Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1989-09-11 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 9-11-89 AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I PROCLAMATION Mayor Grgas proclaimed September 15, 1989 as nNational POW/MIA Recognition Day.n RESOLUTION NUMBER 3876 - AOUATIC ACTIVITIES - HOURS and LOCATION Resolution Number 3876 was presented to Council entitled nA 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. II By unanimous consent full reading of Resolution Number 3876 was waived. Chief Dorsey commenced a section by section review of the proposed Resolution establishing the hours and location for the various aquatic sports activities. He described the swimming areas, set forth in Section I, as two hundred yards seaward, from the easterly side of the municipal pier to the Anaheim Landing jetty, and from the westerly side of the pier to the prolongation of Third Street. He reported that the area beyond two hundred yards, Anaheim Bay, and the San Gabriel River to Third Street would be restricted from swimming. He stated the swimming areas apply to both summer and winter seasons, that the hours restricting swimming seaward of the two hundred yards between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. coincide with on-duty lifeguard hours, and that the two hundred yard restriction for boats and swimmers is consistent with the provisions of adopted Ordinance Number 1277 as -they now exist. He noted that although signs will be placed designating specific activities in certain areas, strict enforcement of the regulations would only be possible during the hours the lifeguards are on duty, or after those hours by the Police Department if deemed necessary. He noted that special permission or activities would be granted through the activity permit process, approved by the City Manager. The Chief explained that the Resolution proposed is merely an update of Resolution Number 2012 adopted in 1971 that established-hours and locations for surfboards, paddleboards, bellyboards, and skimboards, and now attempts to accommodate the use of windsurfers, separating uses that may pose a -potential conflict, all in the interest of public safety. Councilman Laszlo expressed his objection to the two hundred yard swimming restriction, pointing out the absence of serious conflicts over a lengthy period of time. Councilmember Risner stated her preference of adjusting the restricted swimming hours to possibly 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. instead of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Chief advised that the two hundred yard restriction for boats as well as swimmers has been enforced since 1971, and pointed out that there are a number of very warm days during the winter, therefore the request that the restriction apply to both summer and winter seasons. I I with regard to Section 2, Chief Dorsey explained that during the summer months boardsurfing is not allowed on the southeast side of the pier due to the number of children, shoreline activity, and poor surf conditions, however surfing is allowed from the pier to the San Gabriel River from sunrise until -10:00 a.m. and after 5:30 p.m., that from 10:00 a.m. throughout the day surfing is allowed from Third Street to the River, and noted that the 1971 regulations did not allow surfing between First and Third Streets, only in the San Gabriel River. He pointed out that Section 2-A.l of the proposed ReSOlution incorrectly referred to surfing being allowed between the Alamitos Bay jetty and First 9-11-89 Street where it should read Alamitos Bay jetty to Third Street and requested the Resolution be corrcected to -reflect that change. The Chief noted that the Resolution provides for surfing off of Surfside Colony where the 1971 regulations were silent regarding that area, that durcing the winter season, October-Ist to-June 14th, boardsurfing is allowed from sunrise to sunset from the westerly Anaheim Landing jetty to the easterly Alamitos Bay jetty, the 1971 I regulations prohibiting surfing-from-the-pier to the - westerly Anaheim jetty unless approved by the City Manager. Chief-Dorsey stated-that Section 4 of the proposed Resolution recognizes-the activity of boardsailing and proposes that the area between First and Third Streets be designated for -such use during the -windy period of the-day. He explained however that this does require that -the surfers be moved to the First Street/San Gabriel River area which is relatively small. The Assistant City Attorney stated it was his -understanding that surfing and boardsailing-would be permitted in the area between First and Third Streets and it would be within the discretion of the Lifeguards under section 4-B to blackball- the area to avoid conflicts and insure -that activities are conducted in a-safe manner. In response to-Council, -the Chief suggested that consideration could--be-given -to -restricting boardsailing to between Third and Fourth Streets for seaward access, however that would restrcict the ability for -the boardsailer to ride or jump waves, or that this activity could be eliminated during the summer months. Mayor Grgas offered that consideration could be given to reversing the surfing and boardsailing locations, allow-the-boardsailers the use of First to Second Streets, since it appears their general course is from the end of the pier towards-the beach in that area, then allow I the surfers between Second and Fourth Streets and in the River, and Councilmember -Risner suggested a boardsailing - launch area at First Street. In response to -Council, the Chief reported that there arce currently signs that depict the surfing and boardsailing areas with the activities separated as warranted by the number of boardsailers, the Resolution proposed providing the legal basis for designating the areas. Seven members-of the audience spoke of their participation in boardsailing, stated that Seal Beach is the only windsurfing/surfing location with suitable natural conditions in Orange County and one of three between Ventura County and the Mexican border, a major factor being that the wind blows from-the side, and that there are-approximately three-hundred boardsurfers in Seal Beach, ten thousand in Orange County. It was said that an area is needed with variable wind conditions, that boardsurfers travel at ninety degrees to the angle of the wind with an average speed of between fifteen to twenty miles per-hour, that the area is needed only on-those few days per week when there is wind, usually between 1:00 and 4:00 p.m., the -hours when surfing conditions are the poorest. Concern was expressed with surfers being in the same location as boardsailers and where I-- there would be compaction due to the size of the area proposed, and it was requested that the boardsailing area be expanded to sufficiently meet the demand. One speaker asked if the entire beach area could be made available for windsurfing during the-winter months. --Support was expressed for allowing the Lifeguards the discretion to ~egulate the beach activities on any given day based upon conditions. Three members of the audience spoke regarding the regulations with regard to boardsurfing, stated that the Resolution proposed appeared to be reasonable to accommodate the variety of activities, that the entire area northwest of 9-1l-89 I the pier is ideal for beginning surfers and more specifically the First to Second Street area, that they would prefer that surfers and windsurfers be separated, particularly with-regard to the younger participants in either sport. ~ member of the audience said the Third Street area provides the opportunity for her family to surf, swim, and enjoy the-beach, spoke for separation of boardsailing from surfing, and-expressed support for the Junior Lifeguard Program. Another member of the audience recommended that -citation powers be given to the Lifeguards, and another suggested that access for surfers to the Surfside beach should be allowed through the main gate rather than at Anderson Street. I With unanimous consent of the Council, the Mayor declared a recess at -9:08 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:22 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. Mr. Jack Haley, Ocean Avenue resident and former lifeguard, spoke in favor-of prcoviding the widest range of -hours possible for surfing, and that-enforcement of regulations be left with the Police Department. - Mr. Haley suggested that the area-of the Alamitos Bay jetty, First and Second Streets be designated for -surfers only, allowing-the use of Third and Fourth Streets by the windsurfers with the opportunity to sail beyond the two hundred yards designated for swimming, and expressed his opinion that -surfers and windsurfers be separated for safety reasons and ease of supervision by the Lifeguards, with the areas clearly marked by a flag or float. He recommended-that the First Street parking lot rate-be reduced to encourage the use of that lot as well as the other facilities in that area, and stated he did not feel it would be a burden to transport the windsurfing equipment from that lot to the Third Street shoreline. A member of the audience suggested that there be alternate days for-surfing and boardsailing, another -spoke in favor of separating the two activities and questioned how that would be accomplished, and-another spoke for allowing boardsailing in the River, First and-Second Streets, objected to-the distance of the First Street parking lot from the launching- area, yet asked that the lot remain open during the winter months. The Chief stated it will be up to the Lifeguard Department to educate the windsurfing public regarding the rules and regulations. Council discussion continued. I Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3876 as corrected. Mayor Grgas said he would support the motion however would prefer that the designated areas be the Alamitos Bay jetty-to Second Street for boardsurfing and Second to Fourth Street for boardsailing, with the understanding that the Lifeguards will have the discretion to expand or restrict the areas as deemed appropriate. Councilmembers Wilson and Laszlo amended the motion to reflect the boundaries -as stated by the Mayor. Councilmember Risner again stated her concern with the distance of transporting the boardsailing equipment from the First Street lot to-the launching area. Chief Dorsey stated that the revised boundaries were satisfactory. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that Section 2-A.I of the Resolution, Summer Boardsurfing, would be amended to reflect the boundary of the easterly Alamitos Bay jetty-to the prolongation of Second Street, Section 2-A.3 amended to reflect the northwest boundary as Fourth Street, -Section 4- A, Aquatic Sports, amended to reflect Second Street to Fourth Street, and to clarify that boardsailors can travel beyond the two hundred yard limit, Section 4-B, Prohibition, would be amended to add the word 'designated' areas. He 9-11-89 explained that a boardsail would be launched between Second and Fourth Streets and once past the two hundred yard limit, they would be allowed to travel any distance within the individual's capability. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1290 --SPECIAL FLOOD -HAZARD AREAS Ordinance-Number 1290 was presented to Council for second 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. Risner moved, second-by Wilson, to adopt Ordinance Number 1290 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3881 - PCH/MAIN STREET TURN POCKETS - TEMPORARY CLOSING Resolution Number 3881 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH BOUND TURNPOCKETS LOCATED AT THE MAIN STREET/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTIONS.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 388l-was waived. The-Director of Public Works presented the staff report and explained that the Seal Beach-Business Association -has requested the closure of Main Street on October 8th to hold a flea market/street fair, and that the Resolution proposed, -a new requirement of CalTrans, 1- requests the closure of the southbound PCH turnpockets onto Main Street. He stated he believed Main Street-would be closed from-approximately 9:00 a.m. until-5:00 p.m. Wilson moved,-second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3881 as presented. - AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCE - DEVELOPMENT-FEES A proposed-draft Ordinance was presented for Council information entitled nAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS AND AMENDING THE SEAL-BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE.n The Development Services Director presented the staff report with the recommendation that the draft Ordinance be referred to the Planning Commission for review and comment with subsequent consideration by the City Council, and-if it is the intent of the Council to proceed, that the staff-be directed to prepare a Request for Proposal to conduct the necessary background -studies,-determine the level of service capacity for existing and future transportation facilities and programs, and determine appropriate development fees. The Directo~ noted the major provisions of the draft I ordinance -as set forth on the second page of his September llth.memorandum. He -explained that the draft Ordinance does - not establish the fees but sets forth the administrative mechanism for the City-to collect such fees, where under California law it is not appropriate to establish the -fees until background studies have been undertaken to determine the current -levels of service in the community, any deficiencies that may-exist, and separate the cost to correct pre-existing situations from the cost of additional facilities or services that may be generated by new 9-11-89 I development. Mr. Whittenberg pointed out that the Ordinance would allow for the -collection of fees from any development project which-had not received building permit entitlements prior to adoption of a Resolution establishing the fees. The Director of Public Works estimated the cost of the citywide traffic-study between $30,000 to $35,000 and would require four-months for completion, and the City Manager confirmed that an appropriation from reserve funds would be necessary to accomplish the study as this was an unbudgeted item. The City-Manager also clarified that it was not intended that an action be taken-on the Ordinance at this meeting, -the -intent being to seek an indication as to-the Council's desire to proceed with this matter. In response to Councilmember Risner, the Assistant City Attorney - explained that the-draft Ordinance establishes the nexus between development and improvements, as set forth as Findings 'A' through-'F' of the draft. Councilman Hunt questioned the Planning Commission making -recommendations based on economic considerations, also the merit or justification for proceeding and expending funds for consultant services if the ultimate return is not as great as the investment. Mayor Grgas -recalled his thoughts similar to Councilman Hunt's, however stated he felt there would most likely be more transportation improvement costs incurred than the amount of expenditure for the study, that the study would provide a sound basis for having a capital improvement program in place, the study also being more - focused as to-improvements that will need to.be made that are transportation related. Councilmember Risner pointed out that if the sales tax measure is approved in November, the City will be required to have a Growth Management Plan six months thereafter, this study possibly being a benefit to preparation of same as well as the updates to the General Plan. She added that she felt the Planning Commission would be reviewing the merits of the Ordinance and not addressing the -economics of the-matter. -In response to Councilmember Wilson, the City Manager advised that the staff would not be able to devote the time necessary to this study-unless the Council -were to waive the present workload. With regard to selection of -the traffic consultant, the City Manager pointed-out that -the firm that provided the traffic study for past developments was selected and retained -by the City, paid for-by the-developer. Councilman Laszlo asked if consideration is being-given to fees other than-those relating to traffic, such as park fees for commercial development, and others. The City Manager stated other fees are not presently being considered however the Ordinance would allow for further-considerations, and-advised that the cost of $35,000 was based upon the transportation analysis only. The Assistant City Attorney explained that given the concern that certain projects may not be required to pay the development fees during the interim period, the fees have been tied to the building permit stage, a time frame that would be lengthier than completion of the transportation analysis. With regard to the concern that the development fees would be less than those that may be required under a Specific Plan, he referred to Section 22A-16 which provides the authority to require additional transportation facilities and/or programs, the intent of the Section being development fees. Councilman Laszlo said he felt that the wording of Section l-E should be expanded to read "...by deterring visitors and residents from-using -the City's retail establishments...n Mayor Grgas suggested that since the Request For Proposal process is going to be used, possibly it could be expanded to obtain costs for studies relating to other impact fees. The Director agreed that the I I 9-11-89 RFP could be designed to allow for anticipated costs of additional items for -study, the Council then having the opportunity to select the items. Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to ~efer the draft-Ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and comment-at the September-20th meeting and request staff to schedule-a public hearing to consider the draft Ordinance-at the - September 25th City Council meeting, -instruct the-staff to I proceed with the preparation of a Request For Proposal to conduct the -necessary background studies,- determine the level of service capacity for existing and future transportation facilities and programs, -and determine appropriate development fees, and-that the RFP-also include other-items affecting the-City's infrastructure, parks, recreation, -open space, etc. - Councilmember Wilson said she did-not think -it..fair that some developers have been required to mitigate-for transportation facilities and- programs while-others-have not, that all should be required to pay their fair share. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3882 - POLICE DEPARTMENT TOW TRUCK OPERATORS-- PROCEDURES/REQUIREMENTS Resolution Number 3882 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO POLICE TOW TRUCK OPERATORS-AND IMPOSING STANDARD REQUIREMENTS ON SUCH OPERATORS.n By-unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution-Number was-waived. - Wilson moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3882 as 1- presented. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR -- -ITEMS - nGn throuqh nLn Councilmember Wilson requested Item nGn removed from the Consent Calendar. - -Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item nGn, as presented. H. Approved-the minutes of the regular meeting of August 7, 1989. I. Approved-the minutes of the regular meeting of August 21, 1989. J. Rejected the Notice for Recovery of Taxes filed by Los Angeles Cellular-Telephone Company, served-upon the County of Orange by the State Board of Equalization. K. Approved the plans and specifications for Project Number 606, slurry seal of various streets citywide, and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids. L. Approved-the Parking Permit Program Agreement with the -Seal -Beach Old -Town Business-Association for the period October 1, 1989 until-September 30, 1990, and authorized the City Manager to execute same on behalf of the City. I 9-11-89 AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM nGn --DEMANDS ON THE TREASURY Councilmember Wilson stated that the payee of check 76078 was correct however the description was in error. The City Manager noted a problem with the City Council-checks which the City Attorney would address, also that Councilman Laszlo had been inadvertently left off of the listing. The Assistant City Attorney advised that it may not -be possible to exceed the current $30 per meeting payment to the Agency members-purcsuant to the Health and Safety Code which limits the compensation-of the -Council sitting as the Agency to $30 per meeting, that-provision having been adopted approximately fifteen years ago and apparently unchanged since that -time. -He stated there would be additional research to-determine the applicability to Charter cities and a report forthcoming to the-Agency. The City Manager suggested that the Council authorize new checks to be drawn less the recent Agency-compensation increase. Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to authorize the current checks be voided and new checks drawn. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried With consent of the Council, the Mayor declared a recess at 10:29 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:38 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. I GENERAL PLAN REVIEW The Director of Development Services presented the staff report with the recommendation that the City Council authorize-the staff-to prepare a Request for Proposal relative to-the-suggested -update to the Housing Element and Land Use Element of the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. Mr. Whittenbercg-stated-the primary area of concern -is to bring the Housing-Element and Land Use Element into compliance with current State law which would also impact some areas of the Coastal Plan. He noted that there is $24,000 in-the current budget to assist staff with the update of the Housing Element and Coastal Plan and it is likely that the Land Use Element update could also be accomplished within that-amount. Mr. Whittenberg added that although there is need to revise the Noise Element, Seismic/ Safety Element and the Open Space Element, the Housing and Land Use Elements and Coastal Plan would take precedence, and that the-Circulation Element could possibly be updated in conjunction with the information that will be forthcoming with regard to the development impact fees. Councilman Hunt asked if the Director could create a flow chart to reflect the time frame and associated cost for updating each of the Elements. The Director- responded-that it would be difficult to estimate the costs for consultant services and a realistic time frame for each phase, -and explained that the purpose of the RFP is to allow the consultant to outline the tasks that are -felt necessary, the associated costs, and time frames involved,-which will in turn allow the staff and the Council -to make the -decision as to how to proceed. Councilmember Risner acknowledged that there is some urgency with regard to updating the-General Plan Elements, also noted the possibility that the City will be required to prepare a Growth Management-Plan if the sales tax measure is approved, that SCAG may require an Air Quality Element, and that the hazardous waste-issue required by the Tanner bill could be adopted either through the General Plan or by I 9-11-89 Ordinance. - The Director responded that he believed the pending-legislation regarding the-Air Quality Management Plan requires local adoption by January, 1991, that it would be possible-to follow the Hazardous Waste Plan-adopted by Orange County however the City would be in a stronger position if there-were some reference..to that-issue in the General Plan. Councilmember Risner asked if-the Local Coastal Committee would be-activated to review the LCP and if so-, she requested -that the City Clerk provide a list of 1- the Committee members and the manner in which--they are appointed for review-by the Council. In response to Council, the Director stated.that although-it was felt the staff could review and-update the Housing and Land Use Elements in-house, that-would require- reallocation of departmental resources -and current projects would-need to be setaside -for.a period of time, -thus the recommendation to proceed through the RFP process. With regard to public participation regarding the General Plan update, the Director stated he would-envision-that-there would-be some form of community- input process which could be sought through a number of ways. Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to authorize staff to prepare-a Request -For Proposal relative to the -suggested- update to the Housing Element and Land Use Element of the General Plan -and-the-Local Coastal Plan as an integrated task, and upon receipt of the-proposals the Council could then make a determination to proceed utilizing consultant services or revisIng the work program to-allow City staff to assist in-those projects as needed and as appropriate given the budget constraints. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I APPOLNTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS Environmental- -Qualitv Control Board - Mayor Grgas moved to reappoint Mr. Ray Fortner to the Environmental Quality Control Board-representing Councilmanic District One for the full term of four years expiring July 1993. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried planninq Commission Councilmember -Risner requested that the District Three appointment to the Planning Commission be held over. COM CAST CABLE - -RATE INCREASE At the -request--of Councilman Laszlo, the City Manager reported the Comcast Cable rate increase is $3.00 per month for the basic subscription or 18.5 percent, and $2.50 per month for the senior -rate. Councilman Laszlo noted -that during budget discussions-the Council waived placing the Utility Users Tax on cable television because concern had been expressed by the- cable company that subscribership would drop, which-he said he felt -was misleading since Comcast is now imposing an increase of their rates. He reported a number of attempts, -most of -which were - unsuccessful, to contact Comcast offices to inquire about not receiving-the..monthly program guide, and was informed it now costs $2 per month and is only provided -by- subscription. Councilman Laszlo asked-that a letter be forwar,ded to Comcast objecting to the rate increase, and possibly a Resolution be-prepared- for, Council consideration -to be forwarded to the FCC, other cities, and legislators. I 9-11-89 1 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS - Councilman Hunt suggested that consideration be given to increasing compensation of the Planning Commission to $75 per meeting, compensate the Parks and Recreation Commission $200 annually, and encourage-the Cable Foundation -members to arrange for a $200 annual renumeration. He said that the Planning Commissioners, at $75 per month, -would be the lowest paid City employee on an hourly basis, that they do incur expenses by serving in that capacity, -and that he felt an annual percentage adjustment should be provided by some means. Councilman Hunt suggested that such increase be tied to the creation of new ethical standards, prohibiting benefits, gratuities, and gifts of any kind, with an exception for educational documents or papers pertinent to the Planning Commission function. He requested Council support of his recommendations and that the City Manager draft such-legislative changes for Council consideration. Mayor Grgas asked that Councilman Hunt's comments be transcribed verbatim for Council review. I With regard to the Comcast Cable discussion, Councilmember Risner noted the lack of local control since federal deregulation of cable television, and related experiences similar to those of Mr. Laszlo with regard to telephone communication to the cable company. She said she would not object to forwarding a communication, as the League of Cities has done, confirming the continued opposition to cable deregulation. Councilman Hunt concurred with forwarding a communication to the FCC and legislators expressing the City's position, also agreed with Mr. Laszlo that he felt comments of the cable company during budget considerations were misleading. Councilmember Risner noted that this community has one of the highest penetration rates in the County. Mr. Pete Arnold, l613 Seal Way, expressed his personal objection to the rate increase, noting that the $3 increase for the approximately seven thousand subscribers is about $252,000 annually. Mr. Arnold reported meeting with Mr. Barford, Vice President for Service in Orange County, during-which he expressed his displeasure -with the rate increase given the lobbying efforts by Comcast of the Council and the Foundation in opposition to the application of the five percent Utility Users Tax. He noted the strong Council, Foundation, and community support for the public television channel, which has been-documented as a potential subscriber base. Mr. Arnold reported his intent to suggest that basic channels be provided for a basic, reasonable subscriber rate, such as channels one through twenty or twenty-five, and allow the subscriber the choice paying for additional channels. I Councilman Laszlo moved-that a communication be forwarded to Comcast Cable expressing the-City's displeasure with their actions and rate increase, suggesting they consider a lesser increase, and that a Resolution be prepared for consideration and forwarding to the FCC, elected representatives, and other governmental agencies encouraging re-control. Councilmember Risner seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Councilman Laszlo made reference to the traffic accidents that have recently occurred on Lampson Avenue, and that he would like to pursue some type of corrective measures on that roadway. The City Manager referred to a press release issued by the Police Chief after a meeting this date with the City Engineer, the Chief, the Risk Manager, Liability 9-11-89 Legal Counsel, -and the City Manager in attendance, which reported that the Police Department-and-City-Hall staff nhave been engaging in ongoing discussions regarding preventative measures that could be implemented to reduce the number of traffic-collisions occurring on Lampson Avenue between Heather -Street -and Candleberry Avenue. While other long term solutions -are being explorced, the following measures will take--effect -as soon -as -possible: 1) the traffic signals located at Lampson -Avenue-and Heather street and at--Lampson Avenue -and Candleberry Avenue will be placed on -flashing red between the hours of 10:00 p.m. -and 5:00 a.m. seven-days -a -week~ -2)- larger, lighted-and/or - reflectorized reduced speed signs will be placed at-both the eastbound and westbound -entrances to the-curve located between these two-intersections, the-signs will indicate a reduced-speed-of thirty-five miles per hour, smaller signs with directional-arrows-will be placed along the curve on both- sides -of the street~ 3) -increased traffic enforcement of speed -laws. Chief Stearns further -states- -that the majority of accidents -reported -in this area occur during late night -and early morning hours and involve high speeds in excess of sixty-five miles per hour, and-ind~cates he is quite concerned to hear that some local young people are using this -particular stretch- of roadway to-attempt to impress- their friends with-'how fast-they can-take the curve and survive.~ He will-recommend to the courts that violators not only sustain high fines or jail time but also have their driving privileges (driving licenses) suspended or revoked.n The City Manager added that other than the press release, he would ask -that Council -refrain from further discussion until there is an opportunity to meet in Closed Session with legal counsel. Councilmember Wilson reported a call from a College-park West resident who received a citation carrying a sizeable fine from the City of -Long -Beach for -turning left off of the entry- into College Park West. She pointed-out that there is only one entry and exit into that housing area, and there is considerable problem when one tries to access Studebaker Road due to the traffic-exiting Seventh Street, and requested that Long Beach again be contacted to seek a resolution of this problem. Councilmember Risner requested Council support for the selection of Sally Anne Miller, Irvine, as First Vice-President of the Orange County League. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Grgas declared-Oral Communications open. Mr. Phillip Fife, Ironwood-Avenue, spoke regarding the recent accidents on Lampson Avenue in the vicinity of his residence that backs the curve. He said that motorists use-Lampson as an access to the freeway, agreed that young people are frequent speeders, as is the Orange County Transit Distrcict bus, and although more enforcement is needed there is nowhere for a police-officer to locate -and observe the -traffic. Mr. Fife suggested that the Lampson Avenue wall be -removed and replaced with an eight foot, steel reinforced wall for protection of the residents, then protection of the motorists should be addressed, that a center-divider, such as the type used by CalTrans, be a consideration. Mrs. Patty Campbell, Ironwood Avenue, also spoke regarding the traffic-accidents and agreed-with comments of Mr. Fife. She too suggested -that the Lampson wall adjacent to the residential properties be rceplaced, and that a center divider be installed to protect the motorists using Lampson. Councilman Laszlo made-reference to a 1985 communication from the City Manager to Councilman Clift-regarding the Bixby-Office Park and how the monies for-traffic improvements were proposed to be spent, one of the intended I I I , 9-ll-89 I items being a Lampson Avenue guardrail. Councilmember Risner recalled that-a condition of the Bixby development was that a traffic study was to be done and-if deemed to be warranted, a guardrail was to be installed on Lampson, and that she was not aware of the final determination. Mr. Fife stated -that in response to Commission discussion, Mr. Knight had provided a copy of a report regarding the-required expenditure of $18,000 by Bixby for traffic improvements to Lampson Avenue, one of the issues of discussion was guardrails.- Mrs. Campbell stated that the Traffic Committee had discussed- the-problems associated with ingress and egress from COllege Park West, however the-Committee terminated before reaching a solution. There being no further comments, Mayor Grgas declared Oral Communications closed. I CLOSED -SESSION The-Assistant City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss matters of -litigation, Keplar versus City of Seal Beach, Bell versus City of Seal Beach, and Surfside -versus Coastal Commission, and to meet with the City's negotiator to discuss a five acre site north of the Hellman Ranch Road. With unanimous consent of the Council, the Mayor adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 11:43-p.m. The Council reconvened at 1:17 a.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the-Council had met in Closed Session to discuss the items -previously announced and-potential litigation concerning Lampson Avenue, and that no action was taken. Mayor Grgas and Councilmember Risner stated they would be absent from the-September 25th meeting and requested that their absence be excused, and Councilman Laszlo announced he would be absent from the October 9th meeting. The City Manager reported he would also be absent from the September 25th meeting. ADJOURNMENT With unanimous consent-of the Council, Mayor Grgas adjourned the meeting at 1:18 a.m. of the Approved: L~r~ I Attest: