Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1986-06-09 5-27-86 / 6-9-86 ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, 10:51 p.m. second by Grgas, to adjourn the meeting at AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I Approved: -J!l2( a k and ex-off~c~o/clerk of the ach City Council ,/ Attest: I Seal Beach, California June 9, 1986 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Clift calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Cli ft Councilmembers Hunt, Risner, Wilson Absent: Councilmember Grgas Councilman Grgas arrived at the meeting at 7:03 p.m. I Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Hemphill, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Risner moved, second by Wilson, 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. 6-9-86 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried Councilman Grgas arrived at 7:03 p.m. SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PLAN Mr. Dave Bartlett, Van Dell & Associates, presented the I Seal Beach Boulevard Right-Of-Way Master Improvement Plan, Phase Two of the improvement project proposed. Mr. Bartlett explained that the Plan includes a new street section with a landscaped center median, diagonal parking, an entry statement for Old Town at the southeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway, street furniture, bus shelters, pedestrian oriented street lights, relocation of the historic marker for Anaheim Bay, a landscape and st~eetscape element which will be the unifying element tying the project together as a whole. Mr. Bartlett stated that adoption of the proposed Plan would be a positive step towards improving Seal Beach Boulevard, setting forth parameters for further engineering design and eventual construction, and would allow the City to apply for funding assistance to implement the improvements. He noted that private improvements have been initiated on several properties along the Boulevard during the development phase of this Plan. Mr. Bartlett described the street design as a six foot sidewalk section, a three foot landscape and utility easement adjacent to eighteen feet of diagonal parking and a non-delineated bikeway, a twenty foot southbound travel lane, an eight foot landscaped median, a twelve foot northbound travel lane, a five foot delineated bike trail, and a five foot landscaped easement adjacent to the Naval Weapons Station. He reported that I through communication with the Telephone Company, they have indicated their facilities could be undergrounded at no expense to the City, that undergrounding of the Edison facilities would have to be coordinated with Edison. Mr. Bartlett reported coordinated effort with the Naval Weapons Station over a period of several months to develop a mutually agreeable criteria for landscaping, safety and security, noting that ten foot moveable planter boxes are proposed for the Naval Weapons Station entrance, and that palm trees, as a theme tree, are proposed to be added to those existing on the east side of the Boulevard and continuing to the entry statement at Pacific Coast Highway. With regard to the historical marker, Mr. Bartlett stated it is proposed to be relocated from its present location near the bus stop on the east side of the Boulevard to the west side near the bicycle shop in a landscaped, seat wall area in order to provide greater visibility of the marker. Mr. Bartlett clarified that the marker would be placed so that a viewer would also be facing Anaheim Bay, the subject of the marker. Mr. Bartlett reported the number of parking spaces proposed are the same as currently exist, however the diagonal design provides more parking frontage for the businesses and residences on the westerly side, also that an alternative parking plan, by use of a box culvert over the drainage channel on the east side, could provide I an additional twenty-four spaces, and if considered for implementation, would be the last phase of construction improvements. With regard to the width of the landscaped median, the City Engineer stated that ten to twelve feet is a typical width for a median, the eight foot median proposed for Seal Beach Boulevard being a minimum width that would be appropriate, noting that the First Street median is twelve feet, Pacific Coast Highway approximately ten to twelve feet at maximum width. Mr. Bartlett stated 6-9-86 I it was his understanding that some funding has been requested for this project, and reiterated that other funding sources may become available by having the adopted Plan. Mr. Bartlett explained that the street lights proposed in the Plan are pedestrian/bicycle oriented lamps of an acorn style, acknowledging that it may be possible to use Edison's coach style light similar to those on the Electric Right-Of-Way. Mr. Mike Martin, Edison Company, clarified that Edison would fund undergrounding of the existing system utilizing an Edison style lamp, however undergrounding would not be funded if the City chose to install a custom street lighting system, explaining that approximately $600,000 currently exists for Seal Beach undergrounding, most of which has been designated for the upcoming First Street/Ocean Avenue project, noting that the current allocation to the City is approximately $47,000 annually. Mr. Bartlett clarified that a total of twelve feet is designated for the westerly landscape, sidewalk and utility easement, a more than adequate area without interference with the utility facilities. Councilmember Risner noted a pending Public Utilities Commission decision that could substantially increase underground funding credits, also that it is possible to draw up to three years of advance funding, and expressed her