Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1987-09-21 9-9-87 / 9-21-87 ADJOURNMENT Risner moved, 5:26 p.m. AYES: NOES: second by Grgas, to adjourn the meeting at Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I or; and ex-officio City Council the C~ty Seal ~....) -..fJ .'3d~ ,. ...) Ma~ Approved: Attest: , ( C~ty Cl Seal Beach, California September 21, 1987 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Councilman Clift led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Rudell, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Thomas, Finance Director Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mr. Hemphill, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Risner moved, second by Clift, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. I AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Mayor Wilson reported a request to continue agenda items "I" and nJn, a request to rezone property located at 345 - 10th Street. PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Wilson proclaimed the week of September 27th through October 3rd, 1987 as nCalifornia Delinquency Prevention Week.n 9-21-87 Mayor Wilson proclaimed the month of October, 1987 as nUnited Way Month.n The month of October was proclaimed nEscrow Monthn by Mayor Wilson. October 4th through October 10th, 1987 was proclaimed nDomestic Violence Awareness Weekn by Mayor Wilson. The Mayor proclaimed October 4th through the 10th as nFire Prevention Week.n I Mayor Wilson proclaimed October 15th, 1987 as nWhite Cane Safety Day.n The Mayor proclaimed October 18th through October 24th, 1987 as nFinancial Independence Week.n PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - VARIANCE 6-87 - 326 - 12th STREET - BRENDEL Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider the appeal of Planning Commission denial of Variance 6-87. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported the receipt of a communication from Mr. Gary Johnson, the owner of property located at 324 and 324 1/2 - 12th Street, objecting to the request for Variance 6-87, and a letter from Geraldine and Roger West, 1201 Electric Avenue, requesting that the Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. The Director of Development Services reported the request is to add two garage spaces and a master bedroom suite to a nonconforming triplex, the request exceeding the square footage permitted for such addition without providing the required parking. He I explained that originally the proposal was submitted as a plan review for minor alteration, however was not accepted by staff since the proposal did not meet minimum standards under the Code, exceeding the ten percent allowable floor area, 375.25 square feet, exceeding the ratio of bedrooms to bathrooms permitted, not meeting the requirement for units in excess of 30 dwelling units per acre to provide one covered standard parking space per unit, this project being 44.5 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Knight reported the Planning Commission had denied the request for variance, determining that no findings of hardship or special circumstances could be made to support the request, and explained that although the addition of two on-site parking spaces could arguably benefit the area it is still an insufficient number of parking spaces to qualify under the Code provisions for minor alterations to nonconforming residential units. Mr. Knight clarified that no on-site parking spaces currently exist, however the project would meet the required nine foot rear setback. Mayor Wilson invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Bruce Stark addressed the Council on behalf of the applicant, Michelle Brendel. Mr. Stark referred to Section 65906 of the Government Code I and read the provisions set forth for the granting of variances, the size, shape, topography, location, surroundings, etc., or that it would deprive such property of the privilege enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications. Mr. Stark advised that the applicant is relying specifically on the provision relating to surroundings as set forth by the Code, making reference to a variance previously approved for an 9-21-87 I identical plan for an adjacent property, and stated that approval of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. With regard to the communications received in opposition to this variance request, Mr. Stark complained as to the appearance of the property owned by Mr. Johnson, vehicles parked on the street or in the alley with the tandem parking area used for storage rather than parking, also stating that the width of the parking spaces on the West's property are narrower than required by Code, that having been allowed to satisfy the required number of spaces. Mr. Stark noted the staff's suggestion to reduce the proposed four hundred fifty-four square foot improvement to meet the ten percent expansion allowed by Code, thereby enlarging the deck area, and questioned what difference it would make whether the area be deck or closet. He also recalled discussion of possibly putting in three parking spaces by cantilevering over one space, the contractor saying it could be done, however the staff denying that possibility. Mr. Stark referred to specific properties that he alleged have received approvals without meeting parking requirements, as well as exterior stairs that could lend itself to an illegal unit. Mr. Stark stated the existing bachelor unit consists of a combined living room/bedroom with a three-quarter bath, that the proposed improvement would allow a bedroom to be built in the area over a garage and it would then seem reasonable to add the full bathroom, the staff having denied the additional bathroom. Mr. Stark questioned the definition of the term density, he stated the City has no control over the number of persons residing in a dwelling or the number of vehicles .at that location, also stating he felt there is no reasonable relationship of the perception that a triplex generates more people and more cars than does a single family residential unit. Mr. Stark restated the applicant's desire to improve the subject property, add two parking spaces where none currently exist, and stated the request is for no more than has been approved for other properties in the City. There being no further testimony from the audience, Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. Lengthy discussion followed