the meetings be reviewed by the city Attorney. She said it was her understanding that the City Attorney had prepared an opinion that the subject minor plan reviews should be approved as the applicant had complied with all regulations at the time of submitting his plans. Mr. Joe Orsini, Seal Beach, requested a clarification of whether family rooms, dining rooms and libraries are now 1-14-91 I considered bedrooms. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. The Director of Development Services stated the dictionary definition of den is a comfortable, usually secluded room. In response to Council, the Director reported there have been a number of minor plan review approvals through 1987, ~988, and 1989 where additions were allowed to nonconforming structures which did involve the creation of dens by removing a closet from a room that was classified as a bedroom to meet what was thought to be the intent of the Code, that the denial of applications had not been researched, however of those approved they were approved with conditions. He reported the definition of bedroom under 28-210 has existed since 1968, is applicable if the structure is nonconforming due to density and parking, explained that staff has been unable to locate any reference in previous minutes or staff reports where Section 28-210 had been discussed, and noted the Code does not provide definition of a hall, living room, etc. Councilman Laszlo noted considerable discussion at the Commission level regarding seismic/safety issues, and asked how that issue related to bedrooms. The Director stated that he did not believe the issue of seismic/safety had a direct relationship to the bedroom issue, that it appeared the Commission was more concerned with that issue in relation to the size of the additions, and basically a result of the Council determinations on the Mola project. He noted their concern was one of the reasons the Commission was provided with additional information as set forth in the November 7th memorandum regarding processing of development applications and geologic/seismic concerns, which included discussion of the minor plan review process, a review of the provisions of the Uniform Building Code as to how an addition to a single family home or new home would be viewed in accordance with the current provisions of the Building Code, and pointed out that since that time the Commission has not considered the issue of seismic/safety to the level that they did in October and November, 1990. He again explained that the Commission had referred to denial of the Mola project in view of the findings included in Resolution 3937, based upon concerns of the Council that the mitigation measures were not appropriate and satisfactory enough to eliminate the hazards to a level that the Council felt comfortable with. The Assistant City Attorney said she felt what is being considered is an interpretation of a Code section as to whether or not this application involves a major of minor improvement, that it appears the term bedroom was defined so that any addition to an area that would involve living space, and arguably the increase in density, increases the number of people that would require additional parking spaces and is a major modification by virtue of a CUP or variance under the Code. I I Councilman Laszlo mentioned that in the past he felt there have been occasions where the Commission has requested closets removed to avoid the definition of a bedroom, which he felt has established a policy that has been allowed to continue. In response to Councilman Hunt, the Assistant city Attorney confirmed that generally the Council does have the responsibility to try to determine the intent of the provisions of the Code. She too pointed out the interpretation of the Code can change over time, and where a Planning Commission in the past had interpreted the Code in a manner that it was felt the only way to eliminate a bedroom would, as an example, be to eliminate a wall, or elimination of closets could be another approach, and noted 1-14-91 to eliminate a wall would most likely reduce future code enforcement or inspection since it would be arguably easier to add a closet than a weight bearing wall, and that she would have no criticism with either interpretation. Councilman Hunt again made reference to the recognized intent for a number of years of downzoning as it appears in the Code, to not allow a project that would perpetuate the I nonconformities or give greater economic use that would extend the existing nonconformity, and in this particular case where it is felt by many that these two projects violate that intent, he asked if the Council would be correct 'in considering and allowing the knowledge of the intent to influence a decisions on the two projects. The Assistant city Attorney stated that if the Council believes that the intent of the Code as a whole is to discourage perpetuation of nonconforming uses where, as an example, parking problems would be worsened, that would be criteria that the Council could consider. Councilmember Hastings compared the decision regarding covered roof access structures~o this issue, and in those cases where an applicati&n had gone through the planning process or was in the process, it was determined they would be exempt, also that financial investment had been given consideration. Councilmember Hastings stated her desire to allow the same privilege to this applicant and his architect, that public hearings should then be held to allow people to determine what they want for the community, that she felt the law should be applied equally, that a precedent has been set, notwithstanding the recent finding of the obscure definition of bedroom. Councilmember Forsythe said she felt the difference between the covered roof access structures and this issue is that policy in that case is being changed I legislatively since it appeared that provision of the Code was being abused. In this case an interpretation of existing Code is being made, therefore there does not appear to be a comparison. Councilmember Hastings said she did not feel the applicant in this case should be penalized for something that was done in good faith, within Code, and where tentative approval was indicated by the Planning Department. She noted plans were drawn and expenses incurred, suggested the minor plan reviews be approved, and subsequently hearings be scheduled to define the criteria for expansions to nonconforming properties. Councilmember Forsythe related personal experience regarding the remodel of her home, which she said required additional expenditure of funds on her part upon the revision of the plans to meet Code, and in the case under consideration it was not a discretionary act of the Planning Department and required review and interpretation of the Code by the Planning Commission and now the City Council. The Development Services Director confirmed that staff was not aware of the bedroom definition until the November 28th Commission meeting, and in reviewing the minor plan reviews since 1987, none of those cases reveal utilization of that Section. Councilmember Hastings offered that due to this omission the applicant may be entitled to recovery. The Assistant City I Attorney advised that there are a long line of cases in California where, even if someone gets to the point of receiving a building permit and actually constructs something that is later determined to be not in compliance with Code, cities have the right to require the illegal structure removed because it is against the public interest to apply the rules of estoppel to governmental entities, and it is within the purview of the Commission and Council to interpret the Code as to its intent. Councilman Hunt acknowledged that monies have been expended by the applicant in this case, however the property is nonconforming due to I I I . ,. I,' . 