feeling that underground projects need to be prioritized. Councilman Grgas extended appreciation to the many persons who devoted their time and effort to develop the Improvement Plan, and urged that the staff recommendation to adopt the Plan and refer implementation and funding to the City Manager for future funding consideration be approved. Mr. Del Bailey, 211 - 213 Seal Beach Boulevard, stated his concern with parking, citing the potential for increased commercial activity on the Boulevard, suggesting that parallel parking could possibly be provided on the east side of the Boulevard utilizing the planter and bike lane areas. Mr. Bartlett responded that on the business side of the Boulevard as much parking frontage as possible was utilized, the number of spaces remaining the same as presently exist, that additional parking could be provided over the channel for an overall increase in spaces of approximately fifteen percent, explaining that parallel parking is not proposed for the full length of the easterly side of the street due to an ongoing problem of large trucks parking in that area. Mr. Bartlett reported that a concept study had been done taking into consideration the land use alternative of low intensity commercial/residential use in conjunction with this Plan, resulting in one space for each three hundred to three hundred fifty square feet of floor area, provided through diagonal parking in the front and on-site in the rear. He noted that design alternatives had been looked into, that the configuration of the street would not accommodate additional parking without extensive street redesign studies, which would not be in the City's best interest. Mr. Bailey suggested that reduction of the median by three feet and elimination of the bike route could provide additional area for parking. Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th Street, spoke in support of the Plan, and asked that some funding be a consideration during budget discussions, suggesting that landscaping at Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard could be an initial improvement. Mr. Bartlett reported the portion of land to the east of the P.C.H./Seal Beach Boulevard corner is owned by the City. Councilman Grgas reported receipt of a letter from Richard Grossgold, 239 Seal Beach Boulevard indicating his support for the project. Scott Wildman, 99 Welcome Lane, inquired as to the cost of improvements. Mr. Bartlett stated that the proposed five year phased project cost is estimated at $500,000, I I 6-9-86 the last phase, the proposed additional parking, estimated at $90,000, and that the estimate includes a contingency in the cost estimate. Soretta Fielding, 223 Seal Beach Boulevard, stated she was an original member of the Task Force, and noted that the Plan proposed is a composite of improvements requested by persons of the area to upgrade and improve Seal Beach Boulevard, expansion of the zoning to allow mixed use, and an opportunity for this area to grow. Mr. Bartlett explained that if it is the City's desire to implement the land use along with the Improvement Plan, that would consist of a zoning Text Amendment and zone change to allow a residential/commercial designation, and clarified that the first phase of construction of the Improvement Plan would commence during Phase Three. He stated that the Plan will be compiled in booklet form with a narrative and backup materials, and will represent an adopted Plan, that process included in the $13,000 Phase Two project. Mr. Bruce Stark, 219 Seal Beach Boulevard, expressed his qualified support for the Plan and urged it's timely implementation, however reiterated his objection that only southbound travelers could park and access the businesses in the area, suggesting the bike route could be deleted and that area utilized for parking, also spoke regarding street sweeping. Mr. Walt Miller, 231 Seal Beach Boulevard, expressed his continued objection to the median strip, and stated that he had been informed that neither the Police Department, the Fire Department, or Orange County Transit had been consulted on the Plan as it relates to the roadway width and access for emergency vehicles. He also stated drawings show all curb cuts deleted, those areas now proposed for parking spaces, therefore requiring use of the alley, and objected to the non-delineated bike route and proposed that the width of Seal Beach Boulevard and Main Street are the same. At the request of Council, the City Engineer explained that a seventeen foot width would be available to northbound vehicles in any emergency situation given the fact that no parking is allowed on the easterly side of the street, that the actual width of a bus is eight feet, as opposed to one hundred ten inches as Mr. Miller stated, a provision of the California Vehicle Code, and that six feet is the typical width of most vehicles. Mr. Hemphill stated that in almost any instance passage would be available, and if it were absolutely necessary, emergency vehicles would use the opposite roadway for access, which is not uncommon, concluding that he would not foresee concern with safety aspects of the Plan. With regard to vehicle speed impacting bicycles, Mr. Hemphill stated that once the Plan is implemented, driving speeds will automatically decrease due to the asthetics of the design, noting that a bicyclist will have an additional eight feet in which to maneuver. It was further pointed out that on the easterly side there are also two pull-out areas for emergency vehicles if necessary. Mr. Bartlett clarified that neither a General Plan Amendment nor Coastal Commission approval is necessary for designation of the bikeway and bike lane as proposed. Discussion