with members of the Council expressing their views regarding this matter. Councilmember Risner pointed out that the staff's interpretation of the existing bathroom, consisting of a stall shower, commode and sink, is a full bath as defined by the Federal Census Bureau, also that improvements are being made to a number of nonconforming properties within City guidelines that are rentable units. Mrs. Risner noted that this request for variance will impact density of the area, which she stated does not seem to coincide with a slow growth initiative being pursued by the applicant, Dr. Brendel, and Mr. Stark. With regard to the variance that was granted in 1984 to the adjacent property, it was clarified that extraordinary circumstances existed in that particular case, that at the time the application was submitted the City was without a Planning Director and over-the-counter approval was given to what was thought to be a bedroom addition to a single family residence, and once it was realized the property was in fact a nonconforming triplex the work was stopped, subsequently a variance was approved with the finding that a hardship and penalty would be imposed on the property owner if he were required to remove more than $20,000 of improvements that had already been made. It was noted that since that time provisions have been adopted that allow legal nonconforming uses to make improvements within specific guidelines without meeting parking requirements that would have otherwise been required. The Development Services Director noted that the staff and the Planning Commission endeavor to insure that I I 9-21-87 additional units are not put in where they are not allowed, however a change of use often occurs subsequent to approvals as can be confirmed by the number of code enforcement problems that exist. He also clarified that variances are governed basically by State law, requiring cities to make specific findings, with each project considered on a case by case basis. Mr. Knight further clarified that the minor plan review process for nonconforming residential units provides the opportunity for a ten percent increase of allowable floor area which in this case is approximately 375 I square feet, where 454 square feet is requested. The Director also noted that the subject property is a twenty- five foot lot, therefore the three required nine foot standard parking spaces would exceed the lot width and that under residential standards compact spaces are not allowed, pointing out that even if commercial standards were applied, allowing one compact space, the width of the parking spaces would still exceed the lot width. In response to Council, Mr. Stark reported he believed the subject property had been purchased in 1978 and that the shed that is proposed to be removed to provide parking existed at that time. Councilman Grgas explained the formula that is used to calculate density, noting that the average density in the Old Town area is twenty-two units per acre, the request under consideration being double that average, pointing out also that while a triplex currently exists on the property, the shed that exists could have previously been removed and that area converted to parking for those units. Mr. Grgas encouraged the applicant to reduce the square footage of the improvements proposed which would meet the requirements of the Code, allow for improvement to the property and the potential for increased rental return. The Director advised that the key point of this matter is not necessarily the size of the unit or the added bathroom, it is the fact that I if a property exceeds thirty dwelling units per acre density . one parking space per unit is required and must be provided before any square footage may be added, clarifying that a variance would not be required to add two parking spaces or to make decorative improvements. Councilman Hunt indicated his agreement in principal with the applicant's interpretation of establishing findings, stating he would like to see some legal means whereby the City could benefit from the addition of the two parking spaces and the improvement of the subject property. Mayor Wilson also stated she felt that the addition of parking would be of benefit to the City as well as the tenants, and inquired if Mr. Stark would object to reducing the square footage of the improvement. Mr. Stark responded that it could be reduced, the staff having suggested that the addition be reduced to meet Code requirements and that the deck be enlarged, however he again stated the plan proposed is the same that was previously approved for the adjacent property. Councilman Clift added that he felt that the added parking would be an asset to the property, even without the proposed addition, which would most likely result in additional income. In response to Council, Mr. Stark stated it would be possible to remove the existing shed to provide for parking, however there is no incentive to invest the money with no return, also that he would support consideration of I requiring only two parking spaces for an existing triplex however not for a triplex development on vacant land. Discussion continued. In response to a question of Council regarding what basis there would be to deny a similar request for variance that does not meet Code in the future if this request is granted, the Assistant City Attorney advised that each request for variance is unique and subject to consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council with regard to the findings that are required to be made. each property decided and defended on a case by case basis. 9-21-87 Risner moved, second by Clift, to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny Variance 6-87. There were further comments by the Council with regard to the extensive time and effort that resulted in the framing of the Zoning Text Amendment that now allows improvements to nonconforming dwellings, setting forth specific density requirements and percentage of allowable expansion. I AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Risner Hunt, Wilson Motion carried I The Council, by unanimous consent, declared a recess at 8:16 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:30 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Mayor Wilson reported that the applicant seeking a zone change at 345 - 10th Street requested that Items "I" and .In, previously removed from the agenda, be reinstated for public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2a-87/Z0NE CHANGE 3-87 - 345 - 10th STREET - TSCHUDIN (CLEGHORN) Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider General Plan Amendment 2a-87 and Zone Change 3-87. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported no communications had been received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report and recommendations of the Planning Commission, explaining that the applicant, Mr. John Tschudin, has requested the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change in order to construct a single family home on a twenty-five by one hundred seventeen foot lot currently zoned C-2 and occupied by a swim school. He noted that due to the size, shape and location of the subject property that is adjacent to other residentially zoned properties, it would suggest that the single family residential development proposed is the most feasible for this property. 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. Mrs. Anne Cook, 339 - lOth Street, inquired as to what is considered high rise. The Director responded that current Code is two stories or twenty-five feet of habitable space, with the exception of a maximum of seven feet allowed for non-habitable architectural features. Councilman Grgas added that a covered stairwell to a top deck is also allowed and on lots of thirty-seven and one-half feet or more the rear half of the building may be thirty-five feet in certain areas. Mrs. Cook expressed concern that a number of the new dwellings are blocking the sun and air from adjacent small dwellings. She stated however that after viewing the plans for the proposed residential unit at 345 - 10th Street, she would support the residential development as it will not overshadow the adjacent residence. Mr. John Tschudin, applicant, confirmed his plans to construct a two story residential unit with a non-habitable feature. Councilmember Risner reported she had received comments from a number of residents expressing concern that the swim school would no longer exist, and moved to hold the public hearing over until the next meeting to allow additional time for the Council to consider this item. Councilman Grgas seconded the motion. It was noted that the first meeting of October would be cancelled due to the absence of the Council. Councilman Grgas pointed out to the applicant that 9-21-87 the existing swim school has been the only private pool in the community that has made swim lessons available, particularly to small children, and that it would seem appropriate to allow the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed zone change, and suggested that the item be held over for one to two weeks. The applicant responded that a significant amount of planning has gone into this development, the construction loan has been received, and that further approvals and the success of the project is contingent upon approval of the request under consideration. Councilman Clift noted that there was no public opposition to this matter at the Planning Commission level. Discussion continued. I With consent continue the 7:00 p.m. AYES: NOES: of the makers, the motion was amended to public hearing until Tuesday, September 29th at Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 1-87 - LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL CENTERS Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider Zoning Text Amendment 1-87, landscape requirements for nonconforming commercial centers. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications had been received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services explained that the proposed ordinance would simplify the expansion or alteration of commercial centers which are nonconforming due to landscaping and reduce the required landscaped area for such centers, specifically, would allow all commercial centers greater I than five acres in size with substandard landscaping to make structural alterations or expand if seven percent of the total lot area is devoted to landscaping, as opposed to the current ten percent requirement, and further, the ordinance provides a method for establishing a program for large commercial centers with less than seven percent landscaping under which upgrading activities may be performed provided that the center's landscaping is gradually increased to the required amount within a reasonable amount of time, such program subject to Planning Commission approval through the conditional use permit process. Mayor Wilson invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Richard Greenberg stated he was present to represent the Seal Beach Center, that the managing partner, Mr. Gerald Moss, was also present, and advised that the Center has retained the services of Mr. Robert Clark, an experienced landscape architect. Mr. Greenberg stated that it would appear from the Planning Commission discussion that there are some differences of opinion as to the staff's understanding of what can be done at the Seal Beach Center, what landscaping exists, and how parking would be dealt with, and further, he I advised that since the Center is small they did not foresee that the seven percent could be met without extraordinary expense, and stated they had not had notice of implementing the ten percent requirement. Mr. Greenberg requested that consideration be given to a continuance of this matter for thirty days to allow an opportunity for the landscape architect to meet with the staff to determine what can and cannot be done, then return to the Council with some agreement. Discussion continued. In response to Council, the Director advised that postponement of this item would effect a small project in the Rossmoor Center, the project 9-21-87 I would either have to be continued or would require application for a variance, and explained that the definition of a shopping center is usually at least five to ten acres and consisting of considerable square footage, while an area such as the one opposite the Leisure World Center would be considered a convenience or strip center. Mr. Knight added that the staff has been in contact with the three affected shopping centers since consideration of this matter began in order to keep them apprised of what was being considered, and that correspondence has been received from each. Mayor Wilson indicated she would be opposed to setting a time limit for satisfying the seven percent landscaping given the diversity of the centers affected, and suggested that such determination be left to the staff. Councilman Hunt suggested that the proposed Ordinance could apply to the Rossmoor Center only, continue the ten percent application to the other areas with the staff directed to continue to develop regulations for the other centers, and if the resulting requirements are less because of unique differences, the lower requirements could also be applied to the Rossmoor Center. I Mr. Greenberg stated that with the absence of notice and if no agreement is reached with the staff or Council the Seal Beach Center would be in a more favorable legal position with regard to the ten percent rather than accepting the seven percent. He noted that when the Center was built there was more than ample parking under the then existing requirements, that what is proposed by the seven and ten percent requirement is not to preserve the status quo but compels the Center to add landscaping, the owner, who is retired, is being required to invest money for what is perceived to be the public good, a direct tax on the property owner. Mr. Greenberg stated that three shopping areas have been singled out, the Rossmoor Center making major improvements where they are able to capitalize on their landscaping investment where the Seal Beach Center is one twentieth the size of Rossmoor, built out with stores .and parking, the leases tied to parking, and that there is a misunderstanding as to the landscaping that would be required, also that they have estimated the cost would be several hundred thousand dollars, to which the staff disagrees. He stated that to require such improvement . triggered by something that is of no benefit to the owner and gives no ability to capitalize the improvement would be unfair, and advised they would not comply with the requirements as presented until ordered to do so by a court. In response to Council, he confirmed that if the landscaping were tied to a reasonable percentage of the cost of a modification or improvement, that would most likely be acceptable. Discussion continued. Mr. Roger Dee, Leisure World Center, suggested that the ordinance be acted upon with provision for shopping centers of twenty acres or greater and that discussions continue to develop guidelines for the Seal Beach and Leisure World centers. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1252 - LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS - NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL CENTERS Ordinance Number l252 was presented to Council for first reading entitled nAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL CENTERS AND AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1252 was waived. Clift moved, second by Risner, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1252 as amended to apply to shopping centers of twenty acres or I 9-21-87 greater, that it be passed to second reading, and that the staff be directed to meet with representatives of the other centers to develop guidelines for landscaping. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3722 - HONORING CITY OF TUSTIN Resolution Number 3722 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, I CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND COMMENDING THE CITY OF TUSTIN ON _ THE OCCASION OF THE 60th ANNIVERSARY OF ITS FOUNDING." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3722 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3722 as presented. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3723 - WATER SERVICE RATES Resolution Number 3723 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF .THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ~TER SERVICE RATES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 36l5.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3723 was waived. The Finance Director noted a typographical error which should correctly read $.97 Readiness To Serve Charge for 5/8, 3/4, and one inch meter size. Grgas moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3723 as corrected. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1253 - WATER UTILITY TURN-ON FEE I The proposed Ordinance was amended to include the words nTurn-On Fee.n Ordinance Number 1253 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, IMPOSING A NON-REFUNDABLE TURN- ON FEE TO ESTABLISH WATER UTILITY SERVICE FOR NEW PATRONS, DELETING THE EXISTING REFUNDABLE SECURITY DEPOSIT, AND AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1253 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Hunt, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1253 as amended, and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3724 - FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 86-280 - BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK Resolution Number 3724 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 86-280 (BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3724 was waived. Risner moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 3724 as presented. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I The City Manager advised that as a part of the Final Map approval, a maintenance agreement has been substantially agreed to by the City Engineer and the property owner and is being finalized by the attorneys for both parties, and that due to a loan requirement the Map and associated documents will require expeditious handling for recordation. Upon the recommendation of the City Attorney, Risner moved, second by 9-21-87 Clift, to agreement Attorney. authorize the Mayor to execute the maintenance subject to the approval of all terms by the City AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3725 - RELOCATION OF ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL HELIPORT Resolution Number 3725 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, ACKNOWLEDGING AND APPROVING OF THE RELOCATION OF THE ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL HELIPORT APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET NORTHWEST OF ITS PRESENT LOCATION." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3725 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 3725 as presented. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3726 - ESTABLISHING PROCEDURE - DESTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL RECORDS Resolution Number 3726 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY FINANCIAL RECORDS.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3726 was waived. Clift moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3726 as presented. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3727 - AUTHORIZING DESTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL RECORDS Resolution Number 3727 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN FINANCIAL RECORDS.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3727 was waived. Clift moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3727 as presented. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER l254 - FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT Ordinance Number 1254 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 9B OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO THE FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT BY RESCINDING ORDINANCES NUMBERED 1036 AND l197.n By uananimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1254 was waived. Councilman Grgas moved to refer the proposed ordinance to the Environmental Quality Control Board for review and comment prior to Council action. Councilman Clift seconded the motion. I AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "T" THROUGH "Y" Grgas moved, second by Risner, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented. In response to Council, staff noted that expenditure for removal of the underground storage tank was an unbudgeted item and will be funded from the unallocated contingency reserve. The City Attorney also pointed out that minor modifications had been made to the trash contract, agenda 9-21-87 item aWn, however did not change the substance of the document. T. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of September 8, 1987. u. Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of September 9, 1987. V. Approved regular demands numbered 67227 through 67423 in the amount of $637,356.87 and payroll demands numbered 26948 through 27145 in the amount of $192,208.97 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. W. Approved the revised Refuse Collection Contract with Briggeman Disposal Company for the term October 1, 1987 through September 30, 2000, and authorized the Mayor to execute the Contract on behalf of the City. I x. Informal proposals were received for the removal of a gasoline storage tank located at the Beverly Manor Road Fire Station as follows: L. Blain Company M. T. Walker Company $7,670.00 6,000.00 Accepted the proposal of M. T. Walker Company in the 'amount of $6,000.00 for the removal of the underground tank at 3131 Beverly Manor Road. Y. Approved the specifications for Beach Sand Replenishment, Project Number 596, and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids. I AYES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried By unanimous consent, the Council declared a recess at 10:04 p.m. and reconvened at 10:15 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTRACT The City Manager reported that as a result of budget discussions, Council requested to review the Orange County Fire Department contract during the month of September of each year to allow adequate time to make a decision relative to any change of fire services. He noted also that Mr. Bill Knight requested to make a presentation with regard to reactivating the City Fire Department, also that representatives of the County were present to respond to any questions. Mr. Nelson suggested that the Council hear the presentation and refer the matter to staff. Mr. Bill Knight, 1035 Catalina Avenue, reviewed in detail his proposal for reorganization of the City Fire Department as set forth in the documents presented to the Council and staff, specifically relating to a three year budget projection including personnel contingent and costs, revenue generation sources, local control, Net 6 operations, inner- city department cooperation, and Orange County Fire Department responses to the Hellman Specific Plan. At the I 9-21-87 I request of Council, the Assistant City Manager reported that the base costs for Orange County Fire Services were $1,150,410 for 1983/84, $l,32l,750 for 1984/85, $1,383,810 for 1985/86, $1,461,640 for 1986/87, and $1,630,630 for the current 1987/88 year. It was noted that the first year of the County contract, the partial year of 1982/83, was approximately $1,400,000, and Mr. Joseph pointed out that the cost during the first two years of the contract were reduced by the cash payment for capital equipment transferred to the County. Mr. Knight stated that the reserve program is vital and there would be a sincere effort to retain the reserves as part of the local unit, the proposal reflecting a minimum of twelve positions, noting that there are approximately twenty-five currently in that program. He also noted the impact of the Fair Standards Labor Act as a matter of great concern with regard to overtime costs and in the case of County Fire, those costs are reflected through the contracts, and cited the City of Glendale as having a model program that could be followed in Seal Beach. Mr. Knight spoke regarding workers compensation costs as well as City liability, pointing out that although the City is somewhat sheltered from liability through the County contract it is not exempt from being named as a party, noting that there were no incidents of liability with the previous City fire unit which can be attributed to training and safety programs. He stated that the monies proposed for capital outlay represents initial start-up costs, the actual amount dependent upon what option is selected to acquire the necessary equipment, whether it be through cooperation of the County or private financing. Mr. Knight expressed appreciation to the Council for giving consideration to reinstating the local Fire Department. In response to Council, the Assistant City Manager stated he recalled that the credit received for the City's capital equipment had been approximately $370,000. Councilman Hunt requested that the Council be provided with copies of the minutes for the period when consideration was being given to contracting for County fire services, and Councilmember Risner asked for a breakdown of actual costs as compared to the cost saving figures originally projected. The City Manager stated that through initial study he found that the only comparable city to Seal Beach was Stanton with nearly identical budgets in 1982/83, and for 1986/87 the Stanton fire budget was $2.1 million as compared to $1.4 million of Seal Beach. He noted that of the cities that have gone to County fire none have dropped out, and reported that a comprehensive analysis had been done for the City of Tustin by an outside consultant which substantially showed that to reestablish their fire department the initial capital cost would be $2.2 million plus another $l million for personnel salaries. He stated that if there are no cost savings the interest in reinstating that service would most likely be local control, and if there were a desire of the Council to consider that, he would ask for time and resources to conduct an economic analysis. Discussion continued. Mr. Al Belanger, 137 - 13th street, stated that at the time Seal Beach went to County Fire there were very few options available since the Department was faced with a potential reduction of eight personnel, and noted that the average experience with the Department at that time was ten years. Chief Larry Holms, Director of Fire Services for the County of Orange, stated he wished to clarify that cost increases for fire services are directly attributable to FLSA, the average increase over the contract period somewhat less than five percent annually. Chief Holms advised that the revenue sources referred to in the proposal would be an option of the City regardless of who is providing fire service, I I 9-21-87 clarified that the population base of a City must be taken into consideration in reference to contract costs, and stated further that there is no operational difference between services provided by the County and Net 6. He noted that the County does lease space and utilize the Net 6 training center, and are members of the automatic aide agreement. He stated also that all fire departments in Orange County are going to be required to be equipped with the 800 MHZ radio system that had been referred to by Mr. Knight, noting that the cost of that system has already been covered by the County, and explained that the County has not I used the Net 6 dispatch system for a number of years as it was found that response was faster with a financial saving by handling calls at the County level. Chief Holms advised that the County does have agreements and works closely with all military bases, and stated that if there is a new engine at the local base, unless the situation has changed recently, they still operate under Navy regulations that does not allow their single engine company to respond outside of their area. With regard to employee costs, he reported the County has offered an 8.3 percent package over a three year period of time which to date has not been accepted, noting that the FLSA is the factor that has had the greatest impact on the County fire budget. The City Manager clarified that the City could impose fees for services as outlined in Mr. Knight's proposal whether those services are performed by staff or by contract, which could offset costs to the General Fund. Councilmember Risner requested a legal opinion with regard to imposing such fees. Discussion continued. Clift moved, second by Hunt, to take no action on this matter at this time and that it be presented to Council for annual review in September 1988. Councilmember Risner requested that this matter be held over and that the Council be provided with data relating to any cost savings that have been realized by the City. Councilman Grgas concurred, stating that he also wished to obtain additional input regarding the matter prior to a final decision. The motion, with consent of the second, was withdrawn. Councilman Hunt added that he would like to see a further analysis, possibly for a five to seven year period, of the cost growth of a comparable City fire department. Hunt moved, second by Risner, to postpone this matter for approximately four weeks, that the City Manager provide the data requested by Council, without further indepth analysis. I AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ZOETER UPDATE The City Manager reported that agreement has been reached, and the City Attorney is preparing the purchase agreement between the City and Los Alamitos Unified School District for purchase of the Zoeter site parcel nAn, that he and the City Attorney have completed negotiations with partnership of Gemtel and DJM for development of parcel "An, and it is anticipated that all of the documents will be completed for I presentation to the Council at the second meeting of October. . BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Councilman Grgas requested that the District One appointment to the Project Area Committee be held over. 9-21-87 I COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Risner asked that the City Manager prepare a report for Council setting forth the pros and cons of limiting Planning Commission membership to two terms, as the Charter limits the terms of members of the City Council. with regard to the variance request for the addition of a 454 square foot bedroom to a legal nonconforming dwelling and the addition of two parking spaces considered earlier in the meeting, Councilman Grgas requested that the Planning Commission reconsider the 31.5 dwelling units per acre requirement under the minor modification zoning provisions and determine if that density is in fact an appropriate criteria for determining whether or not such modifications should be permitted. He stated that the original intent of that particular zoning provision was to allow legal nonconforming uses a one time, ten percent expansion approval, and that until this particular case the limitation of 31.5 dwelling units per acre did not demand further consideration, noting that as currently written, approval of the variance considered by the Council would have been deemed a grant of special privilege. Mayor Wilson added she felt it would be of benefit to the City to allow the addition of the two parking spaces along with the improvement to the property. Council also noted that the existing triplex could be converted to larger duplex units with the two parking spaces which in turn could generate financial return equal to or greater than the triplex. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. I ADJOURNMENT Hunt moved, second by Clift, to adjourn the meeting until Tuesday, September 29th at 7:00 p.m. as previously discussed. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 11:57 p.m. C~ty Seal Approved: ~-) t~-A-.A~ l1ayo Attest I