Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1989-05-01 4-17-89,/ 5-1-89 future. Councilmember Risner expressed appreciation to the City Manager and Public Works Department for their efforts in response to her request for certain repair and maintenace at Gum Grove Park. Mayor Hunt suggested that the staff investigate the possibility of applying the utility Users Tax to a cogenerator of electrical energy, should such cogeneration occur at some point in the future. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Hunt declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Joe I Bommarito, ,1213-1/2 Seal way, addressed the Council, as he had the previous meeting, with regard to allowing persons to " swim around the municipal pier. He stated he felt those that are experienced swimmers should be allowed the privilege of swimming,the pier, yet less experienced swimmers should be aware that it is a risk and should remain within the two hundred yards of the beach, also in reviewing the City Code he felt nothing clarifies that a swimmer can not go beyond the two hundred yards. Mr. Bommarito asked for a response to the City Attorney's review of this matter. Mayor Hunt responded that until such time as the citation issued to Mr. Bommarito is resolved, comments on this matter would not ,be in order, however invited Mr. Bommarito to submit his suggestions with regard to swimming regulations after the May 18th hearing on the citation. There being no further comments, Mayor Hunt declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, second by Risner, to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried I the Seal Beach, California May 1, 1989 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:02 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I 5-1-89 ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Hunt Councilmembers Grgas, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the City Manager Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, 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: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Hunt proclaimed May 13, 1989 as "Fire Service Recognition Day." I The Mayor proclaimed the week of May 14th through May 20th, 1989 as nNational Nursing Home Week.n May 7th through May 13th, 1989 was proclaimed nHire A Veteran Weekn by Mayor Hunt. The Mayor proclaimed and urged observance of the "1989 Orange County Spirit Award" to be presented June 1, 1989. The City Manager ~nnounced the resignation of Mr. Knight as the Director of Development Services effective May 19th to assume the Director position in the City of Dana Point. I CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN'AMENDMENT 1-89 / ZONE CHANGE 1-89 / TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 89-162 - FIRST STREET - JAMES WATSON ", ' ". , Mayor Hunt declared the continued public ne~ring open to consider proposed General Plan Amendment 1-89, Zone Change 1-89, and Tentative Parcel Map 89-162 for property located on First Strceet between the existing oil separation facility and existing single family homes. The City Clerk certified the notice of public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported receipt of ten communications in support of the proposed project. The Development Services Director presented the staff report regarding the request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan for this particular parcel of property from oil extraction to medium density residential, to change the City's zoning map accordingly, and to approve a subdivision map for the construction of four single family homes for condominium purposes. He reported the Planning Commission had recommended that the number of units be reduced from five to four, the density limited to one unit for every four thousand square feet, which the applicant is agreeable to, and that the applicant be allowed to construct the homes on the rear half of the lot at a height limitation of thirty- five feet, subject to the approved architecture and limited to two stories. He noted that the Tentative Parcel Map is 5-1-89 subject to thirty-six conditions covering off-site improvements, on-site infrastructure, grading and other building issues, and parkland fees. Mayor Hunt 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. Jim Funk, 215-1/2 - lOth Street, addressed the Council as a representative of the applicant, Mr. Watson, in his absence. He spoke of the I expenses incurred to date relating to this project, confirmed the applicant's willingness to construct the reduced number of units ranging in size from twenty-three hundred to thirty-eight hundred square feet, consistant with the zoning, if approved, and exceeding the requirements of the Municipal Code, noting that the roof line of only two homes would be thrity-five feet in height at the rear of the property, and explained in some detail the Elizabethan and Tudor architecture proposed. Mr. Funk referred to and read portions of the communications received in support of the development. He also pointed out that under present zoning the use of the property for boat and vehicle storage is and has been an illegal use for a number of years, that use to be termina~ed by the property owner. Mr. Funk added that the subject property will be graded to equal the height of the surrounding residential properties, thus the wall separating the property from the oil extraction site on the south will be eight feet on the extraction site and six feet on the subject property due to the grade differentiation. He stated that the lot coverage proposed is approximately forty-six percent with sideyard setbacks ranging from seven to twenty-six feet as compared to sixty-five percent lot coverage in Bridgeport with three foot setbacks. Councilmember Risner noted the reference to present illegal I use of the site and inquired if the zoning could be changed to boat storage on that property, also asked if the density calculation of one unit to four thousand square feet included the common driveway. The Director responded that the current use of the property is not consistant with the oil extraction zone, however the zoning could possibly be changed to accommodate such use, also clarified that if the common driveway of the current project were removed the density comparison with Bridgeport would be quite similar. Mr. Gary Marrick, 216-1/2 - lOth Street, expressed his support for the project, also suggested that the oil company be requested to improve the appearance of their site. Mr. Jim Miller, 1673l Seawitch Lane, Huntington Beach, stated he was one of the owners of the subject property, having purchased the site from the San Gabriel Land Company in approximately 1963, noting that the property was not adaptable to the Bridgeport development at that time. He reported there have been a number of proposals to develop the property for various uses over the years, however it was felt the uses proposed were not compatible with the area. Mr. Miller spoke in support of the proposed development of quality homes on the site. He reviewed the background of their acquisition of the property, the use for boat and vehicle storage and the resulting problems, and confirmed that the storage use will not continue. Mr. Ron Bennett, I 1004 Ocean Avenue, spoke in support of the quality of the design of the project, which he felt would be an asset to the community. Mr. Bill Lazich, 100 Electric Avenue, stated that although he had originally opposed the project, he felt Mr. Watson had been cooperative with the adjacent property owners, and has done his best to design a quality project. He questioned the final square footage of the units, and with regard to the proposed thirty-five foot height, Mr. Lazich noted that even a twenty-five foot height would restrict view and air flow and in this case the adjacent 5-1-89 I residents will view houses rather than the oil tanks. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seabreeze Drive, expressed his opposition to building on remaining open land, suggested that rezoning to a higher density should not be done, and questioned whether there was a conflict between Mr. Watson sitting as a member of the Project Area Committee that recently considered the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan and the proposed development. Mr. Ambrose was advised that this property was not under consideration by the Project Area Committee, that the Redevelopment Plan Amendment related only to the Department of Water and Power property and the Hellman site. Ms. Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th Street, questioned the width of the lots under this proposal, and expressed concern with allowing the thirty-five foot height. There being no further public comments, Mayor Hunt declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Risner noted the need for boat and recreational vehicle storage somewhere in the City, reported past complaints from residents regarding odors from the oil separation facility and stated her preference to postpone further development until that use is terminated. She expressed support for a twenty-five rather than thirty-five foot height limit and an eight foot wall to separate the oil facility and the proposed residences, questioned the numbering of the three guest parking spaces for the four units, and retention of the no parking zone on First Street. With regard to guest parking, Mr. Knight explained that one unit will have a three car garage where one space could be used for guest parking. The Director of Public Works stated he did not believe a red zone exists on the east side of First Street however does exist on the west side, that no parking is allowed on the east side of First Street from the vicinity of Bridgeport to Pacific Coast Highway, but is allowed to the south of that area. Mr. Knight also confirmed that under present Code any lot that exceeds thirty-five and one half feet in width in Planning District Two is permitted a thirty-five foot high structure on the rear half. In response to Councilman Laszlo's inquiry about expenditure of Quimby fees, Mr. Knight suggested the monies could be used for improvements at Marina Park, the closest recreation facility to the development, and explained that if the funds are not used within five years they would be required to be returned to the owner of record. Mr. Knight explained the provisions of Conditions 16 and 35 regarding signage and left turn access onto First street only upon approval of the City Engineer. I I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3847 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-89 - LAND USE ELEMENT - OIL EXTRACTION to MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - FIRST STREET - WATSON Resolution Number 3847 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-89, CHANGING THE LAND USE ELEMENT FROM OIL EXTRACTION TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR A PROPERTY ON FIRST STREET, SEAL BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 043-3l3-01." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3847 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3847. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1284 - ZONE CHANGE 1-89 - OIL EXTRACTION to MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - FIRST STREET - WATSON Ordinance Number 1284 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 1-89, A REQUEST TO 5-1-89 REZONE A PROPERTY ON FIRST STREET (ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 043-313-01) FROM OIL EXTRACTION (OE) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY.D By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1284 was waived. Councilmember Risner moved to amend the Ordinance to reflect that a maximum height of twenty-five feet be permitted. The Development Services Director read the provision of the Ordinance requiring the property owner to enter into agreement with the City setting forth and limiting the height on the property. The City Attorney recommended that such agreement be executed prior to adoption of the Ordinance. Mr. Knight clarified that existing Code allows thirty-five feet or three stories, where this development would be limited to two stories of thirty-five at the rear of the. property. Discussion followed. There was no second to the motion. Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1284 and that it be passed to second reading. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson Risner Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3848 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 89-162 - FIRST STREET - WATSON Resolution Number 3848 was presented to Council entitled DA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 89-162.D By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3848 was waived. In response to Council, Mr. Knight clarified that due to the grade differential the block wall will be eight feet on the oil separation,site and six feet on the project site, however if,further mitigation is shown to be warranted by the noise analysis, the height of the wall would be I increased. Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3848 as presented. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried With unanimous consent of the Council, Mayor Hunt declared a recess,at 8:18 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:30 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order. CONTINUED-PUBLLC HEARING - HELLMAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Mayor Hunt-announced that on January 16th the Council had continued until this date the public hearing to consider amendment to the Hellman Specific plan, General Plan Amendment,la-88, Land Use Element, General Plan Amendment Ib-88, Open Space/Conservation/Recreation Element, Tentative Parcel ,Map ,No. ,86-349, Vesting Tentative Tract Map l3l98, and Precise Plan 1-88. The Development Services Director reported that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report had been completed and issued for review, the period for comments expired locally on April 24th and on April 28th for the State. He advised that there has not been sufficient time for the EIR consultant to collate the responses and prepare,comments for consideration, therefore no action is to be taken at this meeting, and recommended that this item I be continued until the May 15th meeting at which time the Council can make a decision on the proposed project or choose one or more of the alternatives for referral to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. Mr. Knight reviewed the specific actions that would be required for either the present proposal or should an alternate plan be selected. In response to a March 20th request of Mayor Hunt to investigate possible approaches for City acquisition of public land in the Hellman Specific Plan area, the Director presented a report setting forth certain financing 5-1-89 alternatives, such as tax increment financing, special assessment district, developer fees, Quimby parkland dedication, general obligation bonds, and Federal, State and local grant programs, as well as expansion of the Redevelopment Agency to realize additional tax increment, that could be considered. I By order of the Chair, Mayor Hunt proclaimed the public hearing continued until the meeting of May 15th. Councilmember Risner objected to the order, requesting that the public hearing be continued at this meeting. Councilman Laszlo stated he felt citizens could be heard for a limited period of time. The City Attorney explained that by the order of the Chair this item would be continued, without further discussion, until May 15th if the Council concurred with the order. He reported that they had recommended to staff that the item be continued to the 15th, the Council could then consider the testimony and make a decision at that time. Mr. Stepanicich clarified that if the Council wished to receive testimony at this meeting that would not be prohibited, however recommended that the Council not discuss the matter at this time, provide direction or make any decision until all of the data regarding the environmental process is completed and received. Council discussion followed. The Development Services Director reported it is anticipated the EIR responses will be completed, reviewed and available by approximately May 11th. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to continue the public hearing until May 15th. Councilman Grgas suggested that the City Manager could be requested to limit the number of agenda items for that meeting to allow ample time for discussion. Councilmember Risner stated there should be no time limitation placed on Council comments on May 15th. In response to Council, the City Attorney advised that if questions were to be posed to the developer at this time he would recommend that the public hearing be opened, also that public comments to this matter under Oral Communications would not be appropriate since this issue continues to be under the public hearing process. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Wilson Laszlo, Risner Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING - ADJUSTING PARKING FEES - BEACHFRONT LOTS Mayor Hunt declared the public hearing open to consider adjustment of the parking fees for the First, Eighth, and Tenth Street beach parking lots. 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 City Manager presented the staff report from the Finance Director with the recommendation to adjust the $4 flat fee for an automobile to $5 weekdays and $6 weekends and holidays in the Eighth and Tenth Street lots, the First Street lot $4 weekdays and $5 weekends, with a recommended effective date prior to the Memorial Day weekend. The report pointed out that the total beach revenue continues to fall short of covering the cost to operate the beach. Mr. Nelson noted that Huntington Beach recently approved an increase to $6 per day for autos, explaining that in most cities rates vary depending on the proximity of the parking to the beach, also that some cities have metered parking. There being no public comments for or against this item, Mayor Hunt declared the public hearing closed. Discussion continued with comments regarding parking rates in other beach cities, the possible impact of increased rates on the downtown shopping area, on residential streets and parking, and traffic. 5-1-89 Councilman Laszlo moved to hold this item over until next meeting to obtain parking rate information from Long Beach, Huntington Beach, and Bolsa Chica State Park. Councilmember Risner seconded the motion, also requesting that parking rates for the other State beaches in the area be provided. Members of the Council indicated interest in Mrs. Risner's suggestion to consider different rates for winter and summer seasons, also to a concept of providing an annual parking I pass to residents. Councilman Laszlo suggested that rate information for Laguna Beach and Newport Beach also be included. The City Manager again pointed out that it had been the desire of staff to have the revised rates in effect by the Memorial Day weekend. Councilman Grgas suggested that the revised rates could be adopted with the concept of resident passes considered at a later date. Councilmember Wilson indicated her preference that the revised rates be adopted at this time with subsequent consideration of amendments. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner Wilson Motion carried STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - RESOLUTION 3851 - RESOLUTION 3852 - RESOLUTION 3853 The City Engineer presented the staff report, pointing out that the estimated costs for street lighting for 1989/90 is $154,000, the incidental costs associated with establishing the annual levy of assessments are $l6,000, however due to an anticipated surplus in the street lighting account at the end of this fiscal year, the total assessment has been established at $140,000, resulting in a reduction of the annual assessment for all parcels by approximately one- I third. Mr. Jue acknowledged that vacant parcels of land, classified as rural, were not included in the current district, however could be added to the 1989/90 assessment upon direction of the Council. Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3851 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNUAL LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS AND ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AN ENGINEER'S "REPORT" FOR A STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3851 was waived. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3852 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S "REPORT" FOR PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNUAL LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS IN A STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT," amending Section II of the Resolution to read "...approved on a preliminary basis with the direction to assess rural properties..." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3852 was waived. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I Grgas moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3853 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO PROVIDE FOR AN ANNUAL LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN A STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING," amending Resolution Number 5-1-89 3853 to reflect the public hearing date of June 5, 1989. By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3853 was waived. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1285 - TELEPHONE USERS TAX - INTERSTATE and INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS Ordinance Number 1285 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO TELEPHONE USERS TAX, IMPOSING CHARGES FOR INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1285 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to adopt Ordinance Number 1285 as presented. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson Laszlo Motion carried I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1286 - ZONING REGULATIONS - FENCE HEIGHTS Ordinance Number 1286 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE HEIGHT OF FENCES ADJOINING ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1286 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1286 and that it be passed to second reading. Councilman Grgas indicated his concern with the appearance of fences that may be up to four feet different in height, and stated his intent to abstain from voting on this item. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Hunt, LaszlO, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3855 - COMPLETION - ZOETER BALLFIELD BLEACHERS - PROJECT NUMBER 584 Resolution Number 3855 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 1584, REFURBISHMENT OF ZOETER BALLFIELD BLEACHERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN CHALLENGE ENGINEERING, INC., AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3855 was waived. Risner moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3855 as presented. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "P" throuqh AWn Councilman Grgas requested that Item nUn be removed from the Consent Calendar for an update by the City Attorney. In response to Councilman LaSZlo, the City Attorney confirmed his review of the April 3rd minutes. Laszlo moved, second by Risner, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item nun, as presented. 5-1-89 P. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of April 3, 1989. Q. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of April 17, 1989. R. Approved regular demands numbered 74121, and 74173 through 74180, and 74285 through 74495 in the amount of $940,228.01, and payroll demands numbered 34748 through 34924 in the amount of $183,911.21 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. S. Denied the claim for damages of Joe Bommarito and referred same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. T. Denied the claim for personal damages of Mary Morris and referred same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. I V. Received and filed the communication from the Seal Beach International Friendship Association regarding the status of the Sister City project. W. Bids were received-until 11:00 a.m., April 24, 1989 for project Number-599, COllege park East Street Reconstruction, at which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: Excalibur Contracting Company Griffith Company Vernon paving Company Excel Paving Company Sully Miller Contracting Company $69,682.25 73,413.00 75,518.35 76,621.00 79,105.60 I Awarded the bid.for Reconstruction of Dogwood, Marigold and Heather Streets, Project Number 599, to Excalibur contracting Company in the amount of $69,682.25 and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. AYES: NOES: G~gas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "U" - STATUS OF WEBSTER COUNTY COURT DECISION In reference to the April 18th staff memorandum regarding the Webster County, West Virginia case, the City Attorney stated that although the Supreme Court decision does not directly affect the validity of Proposition 13 there was discussion that has raised questions as to whether or not proposition -13, which basically provides that those persons I who do not sell their property have a frozen tax base, with the exception of the .annual two percent adjustment, as compared to those who have more recently purchased homes and are taxed based upon full market value, would be constitutional. He explained that in the West Virginia case the State Constitution provided for a uniform method of property taxation, however, a local tax collector developed a procedure that was similar to Proposition 13, and the main focus of the Court~s attention was that since the Constitution and statutes did not provide for that method of determining the basis for assessing the tax, there was a 5-1-89 I denial of equal protection and fair treatment. Mr. Stepanicich added that if the Court decision is read narrowly it would not apply to Proposition 13 since the California Constitution now provides for that method of taxation. However the City Attorney explained that there was language in the case that, if followed and construed broadly by the Supreme Court in a challenge, could be used to invalidate Proposition 13, particularly since there is now substantial differences in the manner in which properties are being taxed. Grgas moved, second by Risner, to receive and file the report. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried with unanimous consent of the Council, the Mayor declared a recess at 9:42 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:49 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order. I REPORT - TRAFFIC MITIGATION POLICIES The City Attorney offered to respond to questions of the Council with regard to their report relating to traffic mitigation policies. Councilmember Wilson questioned the legality of requiring a development to contribute more than its fair share. The City Attorney reported that the three specific options of the Traffic Committee were based on a concept of requiring more than a fair share, that one of his concerns focused on the meaning of fair share since the law has been clear that there has to be a reasonable relationship between the requirements imposed upon a developer and the impacts on the developer, that mitigation measures can not be unilaterally required.that are not related to a specific project, the uncertainty of current law being how strictly the courts are going to apply the reasonable relationship test. Councilmember Risner commended the City Attorney on the report, and suggested that it be referred. to the Traffic Committee for further discussion and recommendations to the Council. She noted that the report pointed out that the City does have substantial discretionary powers to either grant or deny a request for intensifying use based upon the impact on the community, also the opportunity to enter into development agreements. She suggested that the Council may wish to consider establishing a policy with regard to requests for intensification from a property owner or to encourage development agreements so that the City has some basis to require a development scenario that is acceptable. Councilman Laszlo posed a number of questions regarding traffic mitigation policies and procedures to which the City Attorney responded. Mr. Stepanicich gave an example of unilateral condition as a situation where the City, as a condition of a development permit, would require a developer to mitigate a traffic condition that was not demonstrated to be related to the project but was a pre-existing condition, and in that situation it would be preferable to utilize the development agreement approach to achieve the goal, otherwise there would likely be a risk that the condition would be set aside by a court. With regard to the City negotiating for more than its fair share, the City Attorney explained that negotiate means that there has been an agreement reached between the two parties to the negotiation, that under State law there are provisions that relate directly to how development agreements are approved and what they can contain, the concept being a negotiated agreement, and not a mandatory requirement. The City Attorney recommended that there not be a uniform requirement that there must be a development agreement in cases of a zone change to mitigate traffic impact. He clarified that I 5-1-89 in reviewing an individual project that involves legislative changes, if there were an intensification of land use that would adversely impact existing poor traffic conditions, there would be a basis to deny the zone change unless the developer was willing to contribute to alleviating those problems, in other words, where there is an increase of entitlement by a zone and/or General Plan change there is flexibility to deny if adverse impacts can be shown, and in I such a case the developer may be willing to provide more than would otherwise be required to obtain the intensification. With regard to negotiating with a developer to mitigate an existing level of service "E" to a level of service "0" due to an intensification of use, the City Attorney advised that there could be negotiation, however if that was an unacceptable term to the developer, the City would have-the option to deny the zone change, again if it could be shown that there would be an adverse impact, and cautioned that the fact that a developer would realize a greater financial return with the intensified land use would not be a land use conSideration, the issue being the evidenced impact upon the community. He cited as an example, if the existing traffic level was "E" and the City policy was to provide for a level of "D", it would appear there may be a basis for not intensifying land use while a deficient traffic condition exists. With regard to denial of a zone -change request, Mr. Stepanicich made reference to their report which pointed out that whatever zoning exists on the property must allow the developer some economic use, otherwise there could be a question as to whether or not that action would be considered a taking of the property. He added that with the assumption that existing zoning allows an economic use and there is an existing policy of the City that requires a level of service "0" yet the level I is "E" in the vicinity of the project, it would appear the City would have the discretion to not approve a zone change and increase the entitlements in that case. Mr. Stepanicich reported they have not as yet seen any cases that have addressed what would be a reasonable traffic service level in a community, suggesting that any level of service that might be chosen must be reasonable, and as an-example, level "0" seems to be considered a reasonable standard for an urbanized area, "C" considered reasonable for a more lessly populated rural -area, and levels "A" or "B" would most likely be struck down-by a court. He explained that when conside~ing a-Tentative-Tract Map where the zoning is in place, the existing service level being "E" yet City policy specified-level "D", -he felt it would be difficult to deny a Map on the basis-that "D" would not be met. However, if a developer did not have the basic entitlements under the General Plan and zoning, the City would have the flexibility to reject a higher intensity use. With reference to traffic impact fees assessed by the City-of Agoura Hills, Mr. Stepanicich explained that to comply with AB l600 a traffic study was conducted to determine all of the traffic deficiences that existed in the City and all of those that would be created by future development pursuant to their General Plan, the fee calculated on the basis of the estimate of the cost of improvements necessary to offset I existing deficiencies, and noted that under AB 1600 it would not be appropriate to assess a future development for an existing deficiency. He reported it was determined the estimated improvements were thirty million dollars, approximately seven to eight million dollars of existing deficiencies, the remaining amount considered to be the impact of new development and the fee, around $6 per square foot for commercial development, was based upon that amount. He noted also that given the somewhat rural setting of Agoura Hills, their level of service was established as "C" 5-l-89 I under the General Plan, and to date there has been no legal challenge to those fees. With regard to establishing a level of service for Seal Beach, the City Attorney suggested that a policy could be adopted as to what should be the reasonable level of service, which could be accomplished through a traffic analysis and an amendment to the General Plan, the land use document for the City. The City Manager suggested that cost effectiveness should be considered, noting that although deficiencies must be established, no charge may be made for existing deficiencies, therefore the question becomes what would be the return after conducting the study. The City Attorney added that the City could establish a reasonable service level as a goal of the community in the General Plan without the extensive traffic study, however suggested there be input from the staff as to what is an appropriate level considering the conditions of the area. In the case of calculating and attaining a traffic level goal in the future that has been impacted by development outside the City, the City Attorney advised that the intent of AB 1600 was that data be reevaluated periodically to insure correctness, therefore for a fee to remain valid over the long term it would be necessary to take external impacts into consideration, or a developer would have a potential argument that AB 1600 had not been complied with. He added that AB l600 provides for a capital program to set forth a commitment of the funds over the long term, AB 1600 not as stringent as the Quimby Act with regard to a time frame for use of the funds. Mayor Hunt suggested that if there is to be serious consideration of issues relating to traffic that the Council, rather than the Traffic Committee, formulate the specific policies. Councilman Laszlo recalled that in recent past there have been studies relating to major intersections therefore some basic data is available, also that it is normal procedure for a developer to pay for a traffic study for any proposed development, and pointed out that the Traffic Committee had agreed on a level of service "0" and imposing traffic impact fees, noting the loss that has and will be realized by not having the impact fees in place. Councilmember Risner suggested that the Council could either refer this matter back to the Committee, or develop a policy with regard to intensification of uses and a change to the General Plan that would encourge development agreements, or some other type of legislation that would support generation of additional revenue towards resolving traffic problems. The City Attorney clarified that if during the approval process it was determined a project would create a worsened level of service there would be no question that as a condition of approval a developer could be required to mitigate for the prorata share of the traffic condition created. Councilman Grgas pointed out that the environmental review process presently provides for the City to obtain mitigation of traffic impacts, and in most cases that is achieved for those impacts that are known and can be aChieved, however it is necessary to know the connection between what the development is contributing and the fees charged, thus the need to determine what the baseline is and what the associated costs are before a fee can be assessed. With the assumption that the baseline and fees were in place, he questioned what the improvements would be to improve an impacted intersection or area, giving the widening of Pacific Coast Highway as an example of such mitigation, the developer willing to contribute his fair share, yet the community opposed to such widening, and would that situation be legal grounds to deny a project. The City Attorney responded that given the assumption that the developer currently has an economic use of the property but wished to intensify the use, yet the community wanted to control I I 5-1-89 growth and traffic capacity, he said he felt the City could determine to not approve the intensification. Councilman Laszlo referred to the prior example, stating that Pacific Coast Highway would not need to be widened at that time and the fees could be held to improve traffic at a later date. Councilman Grgas noted that the intent of law is that there be a connection between the development and the adverse impact. Discussion continued. In response to Council, the City Attorney stated in the case of a small city with an I interrelated traffic system it may be acceptable to assess fees on a citywide basis as opposed to establishing traffic districts designating where the fees would be spent as might be done in a larger city, noting that there could be potential problems in certain instances where fees are collected in one area and spent in another where there is no related impact. The City Manager pointed out that traffic impact fees work well in a developing city having a number of projects that can contribute, that the cost of implementing, controlling and adminstering the fee must be considered, therefore if the costs equal or exceed the fee, there is no benefit. He added that until realistic cost figures are available from a consultant or staff he would hesitate to recommend proceeding with implementing such fee. ~ith regard to available information, the City Engineer -reported that the Bixby Traffic Study was completed approximately a year ago, the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan study somewhat older than a year, and if a citywide traffic study were desired, a current traffic count at each intersection may be necessary. There were further comments regarding projects that may be forthcoming, new development, ongoing renewal of older housing, and consideration of imposing a traffic impact fee. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to refer this matter to I staff for investigation and ~eport, including the need and cost of consulting assistance, and information from other cities. Council indicated their preference for a report by approximately July 1st. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried REPORT / RESOLUTION NUMNBER 3854 - AD HOC RETAIL SALES COMMITTEE In response to a-request of February 2lst, the City Manager presented a report with regard to establishing a committee to protect and expand the retail sales tax base of the City. The report noted various sources have indicated that Seal Beach is below average in both taxable sales and sales tax revenues on a per capita basis, if not on a gross dollar basis, when compared to other cities in Orange County and Southeast Los Angeles County. He noted that two Resolutions had been presented for Council consideration, one proposing five voting members with known expertise in the area of retail sales appointed by the Council, the second providing for the appointment of one member from each Councilmanic District. Mr. Nelson reported discussions with a number of persons in the business community and related organizations I have indicated support for this concept, and stated although the recommended appointments to the Committee were not proposed to be made in the traditional manner, he felt the expertise of the individuals would be of value to the goal of the Committee. Councilman Laszlo expressed his objection to the recommendation for appointments to the Committee, stated his preference that the appointments be made by the Council representative and be a resident of the District. Discussion followed with members of the Council expressing their views. 5-1-89 I Councilmember Risner moved to increase the membership of the Committee by four resident members having expertise in the field of retail sales for a total membership of nine, that the four appointments be selected by the Council districts that are under-represented, two for District Four, one for District Five, and one for District Three. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. Councilmember Wilson indicated her desire to select a second member from District Two which includes the Rossmoor Business Center. Members of the Council clarified their intent that the Committee include those persons recommended by the City Manager. Mayor Hunt indicated his desire that the additional appointments not be required to be a resident of the City. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Laszlo, Risner Hunt, Wilson Motion carried Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3854 as amended to reflect the membership of the Committee as nine persons and that the date for the final report and recommendations to the Council be October 30, 1989. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion cartied I REOUEST FOR FUNDING - SIDEWALK SALE/ANTIOUE CAR SHOW The City Manager presented the staff report regarding the request of the Seal Beach Business Association for the City to absorb the cost of services provided by the City and associated with the May 6th sidewalk sale and antique car show. Mr. Steve O'Connell, Vice President of the Business Association, spoke of their efforts to upgrade and revitalize the sidewalk sale, reported that each business has been notified of the closing of Main Street to accommodate the car show, and noted that the majority of businesses were pleased with the results of the previous event. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to grant the request for funding, estimated to be $962.86. Councilman Laszlo asked that the Association provide a report to the Council regarding the success of the event. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried APPOINTMENT - AD HOC AIRPORT COMMITTEE Councilman Grgas requested that the District one appointment to the Ad Hoc Airport Committee be held over. Councilman Laszlo gave a brief report on the first meeting of the Airport Committee. I CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Wilson reported the resignation of Mr. Lowell Kolb, the District Two representative to the Environmental Quality Control Board, and moved to accept the resignation and declare the position vacant. Councilman Grgas seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Councilmember Risner asked if the staff would look into removal of the billboard on Pacific Coast Highway advertising the Riverbeach condominiums. She also reported complaints regarding the issuance of parking citations during the bicycle-race. Councilman Grgas suggested that in the future there be adequate notice that parking 5-1-89 restrictions will be_ enforced and/or designate an area where persons can park during such events. Councilmember Wilson noted there are an unusual number of twenty minute parking areas on Main street. The City Manager stated his understanding that those zones were created at the request of Main street merchants to the City Council, where the staff had recommended against the number of twenty minute parking areas. Councilmember Risner stated her understanding was that there would be a twenty minute zone I on either side of the crosswalks, and suggested that one such zone be designated in front of the Post Office. Councilmember Wilson inquired if vehicles parked on Main Street are marked late in the afternoon. The City Manager responded that it is dependent upon staffing on a particular 'day. Councilman Grgas made reference to an inconsistency in the application of standards between existing regulations applying to minor modifications to a legal non-conforming residence and to those governing rebuilding of a structure destroyed by fifty percent or more as the result of a disaster, specifically with regard to requirements for parking, and moved to refer this question to the Planning Commission for their review and report to the City Council. Mayor Hunt seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Hunt declared Oral Communications open. with regard to the resignation of Mr. Knight, the City-Manager advised that recruitment for the position has begun, that consulting services will be utilized in the interim, and explained that Mr. Knight has agreed and upon the conclusion of discussions I with the City Manager of Dana Point, it is antiCipated that Mr. Knight will continue to provide certain services to Seal Beach for a period of time. There being no further comments, Mayor Hunt declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel matters and a matter of pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 94956.9(a), Bommarito. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 11:35 p.m. Councilmember Risner-excused-herself from the meeting at ll:43 p.m. The Council reconvened at 12:08 a.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items previously announced. ADJOURNMENT Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to adjourn the meeting at l2:l0 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Risner Motion carried I Clerk and ex of Seal Beach of the 5-l-89 / 5-15-89 , ApprOv.e~: Attest: I Seal Beach, California May 15, 1989 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:21 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Hunt Councilmembers Grgas, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney- Mr. Strausz, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF -FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Grgas, 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: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION Mayor Hunt presented Mr. Steve Stockett, Public Works Department, with a commemorative plaque recognizing his twenty years of employment with the City. COUNCIL REORGANIZATION I Selection of Mavor Mayor Hunt declared nominations for Mayor open, and nominated-Mr. Victor Grgas. Councilman Laszlo nominated Mrs. Joyce Risner. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to declare nominations closed. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Roll call vote: In support of Mr. Grgas for Mayor: Grgas, Hunt, Wilson In support of Mrs. Risner for Mayor: Laszlo, Risner Mr. Grgas was declared Mayor of the City of Seal Beach for 1989/90.