Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1989-08-21 8-7-89 / 8-21-89 ADJOURNMENT With unanimous consent of the Council, Mayor Grgas adjourned the meeting at 2:47 a.m. Approved: lerk and ex of J. of Seal Beach of the I Attest: Seal Beach, California August 21, 1989 The City Council of the-City of Seal Beach met in regular I session at 7:29 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Grgas Councilmembers Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, 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-Hunt, to-waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of-reading-shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I CLOSED -SESSION No Closed Session was held. 8-21-89 I PRESENTATION Mr. Jack Nevin, Adjutant of American Legion Leisure World Post 327, and members Walter Frisch, Theodore Harris, Al Mazzuca, Jean Penfield, and Norman Seifts, presented a POW- MIA Flag to the City. Mr. Nevin reported the efforts of veterans organizations nationwide to distribute the POW-MIA Flag as a reminder of the several thousand persons that fought in Vietnam and Cambodia and are unaccounted for, the intent being to bring them back. Mr. Nevin also reported that all veterans organizations, particularly the American Legion, have passed resolutions opposing burning of the American Flag, the National Adjutant having recently recommended that the only way to address the issue is through a Constitutional Amendment however that would in turn eliminate the ceremonial burning of unusable flags. He said everyone does not agree with that recommendation and instead there is preference that the word desecration be used in lieu of burning. Mayor Grgas accepted the POW-MIA Flag with appreciation. PROCLAMATION Mayor Grgas prOClaimed September, 1989 as nCancer Detection Monthn and September 9, 1989 as nCancer Detection Day.n I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3876 - AOUATIC ACTIVITIES - HOURS and LOCATION Resolution Number 3876 was presented to Council entitled ftA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING HOURS AND LOCATION FOR AQUATIC ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-8 OF CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE I OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY CODE.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3876 was waived. The City Manager reported this item was continued from a previous meeting with a supplemental staff report provided. In response to Council, he explained that the enabling Ordinance provides that the City Manager may grant a special permit, modify or waive conditions for activities such as the Rough Water Swim. Councilmember Wilson inquired if a sailboard is -considered a boat or vessel, and in view of the potential for liability asked if it would be advisable to limit that activity during the summer months. The City Manager responded that a sailboard is considered an 'exempt from registration' vessel that is subject to navigational rules in the open water. He advised that when it was realized that a conflict was developing between beach activities he met with representatives of the windsurfers, and reported that group is attempting to develop regulations to govern their participants. He spoke in favor of regulating the activities rather than prohibiting them, the regulations proposed restricts windsurfing launchings to between First and Third Streets, and noted that the major area of potential conflict is at the surf line. Staff clarified that Section I-A should read nswimming seaward from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. shall not be permitted,n that Section 2-A.2 refers to boardsurfing in the area of Surfside, and that boardsurfing is restricted to the west side of the pier because of the shorebreak and given the more dangerous surf on the easterly side. Staff explained that when appropriate the blackball flag will be used in lieu of signs to regulate beach activities, however signage recommended by the Safety Committee will be posted in the vicinity of First and Third Streets and -elsewhere down the beach designating the activities that are or are not allowed at a specific location. Staff again clarified that boardsurfing would be allowed west of the pier with the exception of First to Third Streets before 10:00 a.m. and after 5:30 p.m. during the summer season, the river mouth I 8-21-89 and Surfside all day, however not east of the pier, with the Lifeguard Department having the authority to expand or restrict boardsurfing as the circumstance warrants. Staff explained that boardsurfers would basically be allowed in any area during the winter months unless determined otherwise based upon the circumstances. It was clarified that bodysurfers would be allowed in the designated swimming areas. with regard to a question regarding Section 2-B, the I Assistant City Attorney confirmed that the wording could be clarified to read n...and further prohibited in the Area bordered on the Northwest...n Staff explained that windsurfers would be allowed between First and Third Streets year-round at any hour. Councilman Laszlo expressed his concern that boardsurfers will not be allowed use of an area that they have used historically, specifically in the vicinity of First to-Third Streets, also that swimmers are limited to two hundred yards offshore. The City Manager explained that the intent of two hundred yards is to maintain safety in the beach area, keeping swimmers away from vessels and within a reasonable distance in a case where assistance is needed, and in response to Councilman Laszlo stated he was unaware of statistics regarding drownings or of conflicts between swimmers and boats, also that the Lifeguard Department will most likely use the pier and/or jetty as distance marks. Councilman Laszlo stated he did not believe any-other-beach city places such a limit on the swimming area, and that he did not support it. Councilman Laszlo moved to delete the two hundred yard limit on the swimming area from the proposed Resolution. Councilmember Risner seconded the motion for discussion. Councilmember Risner questioned the location of the mean I high tide line, and whether the swimming area would be required to be buoyed and roped. Councilman Hunt stated he believed zero tower is considered to be the two hundred yard mark, and the City Attorney stated he was not aware of any legal requirement to rope-or buoy the swimming area. Mayor Grgas stated his interpretation was that the Resolution was directed more towards restricting boats rather than the swimmers. The-City Manager noted that the intent of the proposed regulations is to separate incompatible aquatic uses and although the verbiage may be somewhat complex it will allow the ability to regulate with some flexibility on any given day or situation. Mayor Grgas stated that although he agreed that there should be as many opportunities to use the beach as possible, he did question some of the time frames, particularly those for summer boardsurfing, suggesting that consideration could be given to 11:00 a.m. rather than 10:00 a.m. and more importantly possibly 3:00 p.m. as opposed to 5:30 p.m. The City Manager responded that the hours are proposed as a compromise for all of the various uses. Councilman Hunt stated, as he had previously, that he would support the Resolution as presented, given the thought and expertise that had been devoted to the regulations proposed. Councilman Laszlo said he would have no objection if the intent is to keep boaters, windsurfers, and boardsurfers out of the swimming area, and I if that is the intent the lifeguards do not need to have regulatory discretion, again stating his objection to limiting the swimming distance. Councilmember Risner suggested that consideration be given limiting the boaters, rather than the swimmers, to a certain distance from the mean high tide line. The City Manager offered that if there are proposed amendments to the Resolution that they be made and referred to staff to allow the City Attorney to revise the language. 8-21-89 The motion and second were withdrawn. I Councilmember Risner asked-that the hours set forth in Section I-A be revised to prohibit swimming seaward from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless it was the desire of the Council to withdraw the distance limit. After brief discussion the City Attorney noted that Section I-A could be amended to clarify that-the intent is to prohibit -boats in the area, however -from a-safety standpoint he spoke in support of a-designated swimming area, -offering to obtain further input from the Lifeguard Department as to justification or-concern with revising the hours. In response to Council, the City Manager reported the windsurfing participants are primarily from Seal Beach. Councilman Laszlo expressed concern that-local boardsurfers will no longer have -the opportunity to surf during summer months. Mayor -Grgas said-he has observed an increase in windsurfers during this summer season, and-pointed out that although the beach is public and open for use by everyone, there is a need to protect those that are swimming and using the shoreline, a second priority being the board and wind surfers, and that the-regulations proposed are an attempt to afford a time and area for the various uses and a safeguard against potential injury. He inquired as to the possibility of allowing the windsurfers to launch and land on the east beach given the fact that they generally practice their sport seaward of the pier rather than at the surfline. Mayor Grgas said was not aware of the statistics regarding conflicts or incidents involving boardsurfers and swimmers, that he would be willing to consider a modification of hours to allow boardsurfers the greatest amount of use possible, however he was not opposed to restrictions that would also allow other uses. Councilman Laszlo suggested that the Lifeguard Chief be present at the next meeting, and noted that there is no restriction on boogie boards with skegs. The City Manager -reported that within the general authority of the lifeguards there is an attempt to prohibit any hard skeg bodyboard. Councilmember Risner questioned why surfboards are restricted to certain hours on the west side of the-pier -while bodyboards are allowed, also why surfers are not allowed on either side of the pier after 5:30 p.m. The City Manager responded that bodyboarders are considered swimmers, and that the west side is historically the concentration point for swimmers where there is reasonable surf. Councilmember Risner asked that Section 2-B be rewritten for clarity, and Mayor Grgas suggested that the hours could possibly be adjusted to sunrise until 11:00 a.m. and after 3:30 p.m. I I Mayor Grgas outlined the issues to be considered further or for change, Sections I-A and 2-A.3 with regard to hours, Section I-A, the 200 yard designation with the intent of preventing boat entry, identification of the 200 yards and justification for same, clarification of language in Section 2-B regarding areas that are not allowed for boardsurfing east of the pier, and possible windsurfing launch area at the easterly end of the beach. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to hold this item over until the next meeting. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3877 - SALARY/WAGE SCHEDULE/BENEFITS - ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Resolution Number 3877 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A CHARTER CITY, ESTABLISHING SALARY RATES, A SALARY AND WAGE SCHEDULE, AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 8-21-89 CERTAIN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION AND REPEALING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATES SPECIFIED ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3877 was waived. Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3877 as presented. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3878 - SALARIES/BENEFITS - MANAGEMENT/ CONFIDENTIAL/NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES Resolution Number 3878 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A CHARTER CITY, ESTABLISHING A COMPENSATION PLAN, INCLUDING SALARY AND BENEFITS, FOR MANAGEMENT, CONFIDENTIAL, AND NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES AND REPEALING, ON THE EFFECTIVE DATES SPECIFIED, ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3878 was waived. The City Manager reported two corrections to the Resolution, Appendix A-I to reflect the correct range of the Engineering Aide to be 250, salary of 2299 to 2806, Appendix A-II to reflect range 256, salary of-2369 to 2892, and Section 19 amended to reflect pager compensation of the Police Records Supervisor of $132 per month. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3878 as amended. AYES: NOES: G~gas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3879 - COMPENSATION PLAN - PART-TIME/ HOURLY/SEASONAL-EMPLOYEES I Resolution Number 3879 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A CHARTER CITY, ESTABLISHING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR PART-TIME, HOURLY, AND SEASONAL EMPLOYEES AND REPEALING, ON THE EFFECTIVE DATES SPECIFIED, ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number-3879 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3879 as presented. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Mr. Nelson reported the City Manager's compensation would be considered in September. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1290 - SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Ordinance Number 1290 was presented to Council for first reading entitled nAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 9B OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO THE BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1290 was waived. - The City- Engineer presented-the staff report, explained that the new F.E.M.A. study, revising that of 1985, has designated a base flood-elevation of five feet for the -waterways surrounding I the Sunset Aquatic Park, -the Park it~elf outside the 500 year floodplain, and changes the designa~ion-in College Park East from an narea of minimal floodingn to an narea of 500 year flood-or area of 100 year flood with average depths of less than one foot.n Mr. Jue explained-that the Hill area is outside the 500 year flood zone, that there are some downtown areas that are within the 100 year flood zone, such as the former Bay Motel site, noting that the new dwellings on that site were required to place the floor pads one foot above the flood elevation, and with regard to the Hellman 8-21-89 property he stated he did not recall the zone or elevation for that site, however even though it is lower than the Hill it is higher than other areas of the City. Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1290 and that it be passed to second reading. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS nHn throuqh-nLn At the request of staff Item nLn, Housing/Community Development Block Grant Contracts, was removed from the Consent Calendar to be considered as an item of legislation. Councilman Hunt requested Items nJn and nKn removed from the Consent Calendar. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items "J, K, and L,n as presented. H. Approved regular demands numbered 75695 through 75867 in the amount of $773,691.29 and payroll demands numbered 36210 through 36465 in the amount of $212,830.68 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I. Received and filed the report from the Finance Director regarding the sale of the 1989 TRAN. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "In - AD HOC RETAIL COMMITTEE Councilman Hunt suggested that the final date for presentation of the report from the Ad Hoc Retail Sales Committee be extended until December 31st rather than the requested October 3lst to allow adequate time for the Committee to accomplish their goals, and so moved. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. The-City Manager explained that the Committee is working diligently to complete their task and that the requested October 31st date should be sufficient. The motion was withdrawn. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to extend the date for the Ad Hoc Retail Sales Committee final report until October 3lst, 1989. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I ITEM "Kn - NOTICE TO RECOVER PROPERTY TAXES Councilman Hunt inquired if the City would -decline, or ever has declined, to refund a proportionate amount of taxes should a judgement be entered against the County. The Assistant City Attorney advised that this item-will be reviewed as to any action necessary, that no position has been taken at this time. The City Manager indicated he did not believe that the City has refused any such refund in the past, this action merely to protect the City's interest. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to reject the Notice for Recovery of Taxes received from the County of Orange in response to complaints filed by Union Oil Company of California, Mobile Oil Corporation, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., and Shell Oil Company. 8-21-89 AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3880 - HOUSING/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CONTRACTS - - - - - - Resolution Number 3880 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I CONTRACTS C40652 AND C40653 WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE IN APPLYING FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENT FUNDS UNDER THE HOUSING AND-COMMUNITY-DEVELOPMENT ACT-OF-1974.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3880 was waived. - In-response to-Council, the City Engineer advised that the total project cost will be covered by monies from the water and sewer funds and the a/CD program. With regard-to-water and sewer line replacement, he stated the City has been improving- -one alley each year, and as opposed to the understanding of most, these are water line replacement/sewer -repair projects rather than alley reconstruction projects,-however once the improvements are completed the alley is paved with concrete. He noted that most of the downtown lines are fifty to sixty years old and that there is a priority list for those projects covering approximately seven years. Mr. Jue advised that the sewer and water mains are-being replaced in keeping with the need in the downtown area, that the mains on the Hill and in College Park East as well as Leisure World will most likely be due for replacement within five to fifteen years given the age of those subdivisions. He explained that concrete is used to pave- the alleys rather than blacktop as it drains easier, requires -less maintenance, and supports the weight of heavy vehicles. As a point of information, Mr. Jue I reported that Mola Development will be required to do a master water study-for the City-as a condition of their project, and that study will provide an outline as to how to proceed with water system replacement. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3880 as presented. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried REVIEW - DRAFT EIR - LOS ALAMITOS GENERAL PLAN Pursuant with recent agreement between Seal Beach and Los Alamitos to share information and data relating to future developments, etc., the City Manager referred to the report resulting from staff review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report-for the Los Alamitos General Plan and potential impacts relative to concerns of Seal Beach with regard to -their General Plan update, the recommendation of staff to receive and file the report. Mr. Whittenberg reported the firm of Castaneda & Associates had prepared the Draft EIR. Councilmember Risner noted-that Los Alamitos will require studies of roadways operating at level of service nDn or less, and asked what would occur if new projects tended to lessen the nDn status. Mr. Whittenberg responded -that the report did not indicate mitigation I measures other than r,equiring a traffic analysis, the analysis to then recommend specific mitigation for a particular problem. With regard to whether Los Alamitos would accept something lower than level "Dn, Mr. Whittenberg stated the level of service at major intersections, having been allowed to develop over the years, and-the methods to address those-situations, was indicated as a major concern with regard to existing as well as new development. Councilmember-Risner noted of interest is that Los Alamitos/ Seal Beach Boulevard is at a level of service ncn and will remain so. , 8-21-89 I Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to receive and file the report. with regard to the use of grant funds for traffic signals, the City Engineer reported-that next year Los Alamitos and Seal Beach will jointly make application for OCCUT funds, a one hundred percent funding program, to coordinate traffic signals along Seal Beach Boulevard, and that the last traffic signal modification project was Seal Beach Boulevard, accomplished through FAU funds on an eighty-six percent federal and fourteen percent local funding basis. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The City Engineer presented the staff report regarding the feasibility of establishing Development Impact Fees for Seal Beach, such fees based upon the costs associated with new facilities and capital acquisitions required incrementally by new development, whether it be residential, commercial, or industrial, with AB 1600, enacted in 1987, setting forth the procedures and requirements to establish and impose such fees. He explained that it would be necessary to determine the build-out of the City based upon the General Plan and from that determine what the infrastructure needs would be, then determine what percentage should be charged to the developer and to the existing residents. Mr. Jue noted that the-Interim Development Services Director had indicated concern that the General Plan would require updating in conjunction with the study to establish the Development Impact Fees. Mr. Jue stated that the recommendation to Council was that the City Attorney be instructed to investigate the need to update the General Plan before proceeding to implement Development Impact Fees, also to schedule a presentation to Council by a specialist in the Development Impact Fee field to respond to technical questions. The City Manager explained that there is need for a basis for the fees, which is the General Plan, therefore the request that the City Attorney review same and determine if the Plan is adequate, and if it is a consultant could be retained to develop the information necessary to establish the fees. With regard to the cost and time frame for review of the General Plan, the Assistant City Attorney stated that would be difficult to estimate, confirmed that State law requires that a General Plan be updated periodically, and made specific reference to recent changes in State law that have rendered many Housing Elements inadequate. With regard to the development recently approved for the Hellman property, the City Manager stated that project did qualify under the General Plan in it's present form, however the staff had pOinted out that the Plan currently calls for one hundred low to moderate housing units that will now need to be located on the northerly portion of that property unless that requirement of the General Plan is changed. He said as an administrator he did not feel the General Plan is in compliance with current State law, therefore could be subject to a legal challenge, or be required -to be updated as the result of a State subvention or grant, etc. Councilman Laszlo asked if a developer could be required to pay a proportionate share of the cost of the development fee study. The City Manager explained that each project would need to be considered separately to determine if sufficient findings could be made to levy a cost related to the study, that his initial feeling would be that the cost of the study, of general City benefit, could not be levied against a specific development, I 8-21-89 Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to receive and file the report. With regard to the use of grant funds for traffic signals, the City Engineer reported-that-next year Los Alamitos and Seal Beach will jointly make application for OCCUT funds, a one-hundred percent funding program, to coordinate traffic 1- signals along Seal Beach Boulevard, and that the last traffic signal modification project was Seal Beach Boulevard, accomplished through FAU funds on an eighty-six percent federal and fourteen percent local funding basis. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The City Engineer presented the staff report regarding the feasibility of establishing Development Impact Fees for Seal Beach, such fees based upon the costs associated with new facilities and capital acquisitions required incrementally by new development, whether it be residential, commercial, or industrial, with AB 1600, enacted in 1987, setting forth the procedures and requirements to establish and impose such fees. He explained that it would be necessary to determine the build-out of the City based upon the General Plan and from that determine what the infrastructure needs would be, then determine what percentage should be charged to the developer and to the existing residents. Mr. Jue noted that the-Interim Development Services Director had indicated concern that the General Plan would require updating in conjunction with the study to establish the Development Impact Fees. Mr. Jue stated that the recommendation to I Council was that the City Attorney be instructed to investigate the need to update the General Plan before proceeding to implement Development Impact Fees, also to schedule a-presentation to Council by a specialist in the Development Impact Fee field to respond to technical questions. - The City Manager explained that there is need for a basis for the fees, which is the General Plan, therefore the request that the City Attorney review same and determine if the Plan is adequate, and if it is a consultant could be retained to develop the information necessary to establish the fees. With regard to the cost and time frame for review of the General Plan, the Assistant City Attorney stated that would be difficult to estimate, confirmed that State law requires that a General Plan be updated periodically, and made specific reference to recent changes in State law that have rendered many Housing Elements inadequate. With regard to the development recently approved for the Hellman property, the City Manager stated that project did qualify under the General Plan in it's present form, however the staff had pointed out that the Plan currently calls-for one hundred low to moderate housing units that will now need to be located on the northerly portion of-that property unless that requirement of the General Plan is changed. He said -as an administrator he did I', not feel the General Plan is in compliance with current State law, therefore could be subject to a legal challenge, or be required to be updated as the result of a State subvention or grant, etc. Councilman Laszlo asked if a developer could be required to pay a proportionate share of the cost of the development fee study. The City Manager explained that each project would need to be considered separately to-determine if sufficient findings could be made to levy a cost related to the study, that his initial feeling would be that the cost of the study, of general City benefit, could not be levied against a specific development, 8-21-89 . however subsequent to the study, information would be available to determine the percentage share requir,ed of a development for future improvements. The City Engineer stated that after review of the General Plan by the City Attorney and selection-of a consultant, the development fee study would take approximately four to six months at a cost of between $60,000 to $80,000. To the suggestion of considering-another traffic initiative, the City Manager advised that such initiative would also be subject to the requirements of AB1600. Councilman Laszlo-proposed that a moratorium or some other means be implemented to require any project that is approved during the period that impact fees are being considered to pay those fees. In response to a question of Councilmember Risner, the Assistant City Attorney reported that in the early draft of conditions for the Mola development there was thought -of including a requirement for traffic impact fees, however he believed that was replaced-with the $1 million that will be forthcoming to the City. The Development Services Director explained that a General Plan should receive major review every five years and minor review annually. Councilmember Risner suggested that the Development Services Director be included in the staff recommendation with regard to review of-the General-Plan, and asked that the -staff look into more than one DIF specialist-for consideration. Councilman Hunt noted the comment of the Assistant City Attorney that the $1 million that Mola agreed to pay the City would negate the responsibility in the event the traffic impact fees were imposed, and asked if, during negotiations with Mola, there was an indirect assessment -of traffic and development impact fees. The City Manager responded that in connection with the Environmental Impact Report, Mola will be making improvements to First Street and Pacific Coast Highway, to Westminster at Second Street/PCH in Long Beach, etc. Councilman Hunt then noted that in fact, traffic and development impact fees can-be required of a large development through the negotiation process, however he felt that the concern lies with the smaller developments. Mayor Grgas mentioned that in the case of Mola the concern was nexus, -yet the City will receive more than would normally be required, even the water and sewer studies that may identify future exactions, therefore the requirement for impact fees was not -at issue, and-additionally the necessary information to impose such-fees had not been prepared. Mayor Grgas stated that although members of the Council feel that time is of the -essence to impose such fees, he stressed the need to go through the required process, consistency of the General Plan to State law-and of one City document to another, determine the ultimate build-out and infrastructure requirements of the City, and then how that will translate into an assessment. The City Manager explained that if the General Plan is-determined to be inadequate it will need to be updated, that task most likely requiring retention of persons with expertise in the specific elements to the Plan. He spoke for considering the staff recommendations separately. Councilmember Risner moved to direct the City Attorney and Director of Development Services to investigate the need to update the City's General Plan, and that the recommendation to schedule a presentation by a DIF specialist be held over. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. I I I with regard to the time frame for review, the Assistant City Attorney said he believed an initial review of the General Plan could be accomplished in approximately thirty-five hours. Mayor Grgas pointed out that the General Plan is in need of review whether or not impact fees are considered 8-21-89 pursuant to AB1600, -yet under AB1600 the City would be required to identify deficiencies and the improvements that would need to be made in the future and determine the cost thereof. Discussion continued. Councilman Laszlo asked for a more definite time estimate for review, suggested that a moratorium or some other means be considered so that there will be a manner in which impact fees can be collected, and noted that a traffic initiative would place a moratorium on future development. -Councilmember Risner asked if a moratorium could be placed on major zone changes pending resolution of this issue. The Assistant City Attorney said he -believed that findings could be made to support interim regulations to control future development while the studies relating to impact fees are being prepared. Councilman Hunt pointed out that..the City has the ability to deny a zone change without imposing a moratorium. Mayor Grgas stated that if impact fees for a major development, such as Bixby, are the issue, that can be accomplished through a development agreement, and if that is not the issue then it would be all development in the City, including single family, and that he was not certain that would be constitutional. Councilman Laszlo stated he did not want additional buildings to be constructed, such as the office buildings-near the freeway and in the Rossmoor Center, without-having the impact fees imposed, and it was not his intent to apply such fees to single family construction. Councilmember Risner clarified that she had not necessarily meant to-refer to zoning changes, however suggested that a moratorium or some other method be looked into and presented to Council for consideration as an interim measure to assure that payment of impact fees will be required. -The Assistant City Attorney advised that some cities have adopted an interim AB1600 ordinance while the studies and formulas are being-prepared, however pointed out-that there must be evidence that will support the formula. Councilmember- Risner, with consent of Councilmember Wilson, amended the motion on the floor to include the direction that staff prepare an interim ordinance for consideration of the Council with a formula for imposing traffic mitigation fees during the interim period that the related studies are taking place. Councilman Hunt asked if the motion was meant to apply to the issuance of permits and be retroactive. The response was that it was not. Mayor Grgas explained that the ordinance would be-effective upon its adoption and possibly apply to a specified number of units or square footage. The Assistant City Attorney also noted that the formula would basically be derived from evidence obtained from traffic studies and would need to be sustainable in court. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS Environmental Oualitv Control Board Mayor Grgas requested that the District One appointment to the Environmental Quality Control Board be held over. Planninq Commission Councilmember Risner requested that the District Three appointment to the Planning Commission be held over. DISCUSSION - CITY -COUNCIL COMPENSATION Councilman Hunt noted that during the earlier Agency discussion -it appeared there was consensus that the City Council compensation of $125 per month is inadequate, and I I I 8-21-89 I stated that if the Council is serious about the issue it would be necessary to place the matter on the ballot. He said although he was not encouraging that action, he would be willing to do so, and in that regard suggested that some formula be applied to the $125 since the date it was enacted, and that that be the figure placed on the ballot. Councilmember Risner pointed out that the Charter is out-of- date in a number of areas, and suggested that a Charter Review Committee be established to review the document in its entirety, Council compensation being just one item of consideration. She noted that in many charter cities Council compensation is established pursuant to State law as it is for general law cities. Discussion followed and the Council indicated their support for a total review to bring the Charter into compliance with State law. Council suggested that it would be advantageous to direct the City Attorney to review the Charter initially for legal compliance, and staff clarified that each revision to the Charter would be considered as a separate ballot issue. In response to Council, the City Clerk stated that the cost for a citywide local election could be estimated on the basis of one dollar per registered voter, that there would only be a minimal increase of costs for additional ballot measures, that the cost would be less if such election were consolidated with the State or national election dates, and noted that the deadline for March 1990 ballot measures would be December of this year. At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Grgas asked that a report -be forthcoming to the Council regarding the Charter review process. I CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Risner reported that the Nominating Committee of the-League has-selected two nominees for the Second Vice President position, where it has been customary that the chairman of the Resolutions Committee move into that position, however due to an error the Nominating Committee had not been notified of the- interest of that person in serving in that position. Councilmember Risner requested that the Council support the nomination of Sally Ann Miller of Irvine for the Second Vice President position. Councilmember Risner said she had hoped that the Council would consider a resolution regarding the Supreme Court decision regarding burning of the flag, possibly addressing some of the legislative remedies at the federal level. Councilman Hunt stated as a member of the American Legion, and as one with strong feelings regarding the American flag, he did not feel that was an issue that local governments should be dealing with. Discussion followed with members of the Council indicating their opinions regarding-this issue. The City Manager suggested that given the strong feelings of the individual members, that the Council draft the resolution for consideration, and offered to provide the Council with copies of any resolutions adopted by other Orange County cities. Mayor Grgas announced that he was recently appointed to the Southern California Association of Governments Public Health, Safety, and Economic Task Force as a representative of Orange County along with representatives of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles counties, most of the major health agencies, and affected private sector employees, to consider and assess the impacts and implementation of the State adopted Air Quality Management Plan. He noted that there will be significant changes to lifestyles should any or all of the legislation proposed be adopted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. I 8-21-89 / 9-1l-89 ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to adjourn the meeting at 10:42 p.m. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried I Approved: ~r~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California September II, 1989 The City Council -of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00-o'clock p.m. with-Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Grgas Councilmembers Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, City-Manager-- Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Chief Dorsey, Lifeguard Department Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF -FULL -READING Wilson moved, second by Risner, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all- Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. I