1-14-91 , density and parking, and should the appeal be approved the life of that nonconforming property would be extended another sixty to seventy years, which in turn has an impact on the neighboring property because of the lack of parking on-site. Mayor Wilson expressed her belief that any falteration should bring the structure into closer compliance with the Code rather than furthering the non-compliance, and questioned the initial recommendation to the Commission for approval of these minor plan reviews. The Director clarified that the original recommendations on the projects were prior to the awareness of the definition of bedroom, and if the existence of that section of the Code had been realized, the project would not have been allowed to go before the Planning Commission under the minor plan review process. He explained that the provisions for nonconforming uses allow a number of types of modifications which includes minor enlargements or expansions not to exceed ten percent subject to certain criteria, that additional bathrooms can be added subject to a certain ratio of bathrooms to bedrooms, that the number of bedrooms can not be increased if the property is nonconforming due to density, which is the case with both of these properties, noting that the current provisions were determined in 1984 and 1985, additionally the definition of bedroom was discovered, and the rooms that are proposed would not be allowed as a result of that definition. He made reference to a comment that an addition could not be made to an existing living room or den that is presently nonconforming, and clarified that the Code states that a new room could not be added yet one could add to an existing room because it is presently considered a bedroom and is nonconforming, also that additional garages or carports can be added pursuant to 28-2407(f). He also explained that the Commission focused on the definition that has existed since 1968, did not go back retroactively, however unfortunately that definition has not been utilized over the years, and noted that the definition of bedroom would apply to additional rooms to nonconforming residential structures whether classified as a library, den, study, etc. so long as the definition continues to exist. Councilmember Hastings moved to adopt option two, to sustain the appeal of the applicant, grant the minor plan review subject to appropriate conditions including revision of the plans to eliminate additional bedrooms as defined by section 28-210. In response to Council, the Director confirmed the motion would not affect the square footage of the expansions since the size of the additions are in compliance with current Code, and that the parking would remain nonconforming. Mayor Wilson asked if the applicant was willing to revise the plans to comply with the motion. Mr. Sh~ltraw indicated their willingness to remove the wall, however stated by doing so that may throw them into an illegal situation because they would be under the fifty percent of walls that are required to remain, in other words if the wall is removed it would not meet the criteria of the Code, which means they would be trading an illegality for approval, which could be a problem. He stated they had not said they would not remove the wall, however there could be a legal problem. In response to the Director, Mr. Sheltraw said all of the interior walls are bearing walls. The Director stated if that were the case it may be necessary to do a recalculation. Councilman Hunt said he would oppose the motion given the understanding that the intent of the City is to bring properties into conformity. In response to the Council, the Assistant City Attorney advised that if the 1-14-91 property can be used today with no improvement, then there would not be a taking by simply not allowing the property to be improved, that the only time a taking is found is when there is no economically viable use of a property, in other words, no economic benefit from the property. The Director clarified that the motion would approve the request of the applicant with the condition that the plans be redesigned to eliminate the separate den(s) shown on the plans and incorporate that area into the existing bedrooms, living room, or other existing area so that it would not fall under the definition of bedroom, yet allow the square footage of the proposed addition. The Assistant City Attorney explained that the benefit of the motion to the applicant is that they would not be required to again pay the fees and would simply come to the Planning Department with a redesign. Councilman Laszlo noted that the City has approved similar projects in the past, that the applicant felt he had complied with the Code, that it appears the Planning Commission was making policy, and even though he supports the intent of downzoning, if policy is to be changed it should be done properly through the public hearing process, and stated he felt application of the 1968 definition was unfair. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. I AYES: NOES: Hastings, Laszlo Forsythe, Hunt, Wilson Motion failed Councilman Hunt moved that the appeal of the Planning Commission decision be denied. The Assistant City Attorney stated she believed the action of denying the application with prejudice is legally sustainable. The Director clarified the Code does not allow resubmittal of the project with a period of one year, however a redesign of the project could be submitted and considered at any time. The Assistant city Attorney explained to allow resubmittal of plans without repayment of fees, the motion should be without prejudice. The Development Services Director confirmed the understanding of Councilman Hunt that there is an urgency ordinance currently in effect that does not allow consideration of any new applications under the minor plan review process, however the two subject properties, plus another in the Trailer Park, were exempted from that ordinance, therefore at the discretion of the Council, the applicant would be allowed to resubmit. . The Assistant city Attorney said her understanding was that the Hastings motion would have allowed submittal of a redesign at any time under existing Code, the Hunt motion would allow the applicant to resubmit after review of the Code and adoption of any changes, and if it were the intent of the Council to allow reapplication before revisions of the Code, that would be without prejudice, also that the exemption from the urgency ordinance would continue to apply to properties not under consideration at this meeting. Councilman Hunt restated his motion to sustain the recommendation of the Planning commission regarding minor plan review 13-90 and minor plan review 15-90 pursuant to Resolutions numbered 4003 and 4004, explaining that it was his intent that any reapplication be based on the yet to be determined number of feet in a revision of the zoning text. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that if the Planning Commission recommendation is sustained, reapplication could not be made until the revisions to the Code are adopted. Councilmember Forsythe seconded the motion. I I 1-14-91 AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hunt, Wilson Hastings, Laszlo Motion carried I By unanimous consent of the Council, Mayor Wilson declared a recess at 10:47 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:57 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The Assistant City Attorney recommended that a sentence be added to the 'Now, Therefore' clause of Resolutions 4003 and 4004 to read "However when the City Council lifts the moratorium on development of projects within the provisions of Section 28-2407(2) (i) of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, this applicant may immediately file a new application to develop his property in accordance with the then current development standards." A consensus of the Council was indicated to include the amendment as stated. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1316 - VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS Ordinance Number 1316 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1316 was waived. The Development Services Director reported the Ordinance brings the City into compliance with State Subdivision law. Wilson moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Ordinance Number 1316 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hunt, Wilson Hastings, Laszlo Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3994 - CEOA GUIDELINES Resolution Number 3994 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING PROCEDURES IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND THE GUIDELINES OF THE SECRETARY FOR THE RESOURCES AGENCY, AS AMENDED, AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS NO. 3577, 3358, AND 3133." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3994 was waived. The Development Services Director reported the Resolution proposes to update the city's environmental guidelines for preparation and review of environmental documents, that the guidelines have been reviewed by the City Attorney's office, the Environmental Quality Control Board, and Planning Commission, are in compliance with the current provisions of State law and recent court decisions. He noted the staff report to the EQCB dated August 21, 1990 summarizes the fifteen actual changes to the guidelines. Hunt moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Resolution Number 3994 as presented. Councilman Laszlo stated he would abstain from voting on this item since he did not have a copy of the Resolution. I AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Wilson None Laszlo Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1323 - PROHIBITING BOW AND ARROW/MANUAL/ MECHANICAL FISHING DEVICES Ordinance Number 1323 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PROHIBITING BOW AND ARROW, CROSS BOW AND ARROW, MANUAL OR MECHANICAL SPEAR DEVICES FOR FISHING AND AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1323 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Ordinance Number 1323 as presented. 1-14-91 AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1322 - COVERED ROOF ACCESS STAIRWELLS / ESTABLISHING REVISED REGULATIONS Ordinance Number 1322 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, I CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO ESTABLISH REVISED REGULATIONS GOVERNING COVERED ROOF ACCESS STAIRWELLS (ZTA 6-90)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1322 was waived. Councilmember Forsythe noted receipt of correspondence from Mr. Mark Thompson, 1305 Sandpiper Drive, posing certain questions and requesting they be answered for the record. The Director of Development Services read the letter of January 14th from Mr. Thompson regarding Ordinance 1322, in particular Section 3, Article 24.5(b), the section mandatinq a one year amortization period for nonconforming structures, to which Mr. Thompson urged that the section be stricken for the reasons he stated in his communication. The Director explained that the Ordinance requires the Planning Department to review all of the covered roof access structures in the community and on a monthly basis, publish as part of the Planning Commission agenda and in the local newspaper, a list of those existing covered roof access structures that meet and are in compliance with the requirements of the new provisions of the Code and would not require any additional review by the city. Additionally, those structures that do not meet the standards of the Ordinance have a one year period of time to do one of three things: 1) remove the structure in its entirety if that is the option of the owner of the property; 2) revise and I . remodel the particular portion of the structure to meet the provisions of the Code; or 3) apply to the Planning Commission for a minor height variation, at which time the Commission would make a determination to approve or deny the request, if denied under the minor height variation, the Commission would then determine what additional period of time would be reasonable given the related costs and use that the owner of that particular structure has realized, and determine an abatement period to remove or revise the structure to meet the requirements of the Code. He again clarified that the one year period is not to meet the requirements, it is the period to make application to the Commission for consideration to allow the structure to remain as it exists or make recommendation as to how long it should remain, and the decision of the Planning Commission is again subject to appeal to the city Council. The Director further clarified that there is criteria involved, other than just the height, to evaluate the structure, including the roof materials, the structure to cover only the minimum area both horizontally and vertically, and large enough to only enclose the stairway area. He noted that he had spoken to Mr. Thompson this date and had explained the above time frame, to which Mr. Thompson indicated his understanding. The Director offered to prepare responses to I the questions posed for the next meeting when Mr. Thompson could be in attendance, also that the responses would be forwarded to him prior to that meeting. It was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over until next meeting. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4005 - ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM Resolution Number 4005 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM THE IMPROVEMENT OF SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD." By unanimous consent, full reading of 1-14-91 I Resolution Number 4005 was waived. The Acting City Manager reported this item is a request for $190,000 through the Arterial Highway Financing Program for the overlay of Seal Beach Boulevard from Pacific Coast Highway to Regency Drive. He noted the 1990 program had been the overlay of Bolsa Avenue. Councilman Laszlo inquired as to the amount of gas tax that would be used for this project, and when the last overlay of Seal Beach Boulevard had been done. It was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over until next meeting to obtain the additional information. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4006 - INTERRUPTIBLE WATER SERVICE - SPECIAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT Resolution Number 4006 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH STATING COMMITMENT TO PLACE SPECIFIED SAVINGS FROM INTERRUPTIBLE SERVICE INTO A SPECIAL ACCOUNT." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4006 was waived. The Acting City Manager confirmed that funds realized through this program are to be used for water conservation measures are not limited to those listed in the staff report, and could be used for sensors, as mentioned by Councilman Hunt. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4006 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "J" throuah "R" Mayor Wilson requested Items "L" and "M" be removed from the Consent Calendar, Councilmember Forsythe requested Item "R" removed, and Councilmember Hastings requested Item liP" removed. Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items "L, M, P, and R," as presented. J. Approved regular demands numbered 81963 through 82291 in the amount of $1,614,947.43, payroll demands numbered 43343 through 43535 in the amount of $273,022.74, and payroll demands numbered 43536 through 43721 in the amount of $214,102.45 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. K. Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of October 25, 1990. N. Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of November 13, 1990. O. Denied the claim for damages of Mr. John Boag and referred same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. I Q. Approved the renewal Agreement between the City of Seal Beach and the County of Orange for prosecution services for an indefinite term commencing January 1, 1991, and authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried 1-14-91 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS "L" and "M" - MINUTES Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of October 31, 1990 and the special meeting of November 5, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried I ITEM "P" - NOTICE OF PREPARATION - DRAFT PROGRAM EIR - WESTMINSTER COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR The Development Services Director explained this is a fourth amendment that the city of Westminster is proposing to an existing Redevelopment Project Area that basically covers the strip commercial areas along the major arterial streets in Westminster, the amendment generally adding existing school sites, park sites, westminster Memorial Park, flood control right of way, freeway right of way, and some smaller commercial shopping areas that have been built over the years. He noted this merely notices the City of their intent, that westminster will be preparing an EIR, that a letter has been prepared expressing this City'S concerns at this time, and reported their proposal will be further addressed when the draft EIR is received. Hunt moved, second by Hastings, to receive and file this item. AYES: NOES: ITEM "R" - EXHAUST GAS ANALYZER I Councilmember Forsythe inquired if staff had looked into the alternative to contract for these services with local vendors, or sharing such equipment with another city. The Acting City Manager responded that the State requires that all city vehicles be checked every two years for compliance with smog emission limits, that this equipment does provide diagnostic testing to locate problems, and confirmed that staff has not looked into contracting for the service in lieu of purchasing the equipment. It was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over until next meeting. Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, ,Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried AWARD OF PROPOSAL - SOURCE REDUCTION and RECYCLING ELEMENT PREPARATION - AB 939 The Acting city Manager presented the staff report, explained the requirement of AB 939 for cities to divert twenty-five percent of their waste stream by 1995 and fifty percent by the year 2000, also that cities develop a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to be submitted to the County no later than July 1st with the draft of the Element required by May 15, however a recent communication from the League reports that there is consideration to extend the July 1st deadline until January 1, 1992. He summarized the nine source reduction/recycling components required by the I Element. The Acting City Manager noted that Seal Beach is unique in that there are four waste haulers operating in the city, and those will need to be integrated into the city's Recycling Element, also reported a Waste Characterization Study prepared by the County is yet to be received. He referred to a survey conducted of fifteen cities who have either hired additional personnel or contracted for assistance to meet the mandates of AB 939, also that there is a funding alternative which allows cities to impose fees in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of preparing and adopting the Plan, that such fees have either been 1-14-91 I implemented or are being looked at by a number of the surveyed cities, also that staff is researching how such fees would be passed on to the private communities. He reported the organizational meeting of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee has been scheduled for January 24th, and if action is taken to select a consultant, the consultant will work with the Committee to assist in developing the local program. Mr. Archibold read the proposals received, SCS Engineering, $57,630, Emcon, $54,400, Kleinfelder and Associates, $41,270, and recommended that Kleinfelder be retained to provide the consultant services to the city. I In response to Council, Mr. Mike Perry of Kleinfelder and Associates, reported that within Orange County there are cities that have come together through a memorandum of understanding to produce a joint recycling element in compliance with AB 939, which is an option of the City, however said he was not aware of any cities that have not retained consulting services or provided in-house staff at this time to commence the preparation of their program. He added that the current interpretation of the law is that if a City. can not meet or attain its twenty-five and fifty percent goals effectively, it must demonstrate to the Integrated Waste Management Board that it has done everything in its power to achieve the goals, and if it is not possible, and the Board would have the option to waive or not impose the $10,000 per day find for non-compliance. Mr. Perry said before he could answer what Seal Beach could do with regard to adherence to certain components of the guidelines that would not be possible for this City, there would need to be an examination of the current waste stream and percentages of those wastes to determine if the City could achieve the recycling goals. The Acting City Manager stated that initially there was discussion of joining with another city to develop a joint program, however Los Alamitos and Cypress have hired additional personnel to work with Briggeman to develop the source reduction program, and again cited the problem of a joint effort locally of the four separate haulers, and some areas generate much less trash than others. He reported the city had applied for a recycling grant however it was not approved, also that the City participates in the monthly meetings of the County Waste Management Commission. with regard to the degree that each area of the City would have to participate, Mr. Perry stated in preparing the Waste Characterization and Generation Study, the County is looking at each City on an individual basis yet as a whole, and not having seen the Study as yet, to his knowledge they have not yet broken down the cities into separate components, however he believed they were examining Leisure World as a separate source of waste. with regard to a per household assessment to cover the cost of the waste program, Mr. Perry pointed out that waste generation comes from several factors, and the commercial areas, the Naval Weapons station, Wildlife Preserve, etc., should not be overlooked, also those areas of generation can be assessed a fee based upon an equitable scale for funding the planning and implementation of the program, implementation felt to be the most expensive portion of the program. He noted this is not a one time process, that every year the City will have to report to the Integrated Waste Manager Board detailing the accomplishments made and achievements toward meeting the goals of the plan, that every two years the Board will evaluate the City's plan and achievement of the goals, and at any time if there is a determination there is an inability to achieve the goals, the state can require that the plan be amended, revised, or completely redone if deemed necessary. With regard to costs I 1-14-91 associated with implementation of the plan, whether the haulers go to a transfer station where recyclables are separated or a curbside residential program is initiated, typically the curbside program would range from $1 to $3 to pay for the cost of the service, a materials recovery facility can provide some cost benefits if the waste stream is of a type that the operator can separate the commodities for a profit, and suggested that an on-going program would likely range between $2 to $5 per month for any of the various programs depending upon the market and how monies can be regained. He pointed out that the goal is not merely the twenty-five and fifty percent reduction, but a goal to educate the citizens of means to reduce the amount of waste being generated, alternatives to what persons purchase and what is being disposed of, and the most environmentally conscious portion of the program is the household hazard element. Mr. Perry said he would recommend developing a program that would be most effective for Leisure World, as well as the various areas of the City that may have a different composition of waste, as an example, given the smaller units in Leisure World they would not generate as much waste on a per capita basis as a single family home in another area of the city. Councilman Hunt stated Leisure World currently captures the green waste, and sort newspapers, bottles, cans, and trash. Mr. Perry confirmed that it would be their intent to also develop a program specific to the commercial areas which is generally corrugated boxes, glass, cans, etc., typically calculated on a tonnage basis, and fees could be applied to the commercial areas accordingly. I Councilman Hunt moved to appropriate $41,270 to retain the services of Kleinfelder and Associates. Councilman Laszlo asked if it was the intent to impose fees to cover this cost. The Acting city Manager offered to return to the Council with a proposal to revise the refuse rates to offset the consultant costs. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. I Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th street, read a prepared statement with regard to waste management. He noted the 1950 population of Orange County of 216,000 and presently over 2,300,000, stated land owners will no longer lease land for a dumpsite, land costs are too great to purchase such sites, that the cost to rid a site of hazards is too much, that preparing an area as a dumpsite is too costly, and it is now known that trash is toxic and causes disease. He said the state has now entered the trash picture by requiring the twenty-five and fifty percent reductions, requiring preparation of an Integrated Waste Management Plan, they pay deposits for some glass bottles, aluminum cans and plastic bottles, require payment of a trash surcharge when purchasing goods, which he said merely costs residents money and time and nothing will be accomplished in the long run, that the legislation will not work because the state does not want it to work. He said the Department of Housing and Community Development has never heard of waste management and the required reductions, that Housing Element guidelines recommend reduction of zoning standards for housing so that density is increased, relaxation of building standards, and where people can not be housed in the coastal zone, the Coastal Commission has said those persons have a constitutional right to visit the coastal zone, which he said in turn means their trash is left on beaches and streets, which is then picked up at city expense, the responsibility for debris left by storms and wave action has also not been addressed. Mr. Antos said previously the I 1-14-91 I state made manufacturers responsible for recycling programs for their products, also that the disposal of advertising materials is left to the local agency. He suggested that citizens collect junk mail for one month and present it to our congressional representatives since the citizens subsidize that cost through higher postal rates, and are then responsible for its collection, disposal, and cost thereof. Mr. Antos suggested the City commence working with the League to sponsor legislation to: stay the date for submitting the Integrated Waste Manage Plan; require all state agencies to cooperate for one common goal; provide a formula for trash volumes that take into account a sliding base to deal with growth; provide some factor for acts of nature for computing trash volumes in coastal, desert and mountain areas; and lobby the federal government for equal protection of postal rates. with regard to present policy relating to trash, Mr. Antos said the City makes it illegal for private individuals to scavenge or collect items of trash; the trash contract limits any private business from entering into private contracts with residents for voluntary recycling; that there is some recycling of Christmas trees; some paper is being recycled where it should be sold; the litter laws should be enforced; deposit boxes should be provided for charitable organizations; only minimal information is provided regarding recycling; an annual clean-up week is offered to d~spose of items that can not be disposed of or recycled because of the lack of programs; there is some composting of greenwaste from city parks yet it should be done on a citywide basis and used as fertilizer; a recycling program needs to be established; the city needs to sell all types of paper for recycling; and that a recycling center should be established in the city, possibly adjacent to the animal shelter. He referred to consideration of a forced curbside recycling program, stated the trial program of Briggeman failed, that he personally felt he should have the option of selling his recyclables, that only two businesses currently recycle cardboard, that curbside recycling programs cost a lot of money as a result of equipment costs, yet they do not work. Mr. Antos suggested that before the City develops programs that will not work, local solutions should be developed, and the problems should be remanded to the state and federal government where they belong. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Seal Beach, said she had spent some time at City Hall reviewing what is required to be implemented by the state, at which point she had agreed with the Acting city Manager that given the time limit to submit the Plan the only alternative was to go forward with a consultant, however if the deadline is extended the Plan could likely be accomplished in-house. She noted in the documents she reviewed there was only a breakdown of residential units, yet the commercial businesses also need to be addressed, and if there is not a willingness of the citizens to voluntarily recycle, there may need to be enforcement at some point where no recyclable item may be placed in the trash. I I Discussion continued with regard to deadlines for submittal of the Waste Management Plan. The Acting City Manager noted that extension of the deadline is only preliminary at this time. Mr. Perry explained that the deadline for submitting the preliminary draft of the source recycling element has been determined to be March 1st, an administrative decision of the California Waste Management Board, that July 1st is a statutory deadline for submittal of the final Plan unless the City determines that a full EIR would be necessary, and in that case the document would be submitted to the Board without the CEQA documentation, and the document could not 1-14-91 be adopted until there is full CEQA compliance, also within that time frame there are two forty-five day public review periods that are mandated within the legislation, therefore given those considerations, by April 1st the city would need to have a comprehensive final document, however the Board is requiring an administrative draft by March 1st so that it can be reviewed and should there be technical errors they I can be corrected before the review period deadlines. Vote on the motion to retain the services of Kleinfelder and Associates: AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Laszlo moved, second by Hunt to hold over Item "T", scheduling pre-budget work session, Item "U", reclassification procedures, Item "V", status report of the Hellman Ranch gas flare, and item "AA", budgetary advisory group. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS Environmental Oualitv Control Board It was the consensus of the Council to hold over the District Five appointment to the Environmental Quality Control Board for the unexpired term ending July, 1994. Solid Waste Advisorv Committee Councilman Laszlo moved to appoint Mr. Bill Erickson, Fir Avenue, as the District Four appointment to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried After brief discussion regarding Council representation on the Solid Waste Committee, councilmember Hastings moved to allow the appointment of two qualified persons from the city at-large to represent the Council membership. Councilman Laszlo indicated he could serve at any time other that the January 24th organizational meeting. Councilman Hunt suggested that members of the Council assume the appointment, and if unable to attend, a representative could attend on their behalf. Councilmember Forsythe agreed to serve as one Council representative on the Board if the meetings are scheduled in the evening, and in a case where she were unable to attend, possibly Councilman Laszlo could act as the representative. Councilmember Hastings offered to be the second representative, and if she were unable to attend requested the authority to designate a public representative on her behalf. Laszlo moved, second by Wilson, to appoint Councilmembers Forsythe and Hastings as the City Council representatives to the Solid Waste Advisory I Board. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Beach Commission Mayor Wilson moved to appoint Mr. William Scott, Interlachen Road, as the District Two representative to the Beach Commission. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. 1-14-91 AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I CITY ATTORNEY ANALYSIS - HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN INITIATIVE Councilmember Forsythe moved to direct the City Attorney to review and prepare an analysis of the Hellman Specific Plan Initiative to ensur~ there is nothing that would. adversely affect the City of Seal Beach. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried The Assistant city Attorney stated it was her understanding this would be an indepth analysis. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Jane McCloud, 700 Balboa Drive, referred to the report submitted by the Hellman Specific Plan Committee which included reference to the lowlands for uses such as wetlands, golf courses, etc., and reported expressed interest from a number of residents of the community in such use, also suggesting that a golf use could generate revenues that could possibly be used for other recreational amenities. She said it was her understanding that such combination of use has been done in two other communities, sensitively designed, and approved by the Coastal Commission, which indicates there is a proven design method along with appropriate on-going maintenance that has made it possible for golf to be compatible with wetlands, which had been thought not to be possible. Ms. McCloud said if golf and wetlands could be a viable possibility it would be a use of the open space of that area that many citizens would like to retain, which could also contain a trail system, tennis, soccer, etc., for a balance of passive and active uses. She offered that there is a resident of the community who is an expert in wetland/golf course development, and would be willing to provide consultant type information to the city if there were a desire to. look at such use. Mayor Wilson recalled this was thoroughly discussed in conjunction with the original plan and the city Council had been advised that golf was not compatible with wetlands and that the Coastal Commission would not approve those combined uses. Mr. Pat Mulligan, 1660 Crestview Avenue, stated he was not familiar with the property historically, however wetlands, as an issue nationally and in California, have gone through a variety of cycles and has prompted a variety of studies, the most current being a 1990 study reported in the Journal of Environmental Protection, which suggests that properly managed turf, meaning golf or soccer fields, that would not precipitate or run off into wetlands the nitrates that are considered compromising of otherwise pristine wetland areas are acceptable. He pointed out that where wetlands and other land uses have come into conflict over the past ten years, most reviewing agencies, such as the Coastal Commission, have been brought up to date through an academic process prompted by, as an example, the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell University have conducted studies, the State of Florida has conducted several studies, and concluded that if there is a sensitively designed product with a well engineered concept, it can be adjacent to wetlands without compromising them. He said much of the education depends on how aggressive you are, how bad you want the golf product, and how much you want to educate the bureaucrats that will review the product. Mr. Mulligan said I 1-14-91 he was familiar with a project that a Coastal Commission has evidently allowed to proceed that involves the Delta/Sacramento River area, which is in the process of being developed, designed by the office of landscape architect Robert Muir Groves, and locally Big Canyon, also one of his golf course. Councilman Hunt said assuming a golf course and wetlands could exist in harmony, previous I argument has been made that a golf course would not be economically viable even if the property were given to the city, and that the Redevelopment Agency would need to subsidize the golf course. Mr. Mulligan responded that he has resided in this community for approximately twelve months, is away much of the time, and offered that he would have been surprised at such argument. Councilman Hunt stated the proposal was for eighteen holes on eighty-five to ninety acres, and argued that it would be economically impossible because it would not attract the green fees that would be necessary, given the assumption that $30 to $40 green fees would be needed in order to pay for the land and get adequate play on the course to attain the necessary return. Mr. Mulligan agreed, yet said it depends on the configuration of the land and what can be done on that land. He said it was his understanding the land acreage is about one hundred ninety acres, of which a certain portion is oil extraction land, with one hundred forty-eight acres available for the project proposed, noting that it would depend on how much acreage is reserved for wetlands to be retained in a pristine manner, that he has heard numbers between twenty-five and one hundred acres. Mr. Mulligan offered that a good golf course could be placed on one hundred twenty acres, agreed that ninety acres would likely be economically infeasible, yet if it is a nine hole course I and there is adjacent property that is potentially available, as an example Rockwell, the flood retention area, and the realization that golf and oil wells are simpatico to the degree that they are intelligently approached, there would be adequate area to do a golf course if there is a will and the community desires this use. Again in response to the scenario of ninety to one hundred available acres, or a nine hole course at $3.50 green fees, Mr. Mulligan agreed that historically that situation has not worked, yet stated that for every golf course in Southern California there is a demand by over a thousand golfers, therefore if one designed an exclusive wetlands oriented target golf course, an executive course, and utilized ninety acres, which is feasible, it may be found that that appeals to a great number of golfers, if done properly, not as a public course, but a first class product, and even though short, a challenge to the golfer, in an ecologically attractive manner, he would tend to suggest that to be successful, yet noted that no one has been able to produce a good stand- alone within the competitive market. councilman Hunt referred to the cost of the land as minimally $150,000 per acre, which would mean $45 green fees and $15 for a cart, and to attract one hundred twenty thousand rounds a year, there needs to be adequate acreage. Mr. Mulligan responded I the one hundred twenty rounds would not be desirable because that would increase the maintenance and operation costs substantially, suggesting a somewhat lower number of rounds per year. He made reference to a recent study in the Urban Land Journal which suggested with sixty thousand rounds per year, averaging $40 per round, ~hat combination could clear $750,000 to $1 million annually after operating costs. Mr. Mulligan agreed with comments of Mr. Hunt with regard to green fees where there is a competitive market, most golfers tending to test themselves against the best which is considered a championship golf course, and if you are not a 1-14-91 I championship course your ability to command a first class fee is compromised, yet if there is the right product, over time that may be accomplished, and not knowing the exact land costs it would be difficult to extrapolate the economics in this case, yet if they were known a joint venture with a private developer could be a possibility, another possibility would be for local members of golf clubs to establish a private country club with a provision that a percentage of time would be available for local residents. Mr. Mulligan offered that his comments were prompted by questions of his neighbors, and although he is not an advocate of this type of process, from a professional standpoint and until he had specific reasons why this concept could not be done, he could not say it would not work. with regard to who would pay to acquire the land, Mr. Mulligan said be believed that ultimately that cost should be paid by those who utilize the golf course, and offered that any golf course in Seal Beach, whether it be public or private and no matter who develops it, once the land use has been dedicated, the program should be operated in such a way that it generates money and is self-supporting through user fees. Reference was made to past discussion of a full service golf course, including a driving range to underwrite expenses. Mr. Mulligan said consideration could be given to a driving range as opposed to a nine hole golf course, and if the lighting is appropriate to protect the nearby residents, it could likely be operative into the evening hours, and confirmed that a driving range with or without the golf course is profitable, yet that use should require a market feasibility study. with regard to whether or not golf courses usually include pro shops and country clubs, Mr. Mulligan said some do and some don't and there has been a Southern California syndrome where bigger is better, generally compared to the Palm Springs area. He offered that a residential scale, well designed facility can be first class, meet all of the needs to provide expanding spaces for such things as meeting rooms, pro shop, health spa facilities, tennis, etc., which can be leased or joint ventured and one can build on the other, which could create a community club of some stature, it does not have to be scaled up in size, yet should be thought out with regard to living space and affordability, which is a design situation. I I Ms. Beverly Casares, Seal Beach, referred to the sister City item on the agenda, said it was her understanding that City employee Ms. Libby Gonzales had not been reimbursed for prior expenses relating to a trip to Todos Santos as a representative of the City, and requested a Council action to authorize payment of her expenses, including air fare, for past and upcoming Sister City activities. Mayor Wilson said she believed that the International Friendship Association was to have covered her expenses. The Assistant City Attorney recommended that if the Council is to consider reimbursement for expenses that this matter be placed on a future agenda. The Acting City Manager confirmed that Ms. Gonzales had previously visited Todos Santos as a citizen, that her expenses had not been paid, and it was his understanding that she would act as a liaison for sister City activities in Seal Beach, translation of communications, etc. The Council asked that the Acting city Manager inquire as to what degree Ms. Gonzales would be involved as a liaison, and that this matter be placed on a future agenda. Mr. David Blakeman, 1016 Ocean Avenue, referred to the source reduction and recycling item, stated an issue of passive versus active recycling is forthcoming, the active recycling where the homeowner takes the initiative to place recyclables into a separate container, 1-14-91 passive meaning all items are placed in one container, it is collected by the refuse hauler, taken to a facility for separation of recyclables that can be marketed. He requested that the Council not go forward with a passive recycling program, that it does not encourage reduction of waste where AB 939 was meant to reduce the amount of refuse going to the landfill, stated that the majority of trash is I paper products of various types, and if combined with the regular trash it becomes what is referred to as mixed paper, is then not marketable, and ultimately that paper will end up in the landfill, likewise there is no market for mixed glass, where separated colored glass is marketable. Mr. Blakeman again urged that an active recycling program be given consideration over a passive program. Mr. Mitch Sheltraw said he recalled a comment that indicated where there was a violation of a resident as a result of a mistake of the Building or Planning Department they were imposed to correct the situation, and in view of the information received at this meeting, specifically with regard to 28-210, the city will advise legal staff to pursue having the problems corrected with the minor plan alterations that were issued over the last three years, given that 28-210 existed since 1964 therefore the minor plan reviews were granted in mistake.. He acknowledged that the comment was in reference to other cities, and asked more specifically if the previously granted permits are going to be corrected. The Assistant City Attorney said that was not what she had said, and the answer was no. Mr. Al Brown, owner of the projects under discussion, said that after the vote to uphold the recommendation of the Planning commission I he had inquired why Councilmember Forsythe had not supported option two, to which she replied it did not comply with the Code and the laws in effect. Councilmember Forsythe corrected Mr. Brown, stating she had said she was complying with the Code of the city, that the units were nonconforming due to parking, density, and setbacks, and according to Code one can not add bedrooms where a structure is nonconforming due to density. She said the understanding of Mr. Brown's representative was that the plans could not be altered because the walls were bearing which would cause a legal constraint, therefore option two was not viable. Mr. Brown said he did not feel certain members of the Council understood option two, stated he is within the law by removing the wall, that his architect said there may be a problem, but he would need to research it. Councilmember Forsythe disagreed, that the architect had said he would be entering another legal problem because he would be removing a bearing wall. councilmember Hastings offered that if option two had found favor with the Council, she felt certain that the use of steel beams could have rectified any bearing wall problems. From the audience Mr. Sheltraw stated he did not say they could not have structurally done something, but he was not certain there should be a tradeoff, an illegal tradeoff, because it might take them under the fifty percent of what they are supposed to leave I in the way of required walls, and without doing calculations he could not say whether they would fall under the required fifty percent, also questioned if tradeoffs are allowed. Mr. Brown said they may be within the fifty percent of bearing walls, yet they do not know that at this time, and that is the only thing the Planning Commission turned them down on because they felt that the den was a bedroom, therefore by taking the wall out there is no issue about a bedroom. Councilmember Forsythe again recalled that the architect had said this was a bearing wall. Councilman Hunt said he believed Mr. Brown and Mr. She It raw questioned 1-14-91 I whether the Council was legally correct in denying the appeal on the basis of section 28-210, and asked Mr. Brown if he felt it was a valid reason for denial. Mr. Brown questioned the Council's reason for denying option two, yet stated he felt 28-210 is outdated, has not been used for years, and that he violates no laws or codes, nothing, with option two, and there was no reason for not approving option two. Councilman Hunt added that if the council were correct in denying the appeals on the basis of 28-210, then why should option two be approved since within a matter of weeks a determination may be made as to what extent such reconstruction may be, and option two may then be illegal. Councilmember Hastings stated these two properties and another on Cottonwood had been excluded from the moratorium, therefore option two could have been approved, the project redesigned to possibly include a steel beam, and computed as to whether they would continue to have fifty percent of the bearing walls within the structure, however since option two was not approved the applicant has no recourse until the Code revisions are completed. with regard to whether they would be within the fifty percent of bearing wall requirement, the Director said he could not answer whether removal of the wall that separates the den from the bedroom would place them below the fifty percent requirement, that that calculation has not been done, therefore that was the specific reason for his question as to whether or not that was a bearing wall, since in most residential construction every wall in the structure is usually not a bearing wall, that the Code provision only relates to bearing walls, and confirmed the proposed addition would be legal if fifty percent of those walls remain. In view of the wall issue, Mr. Brown suggested the Council reconsider and vote on option two. Councilmember Forsythe said her vote would not change because the projects do not comply with Code, nonconforming due to density for one. Mr. Brown added that if the fifty percent bearing wall requirement is not met, the Planning Department will turn down their plans, however if they take out the wall and meet the fifty percent bearing wall requirement, then the project is legal. Councilman Laszlo surmised therefore if they meet the bearing wall requirement they would then be considered legal, then questioned how option two could be legally denied. The Assistant city Attorney said her recollection of the discussion was that when the question was asked if all of the walls were bearing walls, the response of the architect was yes they were, therefore based upon that testimony it did not appear they fell within this category, if the applicant is now changing their testimony and wish to have the matter reconsidered, and if the majority side of the Council wishes to vote to have the item reconsidered, and the vote passes, it would be appropriate to do so. Councilman Hunt pointed out that the Council did not have an obligation to consider option two, that the vote was correct and legal under 28-210 to reject the appeal. The Assistant city Attorney confirmed that based upon the information provided, the Council had acted properly. Councilman Hunt noted also that some of the discussion dealt with the fact that there may have been past errors in making the tolerances for reconstruction that exist in the Code, that he did not believe that was the intention of the Councilor Commission over the past ten years, admitted that he had previously misunderstood the ten percent enlargement provision of the Code for nonconforming properties, and said he believed that a majority of the community would not support enlargements to structures that are nonconforming due to density, parking, and setbacks, to the degree proposed by these projects. I I 1-14-91 Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to reconsider minor plan reviews 13-90 and 15-90 at a later date. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson Hunt Motion carried The Assistant City Attorney advised that this item will need I to be renoticed for public hearing at a future meeting. Mr. Frank Clift, Dogwood Avenue, said as a former member of the city Council he was before the Council to express his concern for the morale of the employees of the city in general, the senior staff employees in particular where, in a period of less than three months the services of the city Manager and the Director of Public Works have been lost, two dedicated, professional, non-political staff members, each presumably resigning their position voluntarily, who were valuable resources in the operation of the City, and questioned why they chose to leave their employment in Seal Beach. He added that since early 1990 adverse public remarks were made to the City Manager, and the Development Services Director was angrily attacked, unfortunately without subsequent apology, which is not conducive to high morale of City employees, also that there has been inadequate communication with boards and commissions on issues within their purview, and with those who man those committees. Mr. Clift offered that good people do not leave a happy ship voluntarily, good people do not long remain in an environment of distrust, and that the perception of their being an unhappy ship has only existed for a short time. He urged that that perception be changed, and asked that his plea be accepted in the interest of this town and the people I who live and work here. Mr. Clift referred to the employees of Seal Beach as the most dedicated, unselfish group of persons with which he has had the pleasure of working who deserve a more pleasant and respectful environment in which to work. Two members of the Council responded to Mr. Clift's comments. The Assistant City Attorney again referred to the minor plan review items, and stated that in order for the applicant to follow Section 28-2407(g) concerning interior wall modifications that are less than fifty percent of the interior bearing walls, they would need to delete from their plans the den/study unit, which is a substantial modification to the plans which has not been viewed by the Planning Commission. She said upon checking with the applicant, they were not opposed to the Council revising the motion to remand this matter back to the Planning Commission for review of the plans, in the meantime the applicant could submit the plans to the Director of Development Services to determine whether or not the fifty percent criteria is complied with. wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to remand this matter back to the Planning Commission as recommended by the Assistant City Attorney. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson Hunt Motion carried I" Ms. Barbara Antoci, Seal Beach, said she wished to let the Council know that there are no animosities taken with the members of the Council, that the position of a previous speaker is not the position of the rest of the City. Mr. Harlan Anderson, Surfside, referred to A-102, Surfside, specifically the height of that dwelling, and requested the Council review the documents that he presented to them. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. 1-14-91/1-28-91 I CLOSED SESSION The Assistant city Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel matters. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 1:45 a.m. The Council reconvened at 2:02 a.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The Acting City Manager reported the Council had discussed labor relations and personnel matters. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Council until January 28, 1991 at 6:15 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 2:03 a.m. to adjourn the meeting for a Closed Session. Cl Ci the Approved: ~t.V~ Mayor Attest: I Seal Beach, California January 28, 1991 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:16 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Archibold, Acting City Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant city Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I CLOSED SESSION The Assistant City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss a personnel matter and to discuss pending litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a) and (b), Mola Development versus City of Seal Beach. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:18 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 6:58 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The Assistant City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items previously announced, and an additional matter regarding the oil spill litigation, and that no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent of the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m.