continued regarding the legal width of vehicles. Councilmember Risner asked that this item be held over until a July meeting for further study, suggested that proposed projects and funding sources should first be prioritized, and requested that responses be obtained from the Police and Fire Departments and the OCTC regarding the emergency vehicle concerns as expressed by Mr. Miller, that the width of Main Street versus Seal Beach Boulevard be verified, and that the Woman's Club be notified of the proposed relocation of the historical marker. Councilman Grgas noted that this conceptual Plan has been discussed I I I 6-9-86 I at the Task Force level for over a year, discussed at a joint Commission/Council workshop, and at two Commission meetings, which provided the opportunity for public input, noting also that concerns and issues discussed have since been resolved. Discussion continued. Mayor Clift asked if it would be feasible to initiate the zone change study should the adoption of the Improvement Plan be postponed to a future meeting. Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to hold over the Seal Beach Boulevard Right-Of-Way Master Improvement Plan until the first meeting in July, and that the staff provide responses to questions posed as requested. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Grgas moved, second by Clift, to authorize the Planning Commission to initiate a study of land use designations and zoning for properties located in the 200 and 300 blocks of Seal Beach Boulevard at the earliest possible time pursuant to the recommendations of the consultant and staff. Discussion continued. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The Council declared a recess at 8:34 p.m.; the Council reconvened at 8:49 p.m. with Mayor Clift calling the meeting to order. I PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL 1-86 - STANGELAND - 1500 - 1500-1/2 - PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Mayor Clift declared the public hearing open to consider Appeal 1-86 of Condition No. 7 of the approval of Variance 1-86, "disintensification of the existing uses, the removal of the eating/drinking establishment." The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported no communications had been received either for or against this item. The City Manager presented the staff report, reviewed the background of this matter and reported the actions of the Planning Commission as set forth in the June 4, 1986 memorandum from the Director of Development Services. Mr. Brian Kyle, owner of the property located at 1500 Pacific Coast Highway, recalled that when the building site plan was presented to the City, it was intended that Dave's Other Place would remain on-site, however during the public hearing process this use was deleted in order to resolve the parking requirements set forth by City Code. Mr. Kyle requested that the Council grandfather eighteen rather than ten parking spaces to the subject property therefore reinstate the existing use. Mr. Doug Hoxey, 1407 Seal Way, spoke in support of the appeal and for grandfathering of the parking, noting that the business has been in existance for seventeen years, pointing out that some parking exists on-site, on adjacent residential streets and on both sides of Pacific Coast Highway, also that many patrons walk or bicycle to Dave's. Mr. Hoxey stated that Mr. Stangeland recently received a fifty year resident award, and has actively supported community activities throughout the years. Mr. George Moreno, 840 Brookline Road, recalled Mr. Stangeland's involvement in the community, and stated he did not foresee a parking problem at the location noting that Dave's closes at 6:00 p.m., and expressed his support for approval of the Appeal. Mr. Don Stegen, 331 - 16th I 6-9-86 Street, reported that there have been no problems with this establishment during its seventeen year existance, and spoke in support of Dave's at the present location. Mr. Dennis Courtemarche, 315 - 15th Street, pointed out that the neighborhood in which Dave's is located is essentially a commercial zone backed up by residential, that historically there have been no problems resulting from this business, stating he felt variances have been previously granted I for similar circumstances, and added his support for retaining Dave's Other Place. Mr. Kyle explained that the proposed project includes the addition of office space therefore parking would not be utilized by that use after 5:00 p.m. and on weekends, noting that there are fourteen spaces provided, also that the Coastal Commission had not objected to the established business remaining. Councilman Grgas recalled the background of Dave's initial establishment as a restaurant and the eventual granting of a variance for beer and wine, with conditions, approved by the City Council in August 1969. Mr. David Keefe, 313 - 8th Street, Mr. Jim Bolton, 1310 Ocean Avenue, Mr. Paul Jeffers, 8 Cottonwood Lane, and Scott Wildman, 99 Welcome Lane, spoke in support of the Appeal. Mrs. Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th Street, expressed her concern with the legality and precedence being set by allowing a commercial, legal non-conforming property to expand one hundred percent without the required parking. There being no other communications, Mayor Clift declared the public hearing closed. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to approve Appeal 1-86, deleting Condition No. 7 from the approval of Variance 1-86. Councilman Grgas stated he did not oppose Dave's establishment, I expressed his feeling that this matter is a landlord/tenant situation, however expressed his concern with the legal non-conformance of the property and grandfathering of parking spaces without the property being brought into conformance with the Code, and questioned whether a special privilege is being granted in this case. The City Attorney explained that under California law each variance is judged on its own merit therefore granting of a variance would not necessarily establish a precedent for future cases. With regard to grandfathering the parking spaces he pointed out that this particular matter deals with reconstruction of the building and for that to take place legally, it requires a parking variance if findings can be made that would justify such variance. He explained further that at the Planning Commission level it was thought that with this bar/restaurant use there was an additional demand on parking that exasperated a perceived parking problem in the particular area, and if the City Council were to conclude that there is not a parking problem and it would not exasperate the parking issue, findings could more than likely be made to justify that determination, the issue then being whether or not a parking problem does exist. In response to Council, Mr. Stepanicich stated that historical use could be a consideration, however would not be an overriding factor for granting the variance. Mr. Stepanicich I also noted that the Condition requiring disintensification was brought up in early Commission discussions however was not imposed until the last meeting at which the matter was considered, explaining that there were several different factors taken into consideration by the Commission including the beneficial effect of granting the variance and allowing upgrading of the property, therefore he would be unable to comment as to what decisive factor Condition Seven had 6-9-86 I upon the Commission's final decision. Councilman Grgas asked, assuming that the disintensification Condition were deleted, if the variance would be tied to this operation/operator, or if the variance would be granted to the project or property indefinitely. The City Attorney confirmed that the variance would run with the land for the use proposed, the property allowed to continue with the parking as authorized by the variance, however explained that if there were a use change in the future on that parcel of property, a question would be raised as to the continuation of the variance. Mr. Stepanicich stated that it would appear that what is being proposed in this case is the continuation of the use as proposed by the developer at this time with less than required parking, clarifying that if there was merely a change of ownership of Dave's, the variance would continue to be in effect. Councilman Grgas pointed out that the Main Street area does have an in-lieu parking program whereby parking will be provided in some manner in the future, and in this case a variance is being allowed for parking with no requirement that the operator participate in such a program. He stated he had felt this project would be a benefit to the community by improving the existing building and provide a needed asthetic treatment at the subject location, as opposed to an original proposal for a three story commercial structure, which would not blend with the atmosphere on Pacific Coast Highway. However, Mr. Grgas noted that residents of the adjacent neighborhood had expressed their feeling that the project should not be allowed without providing parking in compliance with the Code, therefore the Condition for disintensification which brought the project into closer conformity. Councilman Hunt noted that should the operator of Dave's change in the future, a new tenant would be required to go through the CUP process, therefore the City would retain control of that establishment even though a number of parking spaces had been grandfathered. Discussion continued. I Vote on the motion to approve Appeal 1-86: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1224 - REPEALING MORATORIUM - LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS - URGENCY Ordinance Number 1224 was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REPEALING THE MORATORIUM ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1224 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Ordinance Number 1224 as presented. I Councilman Grgas requested clarification of the Planning Commission's intent with regard to their recommendations set forth in the May 22nd report regarding security requirements and amortization periods. with regard to security requirements, the City Attorney stated that, in his opinion, the City presently has the ability to impose security measures as a condition of granting a CUP, however explained the Commission's intent to require that security personnel be maintained on-site as determined on a case- by-case basis, the intent was not to require security hardware devices. Mr. Stepanicich advised that an amortization period could be established for the existing uses that do not operate under a Conditional Use Permit, however 6-9-86 the amortization period would need to be for a period of time adequate to allow for recoupment of investment. Mr. Stepancich recalled that the City has approved an amortization period for non-conforming entertainment cafes, that being a different situation where the entertainment was an ancillary use rather than the basic use. With regard to the legality of requiring that a percentage of sales be attributed to food, the City Attorney advised that the ABC definition of a bonafide restaurant is very broad, requiring only that a hot meal be served, and stated it would be questionable to what extent a City could impose rules that are regulated by the ABC such as the percentage of food sales and hours of operation. Mr. Stepanicich also noted the potential for an anti-trust violation if a limitation were placed on the number of Conditional Use Permits that would be allowed for such uses, or further, if such a limitation were placed on the Main Steet area. Mr. Stepanicich advised that the City would clearly have the power of regulation through its zoning ordinance by determining the zone in which such uses would be allowed and also where they would be located within that zone, cautioning however that if spacing requirements were imposed, a problem could be created due to the existing commercial areas that abut residential properties. Mr. Stepanicich responded further that a moratorium could be maintained in the Old Town area by amending the boundaries of the moratorium area which could be considered at a future meeting if the Council so desired, also reported that they will be working with the staff to develop regulations based upon the recommendations of the Commission and Council, and address the legality of those recommendations. Vote on motion to approve Ordinance Number 1224: AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3604 - HONORING JOHN M. BAUCKE - DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Resolution Number 3604 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, HONORING JOHN M. BAUCKE, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR HIS DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE WELL BEING OF THE COMMUNITY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3604 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3604 as presented. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3605 - MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS Resolution Number 3605 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE MAYOR OF REPRESENTATIVES TO VARIOUS BOARDS, AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS, ASSIGNING CERTAIN DUTIES TO COUNCILMEMBERS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 3493." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3605 was waived. Mayor Clift announced I each Councilmember so designated as representatives, the Resolution to be amended to reflect same. Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3605 as amended. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3606 - 1986 TAX and REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES - PROVIDING FOR ISSUANCE and SALE Resolution Number 3606 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH 6-9-86 PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF ITS 1986 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,200,000 AND APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT FOR USE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3606 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3606 as presented. 1- AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "F" THROUGH "L" Risner moved, second by Wilson, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented. F. Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned City Council meeting of May 20, 1986. G. Approved the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of May 27, 1986. H. Approved regular demands numbered 60988 through 61157 in the amount of $174,060.27 and payroll demands numbered 29077 through 21140 in the amount of $145,568.88 as approved by the Finance Committee and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for the same. I. Authorized the City Manager to solicit bids for a base model "mini" pick-up truck to be used in the Water Department. I J. Authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids for one (1) traffic signal controller to be used at First Street and Marina Drive. K. Approved the Agreement with the County of Orange for Westminster Boulevard Reconstruction/Overlay, project Number 553 (AHFP Project No. 1177), the first of two phases for refurbishing Westminster Boulevard between Kitts Highway and the west City limits, and authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. L. Accepted the resignation of Edwin H. Ripperdan from the Planning Commission, District Two, and declared a vacancy for the unexpired term ending July, 1989. AYES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ESTABLISHING BUDGET WORKSHOP It was the consensus of the Council to meet for a budget workshop on-Monday, June 16 at 6:00 p.m., and if conflicts arose with that date, to designate Tuesday, June 17th, 6:00 p.m. as an alternative date. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Clift declared Oral Communications open. Councilman Grgas stated that he may be absent from the June 23rd meeting. Councilmember Risner, also noting her absence from the June 23rd meeting, suggested that possibly the adoption of the budget be postponed until Monday, June 30th. There were no other Oral Communications; Mayor Clift declared Oral Communications closed. 6-9-86 - 6-17-86 ADJOURNMENT Grgas moved, June 16th at date. second by Wilson, to adjourn until Monday, 6:00 p.m., or Tuesday, June 17th as an alternative AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, wilson None Motion carried By unanimous consent of the Council, the meeting adjourned at 10: 12 p.m. .1 of the Attest: I Seal Beach, California June 17, 1986 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Clift calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Clift Councilmembers Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Chief Picascia, Police Department Capt. Garrett, Police Department Mr. Hemphill, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mr. Osteen, Recreation Director Chief Dorsey, Lifeguard Department Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I