Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1987-10-19 10-13-87 / 10-19-87 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. I CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss a personnel item. The Council, by unanimous consent, adjourned to Closed Session at 7:l5 p.m. and reconvened at 7:48 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the annual evaluation of the City Manager and that no action had been taken. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent of those present, the meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m. and ex-offic~ City Council City Seal Approved: ~ ~. .1d~ Mayor Attest: I Seal Beach, California October 19, 1987 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:35 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mr. Hemphill, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Grgas moved, second by Hunt, 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: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried 10-19-87 AGENDA AMENDED Clift moved, second by Grgas, to consider agenda item nE", Resolution Number 3730, as the next item of business after the proclamations. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Wilson proclaimed October 19th through October 24th, 1987 as nWater Awareness Week." The Mayor proclaimed October 25th through the 31st, 1987 as nRed Ribbon Week" and encouraged participation in drug awareness activities. The month of October, 1987 was proclaimed "Toastmasters Communications Monthn by Mayor Wilson. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3730 - HONORING K. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL - EAGLE SCOUT AWARD Resolution Number 3730 was presented to Council and read in full by Mayor Wilson entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND COMMENDING K. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL FOR ACHIEVING THE BOY SCOUT OF AMERICA EAGLE AWARD.n Risner moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 3730 as presented. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Mayor Wilson presented a copy of the Resolution to Mr. Campbell with congratulations. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5-86 - NONCONFORMING DISASTER CLAUSE Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider Zoning Text Amendment 5-86, the nonconforming disaster clause. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing has been advertised as required by law, and reported receipt of a communication from Mr. John Mielke, 605 Sandpiper Drive, suggesting that the amendment should reflect the destruction of a building to the extent of more than seventy-five percent of its replacement value rather than fifty percent, and requesting that the sunset clause for nonconforming buildings greater than fifty years be deleted. The Development Services Director presented the staff report, noting the extensive public input and deliberations by the Planning Commission. The Director pointed out that the Commission recognized the inherit problems experienced by property owners of nonconforming structures or uses, and attempted to ameliorate those problems, while still providing the City with a firm commitment that nonconforming structures will someday be in conformance with current zoning codes. Mr. Knight briefly reviewed the extensive reports and supporting information that had been provided to the Commission and Council. The Director summarized the provisions of the draft ordinance as follows: 1) allows for the reconstruction of residential units, subject to a plan review, if they can provide the minimum amount of parking required by Code plus all other regulations and standards, limiting rebuilding density to 1250 square feet per unit, however allows fractions of units to round up to the next highest whole number; 2) allows for the reconstruction of residential units, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, if they can provide a minimum of one parking space per unit and meet all I I I 10-19-87 I other regulations and standards, limiting rebuilding density to 1250 square feet per unit; 3) allows reconstruction of units'that are less than the required 950 square feet of floor area, subject to certain findings; 4) eliminates the protections in this ordinance for a structure that is sixty years.old or greater, the limit allowed to be extended for an additional twenty years upon approval of a plan review by the planning Commission; 5) the value of the building will be a reflection of the actual replacement value, as opposed to assessed value, and should an owner disagree they may retain an appraiser to perform an appraisal study; 6) nonconforming non-residential structures may be rebuilt, subject to a Conditional Use Permit; and 7) a property owner can voluntarily request an investigation to determine the number of legally existing units, the Department of Development Services will then issue a statement of findings upon conclusion of the investigation. The Director advised that due to a legal publication error, it is necessary to continue the public hearing until a time and date certain at which time a formal action may be taken, however at this time the Council may receive public comments and pose questions to the City staff. Mayor Wilson recalled her goal to pursue resolution of the disaster clause issue, which she stated is particularly important to approximately six hundred forty parcels in the old town area. She expressed her feeling that it would be anticipated that a property owner would want to improve their property as close to conformance with the Code as possible if it were destroyed, yet if a building was approved as legal conforming at an earlier time, reconstruction should be allowed to a reasonable degree of that conformance, and in some instances it may be determined to be more beneficial for a property owner to construct less units of a higher quality with an equal financial return, therefore upgrading the property and providing the needed parking. She noted that a number of units have been bootlegged over the years which has resulted in a loss of parking, stating she felt those units should not be allowed to be replaced. She pointed out there is a desire by some to not allow more business in the community due to alleged parking problems, although the City is in need of new business and the tax revenue that is derived therefrom. Mrs. Wilson stated she would support deleting the provision exempting structures greater than sixty years from the proposed ordinance, and expressed support for the valuation of a property based upon appraised or market value rather than assessed valuation. She acknowledged the need for various types of living units in the community, and referred to the 1978 downzoning which attempted to reduce population, stating she felt there is a need to correct that action by recognizing the needs of the entire community, and given the constitutional right for persons to use and develop their property, placing unusual and unrealistic restraints on the use of property is unfair. Mayor Wilson urged the citizenry to work together to resolve this issue, keeping in mind the property rights of others. In response to Councilman Grgas, the Development Services Director explained that the concept of the sixty year provision is that at some time the structures would be in conformance with zoning, the effect of eliminating that provision would merely extend the period for such structures to be in conformance with zoning and the General Plan, the sixty years only being a statistical life of a structure. The' Council indicated their intent to delete Section B-3-e from the proposed ordinance. The Council commended the staff and Planning Commission for their efforts in formulating the proposed ordinance. I I lO-19-87 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, 204 Ocean Avenue, stated he felt the disaster clause discussion relates to redevelopment, referred to his continuing education in zoning practices and redevelopment, specifically to methods of terminating nonconforming' uses through no rebuilding after disaster, no reuse after abandonment, termination after specific time periods, amortization, and immediate termination on a nuisance I theory. Reviewing the various provisions of the ord~nance, Mr. Stark referred to Section A, reconstruction if not more than fifty percent of a nonconforming building is destroyed, questioned the requirements of other provisions of the Article as referenced, stating that that Section changes nothing and does not allow rebuilding. He stated buildings are continually becoming nonconforming due to the ever Changing rules adopted by the City. The Director clarified that Section A covers any nonconforming building or use, is currently in the Code, and that staff is not recommending any change to that provision. Mr. Stark stated that under that Section even minimum damage would require Planning Commission approval, also that contrary to what has been publicized, ninety percent of properties in the City are nonconforming for a number of reasons. He stated also that Sections B-1 and B-2, dealing with properties destroyed more than fifty percent, do not change what currently exists and does not allow reconstruction without meeting certain parking requirements and other general provisions. With regard to Section B-3, General Provisions, he noted no reconstruction may enlarge a nonconforming building beyond its pre-existing size, and stated Hill properties would be nonconforming due to garage size, College Park West properties would be required to remove garage to den I conversions since the carports would encroach into setbacks, where College Park East could reduce the residence size since that area is allowed more square footage than elsewhere in the City. Mr. Stark noted Section 3-C requires units less than 950 square feet to meet minimum standards, and questioned how a condominium unit, such as those recently approved for the Mola development that are less than 950 square feet, could be rebuilt under this ordinance. Mr. Stark spoke in opposition to allowing the Director of Development Services to determine the replacement value of a property as set forth in Section B-3-f, and further questioned whose appraisal would apply if the property owner obtained an outside appraisal, noting that if a conflict of opinion were to arise, that could result in a legal action against the City. Mr. Stark referred to the reconstruction provisions for nonconforming non-residential structures as set forth in Section C, and inquired why such like for like replacement is not afforded residential structures. He also questioned the need under Section D, for a property owner to go through a special investigation for structural integrity and legally existing conditions, stating that from his experience the City is incapable of such investigations given the lack of records. Mr. Stark also cited the potential for legal actions resulting from conflicts with insurance companies that may have authorized payment for I reconstruction, and the City, who disallows or delays reconstruction until compliance with local conditions are met. He again referred to no reuse after abandonment, determined to be a period of three months, unless there is compliance with all regulations, questioning the applicability in a case where a disaster prevented use of a property for that period. He also questioned conflicting definitions of density, the number of units on a parcel of land, the square foot coverage of a parcel, and population. Mr. Stark stated he felt the proposed ordinance deserved 10-19-87 I careful scrutiny, and suggested that the City notify property owners of their nonconforming use and the proposed regulations regarding same. Mr. John Milke, 605 Sandpiper Drive, stated he owns a legal non-conforming property purchased in 1978 consisting of four units on two standard lots with two double garages, and inquired as to his ability to reconstruct if his property were destroyed. The Council informed Mr. Milke he could reconstruct the buildings as long as one parking space per dwelling unit is provided, which is what currently exists. Mr. Richard Elvidge, l009 Seal Way, stated the.disaster clause is too little for too few, another attack on non- conforming property. He asked the rationale for not allowing rebuilding in kind if a building is nonconforming, stating that the property is nonconforming because of the actions of the city, not the property owner, and expressed his feeling that if a building has been constructed or improved to City standards it should remain legal. Mr. Elvidge asked how a disaster clause could be justified that eliminates a mix of housing, stating housing must be preserved for more to live in Seal Beach. He stated he supports well planned improvements in the community but never as a result of disaster, and asked that the Council respect property owner's legal rights. Ms. Reva Olsen, 1625 Seal Way, spoke of property rights, as well as the adverse impact of the downzoning on a number of persons. Ms. Olsen noted that although some do not want density, she stated the owner of a four-unit property built in accordance to standards at the time, has as much right to remain as the single family home unless there is some kind of just compensation. She requested that the Council keep in mind the rights of property owners. Mr. Brent Matthews, 218 - 8th Street, expressed his support for a disaster clause, however not that under consideration. He stated that it appears that there are two separate standards, one applying to nonconforming residential and one applying to other buildings, which he stated he found to be unacceptable. He spoke of the Council's responsibility and obligation to the residents, and in support of allowing buildings that were legal and conforming at the time they were built, however nonconforming under current standards, to be rebuilt like for like. Mr. Olin Pate, 137 - 12th Street, stated he did not feel that there is a one bedroom apartment in town that is 950 square feet, therefore anything that is rebuilt under the disaster clause will have to be a two bedroom apartment, which would limit the people that are allowed to live in this community. With regard to a comparison of reconstructing residential versus non-residential structures, the Director explained that in the case of a residential unit many can rebuild kind for kind, and that Section C-l states that every non-residential structure shall improve the ratio of parking to square 'footage either by reducing the square footage or provide more parking on- site, noting that the Planning Commission has the authority to reduce the square footage up to fifty percent. Ms. Norma Hill, l505 Ocean Avenue, requested further clarification of the wording of Section C-l. The City attorney clarified that the entire Section must be read together, the first sentence being the minimum requirement, the following sentence requiring that the Commission improve the ratio of parking to floor area. I I Councilman Hunt referred to a multiple dwelling survey of the downtown area contained in the agenda information, and using those figures he noted that other than those units that are conforming, only those properties that are under thirty-five units per acre will have an opportunity to rebuild under the ordinance proposed, also that those 10-19-87 properties that are built over-density will remain because the property owners will not relinquish the economics of those situations. Mr. Hunt suggested consideration of a more practical approach if concessions are considered to the proposed ordinance, to allow the owner to replace or make improvements to their property now rather than at the. time of a disaster, for instance allow a replacement of a triplex with a duplex on a twenty-five foot lot, which would add parking, lower density, provide a higher quality building, I and the assessed valuation would be increased. Also if the intent is to promote single family residences and lower density, consider placing a thirty year moratorium on such changed use of property. Councilmember Risner concurred that the ordinance proposed is too restrictive, stated she had concerns with several provisions of the ordinance, noting specifically Section 2(a), requiring a minimum of one standard, open and accessible parking space, however giving no credit for tandem spaces that may exist, and questioned how a determination could be made as to what was legal at the time of construction. The Director responded that records by ordinance are available, as well as some building permits in the 1930's and 40's, however there are gaps in Planning Commission actions in the 1960's and 70's, that there is also a 1979 study that established legal, illegal and conforming units in the downtown area which is frequently used by staff, and noted that where there are no records the staff will conduct an investigation to determine approximate age of a building, therefore under what regulations it was constructed. Risner moved, second by Hunt, to delete Section 3(e), the sunset clause, from the proposed ordinance. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Councilman Grgas recalled that in 1972 the residents and property owners demanded a change of the General Plan to downzone residental uses to one-half of the potential development at that time, and in 1978 an ordinance was approved requiring two parking spaces per dwelling unit, which further restricted density, and he again offered a definition of density comparing a triplex to a single family unit. He also objected to the allegation that this is redevelopment in some disguise, also that ninety percent of the dwellings are nonconforming, stating that in fact a property may be designated as such due to a slight noncompliance with setbacks, which does not mean the property could not be rebuilt. Mr. Grgas stated his feeling that the issue is quality of life and fairness, and that the owner of a single family dwelling has as much right to protection of their property and equitable consideration as does the owner of units. With regard to comments regarding double standards and property rights, he stated there are people with single family dwellings that could argue they have as much right to place as much density on their property as those with units however are prohibited from doing so by the General Plan. He expressed his belief in fairness and equitable relief for all, pointing out the responsibility of a buyer to investigate what can be placed on a particular property, noting that the ordinance proposed allows a property owner to reconstruct something more than might have been previously entitled, and that the one space per dwelling unit is the same requirement that existed for residential uses prior to the 1972 General Plan downzoning. Mr. Grgas stated he felt the ordinance proposed is adequate with few exceptions, fair to all parties, that the representations made by the initiative group were not necessarily accurate and should be clarified for the record, I I 10-19-87 I further that he did not intend to support the initiative or specifically the disaster clause portion, and requested that the Council take his comments under consideration when acting on the ordinance. Councilman Hunt requested that the staff provide a brief report to show the effect and the number of properties that would benefit by reducing the size of a dwelling unit to 950 square feet for a l3,000 square foot lot, leaving the 1250 square foot requirement for a 2500 square foot lot, and show the intermediate steps. Councilmember Risner requested information regarding the square footage requirements for units prior to 1972. By unanimous consent of the Council, the public hearing was continued until a regular adjourned meeting on October 27th at 7:00 p.m. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NUMBER 1256 - UTILITY USERS TAX - AMENDMENT The City Manager advised that the Edison Company had requested this item be continued to a future meeting. Hunt moved, second by Clift, to continue proposed Ordinance Number 1256 entitled nAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VIII OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO UTILITY USERS TAX.n AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3731 - COMPLETION - TRASH RACK INSTALLATION - PROJECT NUMBER 564 Resolution Number 3731 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT #564, INSTALLATION OF TRASH RACK AT WEST END PUMP STATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ENER-TECH METALS, INC., AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 373l was waived. Risner moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 373l as presented. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3732 - INTENT TO VACATE - WATER SYSTEM/ APPURTENANT FACILITIES/EASEMENT - OCEAN AVENUE ALLEY/MARINE AVENUE Resolution Number 3732 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ABANDON THE DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES AND THE VACATION OF WATER SERVICE EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT 6, BLOCK "Cn IN TRACT NO. 1 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR.A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3732 was waived. The City Attorney corrected Section 3 of the Resolution to read "Section 8323 of the Streets and Highways Code.n Risner moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 3732 as corrected. I AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3733 - DESIGNATING COUNTY AGENT FOR SERVICE - REVENUE and TAXATION CODE ACTIONS Resolution Number 3733 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH DESIGNATING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AS ITS AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR ACTIONS UNDER THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3733 10-19-87 was waived. Risner moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3733 as presented. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER l254 - FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT Ordinance Number l254 was presented to Council for first reading entitled nAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 9B OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH I RELATING TO THE FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT BY RESCINDING ORDINANCES NUMBERED 1036 AND 1197." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1254 was waived. The City Engineer reported that the Ordinance proposed brings the City into compliance with revised federal guidelines, specifically adding definitions to the floodplain terms, and has been reviewed by the Environmental Quality Control Board as requested by Council. In response to a question posed by Council, Mr. Hemphill advised that the Trailer Park is not located within the floodplain area therefore there would be no additional requirements imposed other than those required by the Building Code. Hunt moved, second by Risner, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1254 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS nKn THROUGH nTn Councilmember Risner requested Items npn and nSn removed from the Consent Calendar. Risner moved, second by Clift, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items npn and nsn, as presented. K. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of September 21, 1987. L. Approved regular demands numbered 67607 through 67761 in the amount of $4l0,012.82, and payroll demands numbered 27354 through 27546 in the amount of $182,241.75 as approved by the Finance Committee and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I M. Bids were received for Project Number 596, Beach Sand Replenishment, until October 12, 1987 at ll:OO a.m. at which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: Challenge Engineering, Inc. Excel Paving Company $29,640.00 33,900.00 Awarded the contract for Project Number 596 to Challenge Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $29,640 and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. I N. Bids were received for Project Number 566, Reconstruction/Overlay of Westminster Boulevard, Phase II, until October 5, 1987 at l:30 p.m. at which time they were publiCly opened by the City Clerk as follows: 10-19-87 Excel Paving Company Vernon Paving Company Sully-Miller Contracting Company R. J. Noble Company Blair paving, Inc. Damon Construction Co. $187,039.50 190,3l8.10 202,306.30 205,565.00 208,094.10 2l5,540.00 O. Awarded the contract for Project Number 566 to the low bidder, Excel Paving Company, in the amount of $187,039.50 and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. Approved the agreement with Chevron USA, Inc. for use of the City's pier landing facilities and parking lot for the period November 1, 1987 through October 31, 1988 with provision for a one year extension, and authorized the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. Approved Year XII Housing/Community Development Contract Number C40320, Seal Beach Boulevard Revitalization, and Contract Number C4032l, reconstruction of Dolphin Avenue alley, and authorized the Mayor to execute the Contracts on behalf of the City. Received and filed the letter from the Orange County Board of Supervisors regarding an intergovernmental association study. I Q. R. I T. ACknowledged and accepted the resignation of the District Two and District Four representatives to the Citizens Participation Committee, and declared same to be vacant. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR I ITEM npn - REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - TRAFFIC STUDY - BIXBY SPECIFIC PLAN In response to Council, the Director of Development Services advised there are several alternatives being proposed for consideration under the traffic study, retaining the existing alignment of Lampson Avenue, realigning Lampson with St. Cloud Drive, realignment with Rossmoor Center Drive, and realignment with Rossmoor Center Drive and retain the existing link with Lampson Avenue connecting with Seal Beach Boulevard. He added that the traffic study will generate specific numbers, for example how many trips the project will generate, the consultant using models to distribute traffic over a network by percentages, and at conclusion the impact can be determined as well as the type of improvements that would be required to absorb the traffic. He noted that the study would also take into consideration the development of a transportation management program which is being promoted at the County level as a means to reduce the impact of traffic on streets. Mr. Knight reported that the traffic consultant will be retained by and work for the City, and that he and the City Engineer will work closely with and review all aspects of the study. He also advised that the report would take into consideration the a.m. and p.m. traffic peaks, the average daily traffic over a twenty-four hour period, and that there 10-19-87 will be separate traffic counts and studies for each of the proposed land uses. With regard to concerns that have been expressed by Rossmoor residents, the Director reported those concerns are one of the reasons for taking into consideration the alternatives, the study to give specific focus to any impact on the Rossmoor area. Councilman Clift added that considering Rossmoor Center Drive as an alternative may very well draw the 605 freeway traffic off of Lampson to continue a northboun~ route. Risner moved, second by Hunt, to approve the Request for Proposal for a I traffic study of the Bixby Specific Plan. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ITEM "Sn - COMMUNICATION - RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Councilmember Risner suggested that a response be made by the City Manager to the communication from the Residential Homeowners Association with regard to the new construction on the Rockwell International property. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to receive and file the communication. Mrs. Risner stated she would respond to the letter if there was no objection from the Council. Council indicated they had no objection. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ZOETER UPDATE The City Manager reported that the Zoeter status report had been presented to the Redevelopment Agency this date, however again reviewed his update memorandum for the City Council. REPORT - RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE The Assistant City Manager referred to his 1982 report to the Council with regard to the feasibility of constructing and operating a recreational vehicle storage lot in the area of the City Yard. He stated that with the assistance of the Public Works Department that report has been updated and the estimated cost of constructing the facility is $73,000, noting that the amount of available land has been reduced somewhat due to the proposed construction of the animal care facility, therefore the number of spaces that could be available for use would be sixty-four. Mr. Joseph reported that local rent for a twenty-five foot recreational vehicle ranges from $31 to $45 per month with an average of $38.75, and with a seventy-five percent occupancy, annual income would be estimated at $22,320 while operating costs are estimated to be $27,000. Noting the inability for persons to park their RV's on their property or on the street, Councilmember Risner suggested that the staff explore a privately operated storage lot. The Assistant City Manager responded that there is an implied responsibility with entering into an agreement for use by private property with regard to protection and security, stating that if the area were larger and could accommodate greater volume it could possibly be more cost effective. The City Manager questioned whether the City would pursue a fair market rental or subsidize the operator for providing the service. Members of the Council noted their concern with liability and adequate protection of private vehicles, also with any subsidy of the operation. Discussion continued. Risner moved, second by Clift, to request staff to investigate and request proposals for the development and operation of a recreational vehicle storage area adjacent to the City Yard facility, including all improvements that I I 10-19-87 would be required to improve the site. Councilman Hunt noted his understanding that this would be a request for proposals only, with no expenditure of City funds. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION TERMS The City Manager stated that at the request of Council the staff has prepared a report regarding the feasibility of placing a two term limit on members of the Planning Commission, expanded by staff to include all appointed boards and commissions. He advised that the present appointment procedures are practical and common in cities throughout the State, allowing nomination to a position with ratification by a majority of the Council, similar procedure for removal, and reappointment or replacement upon the expiration of a term. He stated he would recommend one change however, that instead of terms beginning at an established date and running for a period of years, that the appointed term be commensurate with that of the members of the City Council however without a maximum number of terms. Given the possibility that consecutive members of the Council may choose to appoint the same individual, Mr. Nelson stated he did not feel it would be appropriate for the Council to remove from any elected official the right of choice. Councilmember Risner stated she felt that the intent of the Council's request was to retain the appointment procedures as they presently exist, however place a limitation on the number of terms a member of the Planning Commission may serve, as exists for members of the City Council, and further that the request was not intended to apply to other boards and commissions. Considerable discussion followed with members of the Council expressing their individual views. A suggestion resulting from the discussion was that the terms of Planning Commissioners either be coincident with the Council member or expire in the odd year following the election of the Council district representative. After further discussion, Risner moved, second by Hunt, to retain the present appointment procedure, and that the City Attorney prepare an ordinance to place a two consecutive four year term limitation on members of the Planning Commission. I AYES: NOES: Hunt, Risner, Wilson Clift, Grgas Motion carried APPOINTMENT - PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE Councilman Grgas requested that the District One appointment to the Project Area Committee be held over. CITY MANAGER COMPENSATION It was the unanimous consensus of the Council to continue this item until the next meeting. I CITY COUNCIL ITEMS/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Christopher Marra, l009 Seal Way, stated he felt that the Council is proceeding towards a constructive resolution of the nonconforming disaster issue. Mr. Marra reported that sidewalks and curbs, on the southerly side of Ocean Avenue, the Seal Way alley, as well as the sidewalk adjacent to John's market, are in a condition of disrepair, that the alleys and walkways need cleaning, trash barrels need to be sanitized, and the water fountains at the pier are in need of cleaning and repair. He complained about persons not 10-19-87 / 10-27-87 respecting others property while walking their animals, also spoke of the lack of water conservation by a number of residents. Mr. Marra complained of a local developer removing trees from properties in the City at the time of construction and asked that an effort be made to have those trees donated to the City rather than be destroyed. Councilman Grgas requested that the staff look into the street sweeping schedule on both sides of Electric Avenue in a effort to have that street swept more frequently. There I being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel matters. The Council, by unanimous consent, adjourned to Closed Session at 10:31 p.m. The Council reconvened at 12:25 a.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order, and the City Attorney reported the Council had met in Closed Session to discuss matters as previously reported. ADJOURNMENT Clift moved, second by Hunt, to adjourn the meeting until Tuesday, October 27th at 7:00 p.m. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried By unanimous consent of the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:26 a.m. I Approved: ~'I..~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California October 27, 1987 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Councilman Grgas led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: I Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner Absent: None Also present: Mr. Thomas, Acting City Manager/Finance Director Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk