Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1987-11-02 10-27-87 / 11-2-87 The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 9:44 p.m. and reconvened at 9:54 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney stated the Council discussed the matter previously reported. ADJOURNMENT Grgas moved, second by Hunt, to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I of the Approved:' ~~ /~, I . I , ~.~.~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California November 2, 1987 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:25 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 Mrs. Walker, Administrative Aide/Planning Mr. Osteen, Recreation Director Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Clift 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 I ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Wilson proclaimed November 14th, 1987 as nMedal of Honor Day. n I I I 11-2-87 November 7th through November 14th, 1987 was proclaimed nHazardous Materials Awareness Weekn by Mayor Wilson. AGENDA AMENDED Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to amend the agenda to consider Item nGn, Resolution Number 3738, out of order at this time. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3738 - COMMENDING PATRICIA JONES - 1987 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION AWARD Resolution Number 3738 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND COMMENDING PATRICIA JONES FOR RECEIVING THE 1987 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION AWARD.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3738 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3738 as presented. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5-87 - RECYCLING FACILITIES - ZONING REGULATIONS Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider Zoning Text Amendment 5-87, establishing regulations for recycling 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 presented the staff report, explaining that the regulations contained in the proposed Ordinance are in response to AB 2020, the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, which went into effect October 1, 1987. He explained that subsequent to that date cities are required to permit small recycling facilities to operate within convenience zones defined under specific criteria, and that cities may adopt reasonable rules and regulations with regard to the operation of such facilities within the guidelines of AB 2020. Mr. Knight reviewed each of the regulations contained in the proposed Ordinance. He also clarified that the two designated recycling locations for Seal Beach are the Safeway and Lucky markets. There being no communications from the audience, Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1257 - ESTABLISHING ZONING REGULATIONS - RECYCLING FACILITIES Ordinance Number 1257 was presented to Council for first reading entitled nAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING ZONING REGULATIONS FOR RECYCLING FACILITIES AND AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1257 was waived. Risner moved, second by Clift, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1257 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/GENERAL PLAN/ HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider Environmental Impact Report 87-1, General Plan Amendments 2B-87, 2C-87, and 2D-87, and Amendment to the Hellman Specific Plan. The City Clerk certified that notice of the 11-2-87 public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law and reported that no communications had been received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services reported the Mola Development Corporation's proposal to develop a portion of the vacant Hellman property has been before the City for nearly one year, has been the subject of numerous workshops, public discussions, and staff reviews, with formal review and actions by the Environmental Quality Control Board and the Planning Commission. He noted that a 1981 plan submitted by I ponderosa called for one thousand residential units on one hundred ten acres and although that plan received approval, ponderosa was unable to proceed with the development. Mr. Knight reported the plan submitted by Mola consists of a total of seven hundred seventy-three units on one hundred forty-five acres of land, the remaining land continuing to be designated for oil production, community park use, and flood control retention basin. He stated that of the one hundred forty-five acres that are the subject of the Specific Plan amendment, one hundred five acres is proposed for an eighteen hole golf course, six hundred sixty condominium units, three stories with a maximum height of thirty-nine feet are proposed on twenty-four acres, and one hundred thirteen single family homes, two story with a maximum height of thirty-two feet, are proposed for the remaining approximate sixteen acres, also that under the recommendation of the Planning Commission Gum Grove Park would become part of the golf course, reclaimed and restored under a preservation plan, improved with a nature trail theme with access to the general public. Mr. Knight noted that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project, identifying all significant factors for which mandatory findings were prepared and will become conditions of the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map, and in order to implement the Specific Plan, amendments are proposed to I the General Plan Land Use, Circulation and Open Space Elements to reflect the reduction of units, a change in the First Street connection to a secondary highway, identifies a north/south connection from westminster to First Street as a primary road, and the reduced size of the community park. Mr. Knight reviewed the relative elements of the Specific Plan and the various actions that will be necessary in the future to ultimately implement the project. He also noted that there are other agencies that Mola will be required to gain entitlements from, payment of the development fee to the Los Alamitos School District, approval from the Corp of Engineers and the Coastal CommisSion, and the State Fish and Game who will be concerned with the wetlands issue and the mitigating measures that will be required. The Director reviewed in detail the results of issues raised at the Planning Commission level with regard to night lighting of the golf course's driving range, unit size, noise mitigation of oil facilities, traffic concerns specific to impacts on Bolsa Avenue, parkland issues relating to Gum Grove Park and the golf course, and Quimby fees. He reported the staff would support the Planning Commission recommendations as set forth in the findings contained in the October 27th staff report with regard to Gum Grove, that Gum Grove should remain a part of the golf course, should be reclaimed and restored and that access through a nature trail be provided, I also recommending that the City Council, at the subdivision level, consider some credit for some of the improvements that will be occurring in the Grove area since that would benefit the general public at large and fit the requirements of the Quimby Act. He also pointed out that the architect for the Mola development has requested that the ten foot sideyard setback for the zero lot line single family units be reduced to eight feet, and stated that the staff is not opposed to the eight feet as it would provide more than I I I 11-2-87 adequate setback, however also feels that the ten foot setback would also be workable. In response to Council, the Director stated that Gum Grove Park is approximately 8.5 to 9 acres, the developer proposing to retain approximately 5.4 acres of the existing Grove and add l.4 new acres for a total acreage of about 6.8. The Director reported staff would recommend approval of the Ordinance and Resolutions relating to the Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan and Specific Plan amendments for the Hellman property development. 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. Frank Mola, President of the Mola Development Company, requested consideration of two items contained in the EIR, under Section A2-c, page five, relating to the use of piles for the condominium development in the liquefaction area, requested language that would allow the flexibility to utilize an alternative technique as prescribed by the soils engineer if such technique becomes available by the start of construction, also under Section 12, page twenty-six, he stated that should the law change and the $1.50 per square foot school development fee be waived in the future, they would request that consideration be given to allow payment or waiver of those fees under the then current law. The City Attorney clarified that the law that is in effect at the time building permits are issued would apply. Mr. Tony Luna, l7l7 Bayou Way, suggested that an additional recreation area be considered as a requirement of this development, to include a park, baseball diamond and tennis courts, stating that more recreation facilities are needed now and more so with the development of additional units. Mr. Gaylan Ambrose, 613 Seabreeze, spoke for development of this property as industrial or other uses rather than with condominiums, which he stated most often become rentals, bring more people and traffic problems. Mr. Ron Moore, 605 Taper Drive, concurred with statements made by Mr. Luna, stating he felt that City park facilities are below what is needed, that there are no such facilities on the Hill or in Old Town. He expressed his support for a full-size nine hole golf course and the remaining land devoted to park, baseball diamonds and tennis courts. Mr. Moore spoke of the need for adequate tennis facilities in the community, requested that the existing courts at the Zoeter site be left in tact as long as possible while the Pacific Coast Highway frontage of that property is being prepared for development. He also stated preference for the ten foot setback requirement for the single family homes. Mr. Don Campbell, 220 Coastline Drive, also spoke regarding the loss of tennis courts at the zoeter site, and stated that given the amount of money the City will realize from the development, he felt that the loss of those courts should be a stimulous to pursue a tennis center for the community. Mr. Bill Morrison, 1729 Crestview Avenue, expressed his concern with the small size of some of the condominium units proposed, which he stated may not attract the type of owner that is desired and result in a greater turnover. With regard to night lighting, he expressed his opposition to the recommendations from the Planning Commission, stating he did not feel that the glare can be controlled, also requested some assurance that tractors would not be used to recover golf balls during evening hours. Mr. Morrison stated he was in agreement with a recommendation that citizen input be allowed with regard to the design of the golf course. Mr. Harlan Kelly, 1125 Catalina Avenue, stated his preference for a longer, full- size golf course with some tennis courts and parkland rather 11-2-87 than the proposed shorter eighteen hole course. Ms. Mary Johnson, 1505 Crestview Avenue, expressed her concern with the night lighting of the driving range and the possibility that the established hours may be extended some time in the future, also concern with noise in the evening hours. Stating that if Gum Grove is made part of the golf course, Ms. Johnson asked how that would effect the homes that back to the Park since there are decks and fencing up to that area. The Director responded that there is a requirement to develop a uniform fence theme adjacent to the golf course I throughout the entire area, which could be wrought iron, a see-through fence of part masonry, or a solid block wall, confirming that the individual properties would not have gates opening into the Park area. Mr. Knight noted also that there are some properties that have encroached into the Park over the years which is an issue that the developer will have to take into consideration. Mr. Greg Weiler, 233 Stanford Lane, member of the Recreation and Parks Commission, noted that the determination of the Commission on this matter had differed from that of the Planning Commission, stating that at the time of the hearing the exact footprint of the project with regard to Gum Grove Park was not known. He advised that- the Commission's feeling is that the Park to date has not been utilized adequately, however it is recognized there is a potential for use and it is something to be preserved. Mr. Weiler stated it is critical that it be known now what recreation and park facilities will be guaranteed, even recreation facilities that will be used by children of the residences in the development, and that he did not feel that the golf course is being provided primarily in the interest of tAe community but because it will aid the sale of the homes, also questioned if the golf course would be private or open to the public, owned by the City or by Mola. Mr. Weiler I reported also that the Recreation and Park Commission recommended no credit be given for the golf course, noting that the City is entitled to a certain amount of land and/or fees under State law, that the golf course can be required to be built in any manner the City desires, and cautioned that if credit is given for the golf course and Gum Grove Park improvements, there should be something set aside for other recreational facilities, which he felt should be addressed under this Specific Plan process. Mr. John Harper, former Seal Beach resident, stated he is now a resident of a Mola condominium development in Huntington Beach, that project having similarities to this project. He expressed support for this project, specifically the condo development portion, and took some exception to comments with regard to density, parking problems, the type of persons who occupy small units, and spoke in support of the quality of development such as proposed. Mrs. Sally Hirsch, 1325 Crestview Avenue, expressed concern as a resident abutting Gum Grove, noting conflicting statements with regard to acreage, and inquired as to what portion is proposed to be removed and where the added acreage would be. The Director referred to a map outlining the proposed 6.8 acre Gum Grove Park area, pointing out that some existing trees would be removed as the result of grading or as a I portion of the golf course, and that 1.4 acres would be added to the easterly portion that currently has no trees, the developer being required to plant eucalyptus trees in that location and put in a trail system. Mrs. Hirsch stated she would not be in support of removing any portion of the existing Park given its habitat for animals and use by citizens. 11-2-87 I In response to public comments, Mr. Mola recalled their efforts some sixteen months past to seek a consensus as to whether a golf course was desired. He reported that when the responses to a questionnaire were returned, concern was expressed with regard to Gum Grove Park and the lack of recreation facilities in Seal Beach, and stated that although not everyone plays golf, the golf course is a one hundred five acre amenity of grass with no structures, and given current land values this could be considered a rarity. He stated that as it currently exists, the Park is a series of degraded eucalyptus trees, a fire hazard, and that it is their plan to utilize a specialist to clean and trim, salvage what can be, plant first growth eucalyptus trees and extend the grove into a manicured golf course. He acknowledged that the golf course will aid in the sale of their product, however the cost of implementing the golf course, with the cost of the land, will not compensate the investment, the landscaping alone costing up to seven million dollars, and that even with an active golf course there is not projected to be more than a five to six percent return on the investment. Mr. Mola emphasized their intent to improve Gum Grove Park, not destroy it, noting also that the fluctuations that are shown on the map with regard to Park boundaries are mostly due to voids in the property itself. He referred to his similar projects of larger and smaller scale with regard to condominium units, stating that the bachelor and one bedroom units, ranging from 550 to around l300 square feet, have been found to be an affordable product for an average income of approximately $70,000 per year. He advised that this project is scheduled to average $150,000 for the condos and in excess of $300,000 for the 2,000 to 3,000 square foot homes. He concurred with prior comments that the City should be aware of what they will be getting, noting specifically the eighteen hole executive golf course, 660 condominiums with their own recreation facilities consisting of a pool, jacuzzi, racquetball courts, 113 homes with their own yards and private facilities, a clubhouse providing facilities for the golf course, and a lake system throughout the project, which acts as a storm drain system as well as a means of addressing some of the issues that need to be dealt with at the State level. Mr. Mola stated they have looked at the possibility of providing tennis courts on-site however there is only so much acreage to utilize, that there have been discussions with regard to a nine hole golf course which, he stated, is not economically feasible unless the City wishes to own that facility. He expressed his feeling that between the open space being provided, the refurbishing of Gum Grove Park, the payment of some Quimby fees to assist development of future facilities, he felt this to be an outstanding project versus what currently exists and is called for in the Specific Plan for that property. In response to the Council, he acknowledged that it may be possible to utilize the area at the west end of Gum Grove that is somewhat level and, with the assistance of the staff, develop a specific use area for children with some playground equipment, however noted that to allow such use without some organization of the Park could pose problems. Mr. Mola further suggested that consideration be given by the City to acquiring Gum Grove Park or any portion thereof, citing City liablity on property that it does not own as well as future maintenance. With regard to Quimby dedications, Mr. Mola explained that the City will set the value for dedicated land and will either require the dedication of land and/or fees, and confirmed that his previous suggestion with regard to Gum Grove Park was not meant as a negotiation for Quimby dedications. Council noted the Environmental Quality Control Board recommendation that Gum Grove improvements not be applied to Quimby credits since that has been an I I 11-2-87 historical use, also that the golf course not receive credit. Mr. Mola again pointed out their involvement with the City and this project for the past sixteen months and the added cost of the project with each month of delay, he also noted their question to the community in the early stages as to what was desired in the project, the response being a golf course, and given the soils conditions it was felt that use would be of benefit, not only providing open space recreation to the City but also a benefit from a marketing standpoint. Mr. Mola stated that the next phase, I the Tentative Map, will be much more specific than the items currently before the Council, and spoke for approval of the documents submitted at the earliest time possible. Councilman Grgas expressed his feeling that this development proposal is a much more desirable proposal than had been the ponderosa plan, noting that the developer is successful, capable, and provides a known quality product. He stated however that he was not yet personally satisfied with what may be Quimby dedications, that he would like to submit certain suggestions for consideration during the approval process, and advised Mr. Mola that he did not feel that the Council would be ready to act on this matter at this meeting. He also expressed his feeling that given the considerations that the developer has given thus far to the desires of the Council and the community, he did not foresee a desire to not approve the plan. Councilman Hunt reported his observance of the high use age of the Zoeter tennis courts, and with their ultimate loss, the need to replace those facilities. He also noted community enthusiasm for the project proposed, however informed Mr. Mola that any delays in the approval process may be thoughtful in nature rather than intentional. Mr. Bruce Stark, 204 Ocean Avenue, spoke regarding the 550 I square foot units proposed and Mr. Mola's argument to the Commission that something less than 950 square feet is more saleable, stating that if that size unit is good for the Mola project it should also be available to the remainder of the community. With regard to the Quimby fees, he stated he felt that matter should be decided at the earliest possible time and if monies are to be dedicated they should be designated to a specific property for purchase or development, and if there is thought to acreage in this project, then it should be so specified, and expressed his feeling that Gum Grove Park is an asset worth saving. Mr. Stark questioned whether or not the Gum Grove would remain as a park for childrens use or if it is proposed to be part of the golf course, also supported the Recreation Commission recommendation that there be no credit given for the golf course. Mr. Stark asked if there was any assurance that the golf course is not land storage for future development. He stated further there should be assurance that any restrictions that are imposed by the City will be enforced, such as night lighting, also suggested clarification as to where parking would be provided for visitors to Gum Grove, the golf course and the condos, questioned whether or not the condominium facilities would be open to the public, and asked if the cost of City services had been taken into consideration for this project. Mr. Carl San Filippo, 801 I Avalon Drive, stated he felt the Gum Grove area should not become an issue, that it is and will continue to pose a problem to adjacent residents unless there is'more enforcement, particularly with regard to animal usage. He spoke in support of the development as proposed, asked why it was being reviewed again since the plan had received indepth review at the Planning Commission level, and stated his only concern would be the control of dust and noise during development. 11-2-87 I Mr. Damon Swank, 1685 Crestview Avenue, expressed his concern regarding the noise generated from the oil wells, specifically along Seal Beach Boulevard, and the potential detriment to the project. He referred to the three mitigating measures proposed, that the wells be surrounded by block walls, electrified, or that the residences be constructed with sealed windows, and requested that consideration be given to requiring that the wells be electrified, which he stated is a common practice, since it has not been proven that the walls would be effective and further, that fixed windows is not an acceptable mitigating measure. Mr. Swank questioned what would be the City's position after the project is built and it is found that the walls do not mitigate the noise, therefore how would the developer be required at that point to make needed improvements, especially on property that remains in the ownership of the Hellman estate. The Director responded that although electrification was an alternative, walls have been found to also be an effective measure of controlling sound, and noted that while the Planning Commission had approved specific language to require further study of mitigating measures during the subdivision map process, he suggested it would be appropriate for the Council to specify their desires under the development notes for the Specific plan, even though there would be future opportunities to place specific mitigating measures. He confirmed that wells along Seal Beach Boulevard would cause the most significant impact on the residential units. Mr. Mola added that the wells along the Boulevard have been proposed to be walled with some type of decorative fencing, as well as those within the project area, and it would be their recommendation that those areas be electrified in connection with the project, and with regard to the wells that lie within the balance of the Hellman site, he stated there will be a wall along the perimeter of the project with most residences at least one hundred feet from that wall, and noted the high cost impact on the oil producer to require an alternative to the natural gas pumps presently being used. He explained further their intent to use a masonry block wall with pilasters of fancier block or stone, with intense landscaping for screening purposes. Mr. Rob Verman, 617 Seabreeze Drive, referred to the need for additional open space in the City, stated this is an opportunity to have a quality project however asked that there be guarantees that what is approved will also be the end product, and spoke in support of retaining the ten foot single family setbacks. Members of the Council indicated their desire to continue the public hearing until the next meeting, however stated they wished to comment on the proposed plan. By unanimous consent, the Council recessed at 9:23 p.m. and reconvened at 9:41 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Councilman Grgas referred to a possible north/south access road connecting at Westminster in the proximity of Studebaker Road, which he stated he felt would relieve the impact of traffic at First Street and Pacific Coast Highway, and Seal Beach Boulevard, and provide an alternative access to the project area, and that he felt that traffic will be a greater issue once the project is built and occupied. He noted that this was an element discussed in the Environmental Impact Report but was not a mitigating requirement of the project, and requested that the staff describe if this would be a viable alternative and why it was not an EIR requirement. The Director responded that the need for that connection was not shown by the traffic generated either by the project or by traffic generated from I I 11-2-87 Seal Beach Boulevard or Pacific Coast Highway, and although he could not speak for the traffic consultant, he stated that if that connection were made it may lessen traffic impact on the areas mentioned. Councilman Grgas requested that the Council take into consideration the north/south connector road. He also pointed out that the Specific Plan calls for one pocket park in the single family residential area off of Seal Beach Boulevard, suggesting that a second park should be considered as a condition of approval, possibly located in the northwest corner of the single family portion of the project and adjacent to a cluster of oil wells, effectuating further noise reduction, however pointed out that the park area would require that one residential unit be deleted. He indicated support for the suggestion of a children's playground in the area of the existing parking lot at Gum Grove, suggesting also that the city-owned property in the vicinity of the City Yard could be considered for such use. With regard to the development of a community park on the Hellman property upon conclusion of oil extraction activities, the Development Services Director advised that oil production is likely to continue for about another twenty years, that the property owners have been approached regarding purchase of the subject property and it does not appear to be a viable option at this time. Mr. Grgas suggested that the Council look closely at the credits that may be given to the developer for Quimby Act dedications and what may be obtained from the plan as it currently exists, noting that there may be additional benefits that the City may realize during the overall approval process. Referring to public comments, Councilmember Risner suggested that a nine hole golf course should be an alternative for consideration, and with regard to Gum Grove Park, given its historical existance as a wilderness area, she stated she did not feel that activities for children with playground equipment was a use the residents adjacent to the Park were looking for. Mrs. Risner questioned the exact acreage of the Park and a statement in the EIR, page eleven, that there would be an impact to the Park by eliminating one-half of the overall acreage, noting the designation of Gum Grove as an urban forest as set forth in the General Plan, and questioned further the possibility that this project may not be consistent with the land use plan of the Coastal Commission. She expressed concern with a statement contained in the Findings that would require removal of all eucalyptus trees and stumps infected with the longhorn borer, and referred to a consultant report that stated there was severe infestation of approximately one hundred thirty- one trees, some of which could possibly be saved if they became sap producers, accomplished through the installation of a drip water system, and suggested that a means must be explored to save as many trees as possible. Councilmember Risner concurred with Mr. Grgas' suggestion regarding a north/south connector road, however questioned the traffic impact on Bolsa Avenue. She suggested that consideration might be given to incorporating some type of tennis facilities in the area of the driving range, and in reference to the suggestion to develop park facilities adjacent to the City Yard, noted that location is being looked at for possible recreation vehicle storage. She inquired as to what effect there would be on the project if there was an area identified as a potential hazardous waste site. The Director responded that if it were designated as a hazardous waste zone, an immediate two thousand acre zone would be established adjacent thereto, therefore no development could take place unless a variance was received from the State of California, the developer having to apply for that variance since such zone would effect some of the I I I I I I 11-2-87 condominiums. He verified that the project was reviewed by the State Department of Health through the clearinghouse process, also that the potential impact on archaeological sites as set forth in the EIR was a determination specific to this project, advising that an archaeologist would be retained to conduct a study of the site and prepare a report for submittal to the City, the developer responsible for any related costs. Mr. Knight explained that the majority of the review process by State agencies will actively take place during the subdivision map process, and offered to forward all resulting reports to the Council. With regard to the width and future improvement of travel lanes as set forth in Section H-l(a) of the EIR, the Director stated that First Street is designated as a secondary highway, that Mola would be required to develop two travel lanes and at the time the remainder of the site is developed the other two travel lanes would be installed by that developer. He explained that at the present time and based upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, it is recommended that First Street be a public roadway from Seal Beach Boulevard to Pacific Coas~ Highway, that recommendation due to the lack of adequate information as to how a connection would be made at Regency Drive. He advised that the Specific Plan will allow the roadway connections to be further analyzed by the Council at the subdivision map level, noting that First Street currently represents a superior alternative that would connect at Forrestal. Mr. Knight confirmed that the removal of the electrical lines on Bolsa Avenue would also require the removal of the towers. He clarified that the entire proposed project is zoned Specific Plan and the golf course is a use so designated therein, not designated quasi- public land, that 18.1 acres were designated as community park under the ponderosa plan, where under this plan it is 17.7 acres. He stated further that Gum Grove is designated as a special use park, the City having no entitlement of that land, and explained that a public park is land that is under the permanent control or owned by the City. The City Attorney confirmed that the lease of Gum Grove expired several years past, however the City has continued the use of the area and has paid the taxes, therefore from that standpoint it could possibly be said that the lease has continued, however as far as any further entitlement it is basically confined to the past usage as defined by the former lease. He stated he felt that Gum Grove is of a different nature than other parks that the City owns or operates, advising that he was uncertain of what the intent was when the General Plan was adopted with regard to that land. Mrs. Risner stated her greatest concern lies with Gum Grove, and noted the recent cleanup of that area by the Conservation Corp, and the potential for saving a greater number of trees. The Director noted that the consultant report regarding Gum Grove stated that to aide in protecting the uninfected trees from the borer, abatement procedures would need to be undertaken including removal of all infested trees, that any remaining wood must be treated to insure that borers no longer exist, and that the stumps should be left in place to control the soil. He added that the estimated value of the trees is somewhere in the area of one million dollars, that twenty-eight trees are considered in good condition, two hundred twenty-nine in fair condition, the remainder either dead or a poor condition caused by the borer, therefore one hundred sixty to seventy trees are in need of being removed. Mr. Knight confirmed that if any trees are removed by MOla, a one to one replacement is recommended. Councilman Hunt stated he did have certain comments however assumed that there would be opportunity to do so when each resolution and the ordinance are considered. He did note 11-2-87 that the golf course proposed will have approximately two hundred fifty thousand hours of recreational use per year, the current tennis court useage more likely to be fifteen to twenty thousand hours, and stated his intent to be strongly supportive of the eighteen hole golf course that will be available to the public, whether the users be residents or from outside the community. Mr. Hunt also expressed difficulty in seeing the connection between the Mola development and the development of the 17.7 acre community park, and recognizing that if Quimby funds become available because of the Mola development they could be used for some park or recreational use in the community, therefore it would not seem reasonable that those funds be specifically designated to land where it is not known whether that land will ever become available to be used as parkland. He stated he hoped this would not become a major issue to this development. Councilman Clift stated he would like assurance that there will be a direct public road access from Seal Beach Boulevard to or through this project to Pacific Coast Highway, citing public safety as well as an alternative route for those who will reside in the project. The Director confirmed that there would be. Mayor Wilson expressed her support for the smaller square footage, affordable condominium units, which would potentially allow for more open space, and spoke for Gum Grove being part of the golf course if feasible. She also supported access from Seal Beach Boulevard via Regency to Pacific Coast Highway, spoke for the vacant City acreage adjacent to the City Yard being used for tennis facilities, that an active childrens park at the westerly end of Gum Grove be a consideration, and noted that the 17.7 acre community park will only come to be with future development of the Hellman property. The Mayor complimented the EQCB and the Planning Commission for their indepth study of this proposal, and the residents for their input. Mrs. Risner again expressed what she felt to be the feelings of Hill residents to retain Gum Grove as a wilderness area, and stated her concern regarding twenty percent of the condo units being 550 square feet, suggesting that possibly that percentage could be reduced to ten. Grgas moved, second by Risner, to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, wilson None Motion carried I I CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5-86 - NONCONFORMING DISASTER CLAUSE Mayor Wilson declared the continued public hearing regarding ZTA 5-86 open. The City Clerk reported a communication received from Mr. Joe Ribal, Seal Way, President of the Rental Homeowners Association, copies of which had been provided to the Council. Being present in the audience, Mr. Ribal, l2l5-l/2 Seal Way, acknowledged his letter to the Council with regard to the disaster clause and noted for the record that his communication was based upon his thoughts and recollection of comments during recent meetings of the Association where some thirty-five persons had expressed their views relating to this issue. Mr. Ribal read his I letter in full, noting the four year period over which this issue has been discussed. He stated, in part, that the desire for uniqueness and character of Old Town should not be an on-going guarantee for substandard housing, and it was his belief that the majority of the participants in meetings held by the Rental Association have made it clear that they could support a disaster clause that would require each rental unit to provide at least one off-street parking place, and be responsible during reconstruction to provide minimum setback requirements that would provide safety and I I I 11-2-87 protect the property rights of others. He stated the Association has not yet taken a position on the proposed initiative, noting that serious legal concerns have been expressed regarding wording of the initiative that addresses multiple issues, and advised that a number of persons feel that no matter the outcome of the initiative it would be prudent to finalize the disaster clause with the changes that have been discussed at previous meetings. Mr. Ribal asked if it is felt to be appropriate that housing units in Old Town be required to be not less than 950 square feet while possibly permitting twenty percent of the Mola development to construct 550 square foot units, noting that some Old Town residents may prefer larger gardens or additional parking, therefore a smaller square footage limit may be desirable. He also suggested that consideration might be given to the usefulness of the voluntary investigation provision, and the importance of advising the public that permit information is available without a formal investigation process. He asked that consideration be given to studying the proposals made by Councilman Hunt at the last meeting with regard to housing in Old Town. Mr. Ribal stated he felt it may be worthwhile to establish a framework for citizens to particpate in evaluating ideas and proposals that are made with regard to housing related problems. Mr. Norm Shutzberger, 228 - 13th Street, stated his support for the revised disaster clause, recalling past actions in the community that have resulted in the Planning regulations that now exist, under which many persons have purchased and built properties in the City. He noted the concerns of those who own properties not in conformity with zoning regulations and stated his belief that in the event of disaster those persons should be provided with a measure of security commensurate with the overall community plans, and that the requirement for reconstruction of legal nonconforming to provide one covered parking space, one-half of that required for new construction, is a fair and equitable compromise, which maintains the City's future desires for a reasonable density while providing relief to those impacted by a disaster, and providing a place to park for those who rent and those who own property. Mr. Bruce Stark, 204 Ocean Avenue, referred to the historical review of City zoning as reported at the last meeting, all provisions requiring parking, and recalled a comment at the Planning Commission level with regard to having a permit through CUP or variance which runs with the land, stating that in that case there are a number of buildings that are without parking that exist by virtue of a CUP or variance, adding that one parking space per unit may sound equitable but is not necessarily so in application. In response to a question of Mr. Richard Elvidge, 1009-1/2 Seal Way, the Development Services Director confirmed that there was a 1936 disaster clause and that subsequent zoning documents have shown that that provision was amended, and that the existing provision, which is just slightly different from 1936, was adopted in the early 1960's. With regard to enforcement of the disaster provisions, he advised he was not familiar with any records of properties destroyed greater than fifty percent and ~econstructed to conformity. Mr. Elvidge asked if the disaster clause would give unfair advantage to someone experiencing same, noting that improvements to his property must currently conform to requirements of existing Code, such as retaining bearing walls or fifty-one percent of the structure, however if the property were destroyed to greater than fifty percent he could reconstruct in entirety and extend the economic life of the property. There being no further public comments, Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. 11-2-87 Councilman Grgas commenced Council discussion by concurring that he did not feel that a 950 square foot minimum should be applied to mUlti-family units, where additional open space or other uses could be allowed and could minimize a building footprint. He requested that consideration be given to requiring a 950 square foot minimum for single family dwellings and that a 500 square foot minimum be allowed for mUlti-family units. Councilmember Risner concurred with the recommendation, however noted there may I be units smaller than the 500 square feet, and suggested that possibly no minimum should be placed on single family units unless it is prior to 1977 which was a 700 square foot requirement. She noted specifically the desire to provide relief for property owners destroyed by more than fifty percent through a disaster, however the unlikeliness of such occurrence. Council comments and suggestions continued. In addition to other recommendations, Councilmember Risner stated her intent to recommend the addition of a provision of the Government Code, as previously recommended by the Development Services Director, which would allow property owners to escape reassessment of their property if the reconstruction was caused by disaster. The Director reported that Government Code Section 43007 would allow persons who have nonconforming properties that lose units through a disaster clause and upon reconstruction of the units their property tax assessment would be at the original level as opposed to a higher level caused by new construction, noting that he believed that this provision was merely overlooked at the Planning Commission level. Councilman Hunt spoke in support of the proposed reduction of square footage of a building to 950 square feet. Discussion continued. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to amend Section B-l(c) to I change the 1250 square foot requirement to 950 square feet. The Director clarified that parking would be required regardless of the rounding up of units, and would not include tandem parking. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Mayor Wilson indicated her support for the square footage being proposed, also with the removal of the sunset clause and the revised method of establishing property value. She again expressed her feeling that anyone who would rebuild would do so to Code and be considerate of the rights of neighbors, however she stated she felt that it necessary to build safeguards into the proposed Ordinance, a fair and reasonable compromise for all, which would include one parking space per unit. She also expressed her support for a previous suggestion that reconstruction be allowed now rather than at the time of disaster. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to amend Section B-2(c) to change the l250 square foot requirement to 950 square feet. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I Considerable discussion followed with regard to amending Section B-3(c) to allow for rebuilding of units of 500 square feet rather than the standard requirement of 950 square feet. The intent was clarified that units of 500 square feet or greater would be allowed to rebuild without requiring Planning Commission consideration, and that units of less than 500 square feet would be subject to the findings as set forth and Planning Commission action. I I I 11-2-87 Risner moved, second by Grgas, to amend Section B-3 (c) to reflect 500 square feet rather than 950 square feet. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Councilmember Risner asked that a Section B-3 (f) be added, incorporating the provisions of Government Code Section 43007. The City Attorney advised he would request the opportunity to review the Government Code provision which provides for no reassessment if the building is rebuilt due to disaster and there is a reduction of units, in order to incorporate the appropriate wording. He also advised that this matter will be required to be referred back to the Planning Commission for a report based upon the changes that have been made. Mr. Stepanicich stated that the changes would be made and incorporated in the proposed Ordinance in a timely manner for submittal to the Planning Commission at their second meeting in November, with a report forthcoming to the Council thereafter. He also confirmed that if desired, the Ordinance could be adopted on an urgency basis when it is next considered by the Council. Councilmember Risner moved to amend Section C-2 to add the words nexcept loading zone setbacksn to the end of that Section, which is specific to the downtown commercial area. Mayor Wilson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried With regard to the special investigation provision and a suggestion made to allow an individual to request information regarding a property's legality, the City Attorney advised that the provision as proposed provides an effective means of applying the Ordinance, noting that as presently worded that provision is voluntary, and stated specifically that the City is required by law to provide such information upon request. Wilson moved, second by Clift, to refer the Ordinance as amended to the Planning Commission for a report on the changes made by the Council. Staff noted that the lower square footage had not been considered by the Commission. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1254 - FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT Ordinance Number 1254 was presented to Council for second 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 l036 AND 1197." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1254 was waived. Clift moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Ordinance Number 1254 as presented. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3739 - ADOPTING HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE PROGRAM Resolution Number 3739 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING A HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE PROGRAM IN COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3739 was waived. Risner moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 3739 as presented. 11-2-87 AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS RIn THROUGH nN" The City Clerk requested that Items "In and nJn be removed from the Consent Calendar as members of the Council had been absent from those meetings. Risner moved, second by Hunt, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items nIn and nJII, as presented. K. Approved regular demands numbered 67762 through 67916 in the amount of $74l,200.60 and payroll demands numbered 27547 through 27732 in the amount of $178,009.09 as approved by the Finance Committee and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I L. Bids were received until 11:00 a.m., October 19, 1987 for Project Number 590, Slurry Seal Electric Avenue and Marina Drive, at which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: Doug Martin Contracting Co. Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. $19,027.50 19,470.00 Awarded the contract to the low bidder, Doug Martin Contracting Company, in the amount of $19,027.50, and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. M. Denied the claim of Martin Charles Wolf, II, and referred same to the City's insurance adjuster. I N. Accepted the resignation of Mrs. Terri Jones from the Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation, District Two, and declared the postion vacant. AYES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS nIB AND nJn - COUNCIL MINUTES Hunt moved, second by Risner, to approve the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of September 29, 1987. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Clift Motion carried Hunt moved, second by Risner, to approve the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of October l3, 1987. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I FIRE SERVICE CONTRACT The City Manager referred to the report and analysis, prepared by the Assistant City Manager, of the County contract for fire service versus a City operated Department, and stated his position remains that the City continue to contract with the County of Orange to provide fire services. I I I 11-2-87 Mr. Bill Knight, l035 Catalina Avenue, pointed out that the proposal to reinstate the City Fire Department contained revenue generating possibilities as well as cost savings over the County Fire Contract for the next three years. He noted the proposal projected a seven percent per year increase based upon the County contract for the three year period, however an employee contract has now been ratified by County fire employees reflecting an increase package of 12.25 percent over the next two years, and that the projected formula for fire protection will have now more than likely increased over thirty percent for the next three years. He stated it was his understanding that an individual far removed from this consideration has reviewed his proposal and found it to be viable and worth consideration, pointing out his projected savings for the first year of $51,000, and noted further that the cost of fire protection for the Hellman development should also be a consideration. Mr. Knight stated his proposal reflects his concern for the financial stability of the City, as well as offering the City control over its own Department, and expressed appreciation to the Council for their consideration of this matter. Chief Holms stated the difficulty in providing evaluations to the City with regard to the proposal that has been made, given the supposition as to revenue generation streams, employee contracts, labor relations, etc. Chief Holms stated that the question regarding cost savings by contracting with the County has been answered in the affirmative as reflected in the City Manager's study. He stated that since 1981-82 the cost of fire protection has increased approximately twenty percent where the estimated cost of a city fire department has gone up forty-nine percent. Chief Holms stated that the negotiated labor contract, a total package of about 10.25 percent, and with the increases spread over a period of time, will result in a fiscal impact of about seven percent, and that he could not understand why the contract would not continue to grow in a consistent rate with past years, or a 4.9 percent average, and even with a full employee benefit package the highest estimate over the contract period is about nine percent. He concluded that the cost of the City operated Department in the long run would be much more expensive than what has been proposed and more expensive than what is provided. In response to the Council, Chief Holms reported that the 10.25 percent contract did not include benefits, the benefit package cost being approximately 9.16 percent, however stated he was unable to project the actual cost for the three year period, stating also that the contract that the City has entered into reflects estimated increased employee costs. The City Manager confirmed that the City's contract runs from July 1st to June 30th, however the City is required to give notice by December 31st as to whether the contract will be renewed or not, and if the Council chose to reinstate the City Department, a direction to that effect should be given to staff. Councilmembers Hunt and Clift indicated their desire to continue the present County Fire Contract. Councilman Grgas advised that he had sought the independent evaluation of the proposal from a Fire Chief operating a department of somewhat larger size, who had indicated that the proposal was well thought out. He stated that in the event the County Contract is continued, he would request that during the next six to twelve months an independent panel of fire chiefs be allowed to evaluate the proposal, noting that his specific interest would be in a cost saving to the City. Discussion continued. 11-2-87 Hunt moved, second by Clift, that the Council reaffirm the County Fire Contract for the next year. The City Manager expressed concern that there would be adequate evaluation and a quality report forthcoming from a panel of fire chiefs regarding the proposal, stating the need to know the level of service, the level of salaries past the first three years, the resources that would need to be available to operate the Department, as well as the I support and services that would be required by other City departments. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Clift, Hunt, Wilson Grgas Risner Motion carried TRANSPORTATION nSUPERn COMMITTEE REPORT The City Manager stated he felt that the majority of the "Supern Committee report should be adopted, however reported some aspects have caused concern with some Orange County City Managers, specifically with regard to the allocation of funds for local projects. Mr. Nelson stated his recommendation would be to approve the report subject to amendment to include a method of allocation of the proceeds of any tax increase by a formula based on thirty percent regional needs, sixty-seven percent for local projects which would be allocated on a formula based upon twenty-five percent sales tax and seventy-five percent population. He stated that on November 12th the Orange County League would be meeting to vote on the report, with the Mayor casting the City's vote on the matter, therefore he recommended that the Council adjourn this meeting until that time in order to receive additional information and provide the Mayor with I further direction. He advised that six City Managers have provided a minority report, and it is not known at this time whether the Committee has accepted that report. Noting the City Attorney's concern with adjourning the meeting to a location outside of the City which may not be readily accessible to the public, Mr. Nelson suggested adjournment to a convenient time in Council Chambers to receive any further information. Discussion continued. Risner moved, second by Grgas, to support the recommendation of the City Manager as previously stated and as contained in his memorandum of October 27th, and should further information be forthcoming with regard to the minority report, that that information be passed on to the Mayor to be voted upon at the League meeting accordingly. Councilman Hunt stated he would vote in opposition to the motion citing opposition to the one-half cent sales tax proposed as funding, and stated his feeling that funding should be raised through an increase of the gas tax. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson Hunt Motion carried PARKING EASEMENT AGREEMENT - GEMTEL/DJM - ZOETER SCHOOL SITE I Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to hold this item over until the next meeting. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I I I 11-2-87 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA APPOINTMENT - PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE and CITIZENS PARTICIPATION COMMITTEE Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to hold over the District One appointment to the Project Area Committee and the District Two and Four appointments to the Citizens Participation Committee. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CITY MANAGER COMPENSATION Councilman Hunt read the Council ad-hoc committee report relating to the City Manager's compensation. The report, in part, recommended that the City Manager's base salary be one hundred five percent of the highest paid Department head, base pay, exclusive of benefits, used in the calculation, pointing out that the salary of the Chief of police, effective January 1, 1988 is $5588, therefore a compensation of $5867 recommended for the City Manager. The report further suggested that benefits of retirement, deferred comp, medical, life, and long term disability, be considered equal for compensation comparisons, and uniform allowance, an accepted police benefit, should not be considered. Also that the City Manager's auto allowance should remain at $250 monthly or if desirable, a city-owned automobile could be negotiated with the monthly cost in excess of $250 treated as added compensation. Taking into consideration experience pay/seniority pay and beeper pay, which results in the Chief's total compensation to exceed the City Manager by ten percent, the report recommended that consideration be given to phasing out the difference at the expense of the Chief, possibly over a one to five year period. Grgas moved, second by Risner, to receive the report and that this matter be placed on the next Council agenda. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CITY COUNCIL ITEMS There were no City Council items for discussion. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Joe Ribal, l2l5-l/2 Seal Way, asked if the plan review or conditional use permit process could be relied upon in the event of a major disaster and facilitate the reconstruction of damaged structures in a timely manner. He suggested that provisions could possibly be considered for addition to the disaster clause that would suspend at least the conditional use permit process in the case of a major disaster. He also noted concern with potential disaster from flooding and stated he felt that members of the community do not understand the flood map nor the flood insurance program, suggesting that the City may wish to inform property owners as to the availability of the flood zone maps or even place the map in the newspaper for public information. The Council noted that the flood plain issue had been referred to the Environmental Quality Control Board for review and comments. With regard to setting aside formal approval procedures in the event of a major disaster, the City Attorney suggested that a provision could be added to the Ordinance that would provide that under certain circumstances, which would need to be defined, the City Council would have the descretion to provide for alternative procedures for approving reconstruction. He added that in such a situation it is understood that the Council would have to respond to whatever would be deemed appropriate, and 11-2-87 I 11-16-87 to establish such rules in advance may not be an advisable action to take. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney reported the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss two items of pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Rogers and Reich versus City of Seal Beach. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at l2:45 a.m. The I Council reconvened at l2:53 a.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order, and the City Attorney stated the Council had discussed the matters previously reported. ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adjourn the meeting at l2:55 a.m. AYES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried clerk of the Approved: . ~J.v..) f. ,,~ MaYbr Attest: I Seal Beach, California November 16, 1987 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:10 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 Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services I Mr. Hemphill, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mr. Osteen, Recreation Director Mrs. Walker, Administrative Aide/Planning Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk