Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1984-10-08 9-l7-84 / 9-24-84 / IO-8-84 and ex-offic' City Council I Attest: ?--A^';,~. ,~ - · ~ C).-.i>>J( 4 City Cle~ -' Approved: Notice of Cancelled Meeting NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regular City Council meeting of Monday, September 24, 1984 is hereby cancelled pursuant to unanimous consent of the Seal Beach City Council at their regular adjourned meeting of September l7, 1984. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on Monday, October 8, 1984. THIS 18th day of September, 1984. I Seal Beach, California October 8, 1984 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brownell Counci1members Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Parker, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Hemphill, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Counci1members after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. IO-8-84 AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Brownell proclaimed October IS to October 19, 1984 as "Safe Schools Week." Mayor Brownell proclaimed October 7th through October 13th, 1984 as "Fire Prevention Week" and urged all citizens to visit their nearest fire station on Saturday, October 13th. October 14th through October 20th, 1984 was proclaimed "Traffic Safety Week" by Mayor Brownell. Mayor Brownell proclaimed October, 1984 as "Crime Prevention Month." October, 1984 was proclaimed "United Way Month" by the Mayor. "Toastmasters Communications Month" was proclaimed for October, 1984 by Mayor Brownell. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL 3-84 (V-7-84) - NEWKIRK - 3580 TEABERRY CIRCLE Mayor Brownell declared the public hearing open to consider Appeal A-3-84 to the Planning Commission's denial of V- 7-84 a request to deviate from the required rear yard setback. The City Clerk certified that notice of public hearing had been publiShed and mailed as required by law, and that no communications had been received either for or against this matter. Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services, presented the staff report and the reasons cited for the Planning Commission's denial of variance request 7-84. Mr. Baucke reported that at the conclusion of the August lSth public hearing, the Commission informed the applicant of the appeal process and by unanimous consent, waived the appeal fee due to possible administrative error. Mr. Baucke reported that one day prior to the Planning Commission hearing the applicant removed the elevated deck therefore complied with the sideyard setback. Additionally, he reported that since th~ Commission hearing and after review of this matter with the Building Inspector for the area and neighboring residences, it has been determined that the spa, gazebo, and deck structure was moved to its present and proposed location approximately twenty-four days after the applicant was informed that the new location shown on his proposed plot plan was in violation of the ten foot rear setback. Mayor Brownell invited members of the audience wishing to speak in support of this matter to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Dan NeWkirk, 3580 Teaberry Circle, appellant, stated that the appeal was filed with the hope of reaching a satisfactory resolution of this matter and at the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the reasons set forth in the application. Mr. Newkirk stated that the structure in question is a gazebo, purchased as a kit with the spa, consisting of lattice and platform type decking, and that most of the decking has been removed pending the outcome of the public hearing. He stated modifications have been made in an attempt to meet setback requirements on the side property and a five foot rear yard setback as he was initially advised, that he was subsequently informed a ten foot rear setback is required, noting that the spa presently complies with City codes. Mr. Newkirk referred to his residence as a large house with a small I I I lO-8-84 I yard and a kitchen protruding into the back yard with limited area from the rear of the house to the rear property line. He stated the subject structure is typical of those found throughout the City and County, that it fits the spa, offers decorative appeal and privacy, and that further modifications would impose considerable costs and effort and pose a hardship to meet a ten foot rear yard setback. He stated further that there is presently a five and one-half foot block wall with plantings of shrubbery and trees which effectively screens the area from view and that additional landscaping is planned once construction is completed. Mr. Newkirk reported that he had surveyed other residential properties in the area of which about twenty percent of the homes had structures and trellises visible similar to his which, he noted, mayor may not be constructed with proper permits, therefore stated denial of the variance would deny him the enjoyment of his property in the same manner as neighboring residences. In response to Council, Mr. Newkirk stated that a February 3rd letter from the City called for a permit application and required four foot rear and side setbacks, upon inspection, the spa location was determined to be in conformance, however the gazebo location was cited as too close to the property line, requiring a five foot setback. He stated he was subsequently informed of a ten foot rear yard setback requirement. He confirmed that the original complaint came from a side neighbor, and explained that the spa is portable, sitting three feet above ground with no permanent plumbing, requiring electricity only. Mr. Baucke explained that the City was made aware of the construction after it was in place, that a building permit had not been requested, that setback requirements for a spa is four feet, and that accessory structures fall within the ten foot setback requirement. He explained that at the time the 1979 Uniform Building Code was adopted, a provision was added designating all water bodies of eighteen inches or greater depth as a structure and required to meet the' setback requirements. Mary Lefley, 3570 Teaberry Circle, stated that the College Park East homes were over-built when originally constructed which in turn does not allow for additions or improvements under current law, and spoke for approval of the variance, stating it is an enhancement to the property. James Rivard, 3S81 Teaberry Circle, also expressed his support for granting of the variance. Mr. William Hoffman, 3590 Teaberry Circle, stated he is an adjacent neighbor of the Newkirk residence, that the object of his objection is to the structure enclosing the spa, not the spa itself, that he had initially informed the Newkirk's that the structure was in violation of City Code, and that he subsequently notified the City. Mr. Hoffman reported two real estate firms have appraised his residence, reporting the selling price $7,000 to $10,000 less than market value due to the structure at the Newkirk residence, and stated his intent to seek legal measures to recover any financial loss. Mr. Hoffman also reported that the perimeter wall is less than the required six feet, and expressed his objection to invasion of his privacy. Mr. Baucke confirmed that Code requirements for a perimeter fence is six feet, accessory structures may be fifteen feet maximum, also that if the subject accessory structure were removed, the spa itself complies with Code requirements. Linda De Los Santos, 3S91 Violet, rear neighbor of Mr. Newkirk, expressed her objection to granting the variance on the basis that it may reduce the value of her property. In response to Council, Mr. Baucke acknowledged that the applicant had stated that the gazebo was purchased as a I I 10-8-84 package with the spa, is of basic structural foundation construction, bolted together as an integral unit, that the gazebo could be removed, lowered, or modified, however lowering the structure would not resolve the rear yard setback requirement, explaining that the structure in violation could be removed or the entire unit relocated on the subject property. He also confirmed that a permit is required for accessory structures such as temporary spas, storage sheds, etc. Councilman Grgas asked what legal grounds Mr. Hoffman would have for any financial loss of his property. The City Attorney responded that the sole remedy would be. to set aside a decision of the Council to approve the variance by writ of mandate after such action by the Council, that this would not be a case of monetary damages. There were no other communications; Mayor Brownell declared the public hearing closed. I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3412 - DENYING APPEAL A-3-84 - NEWKIRK - 3580 TEABERRY CIRCLE Resolution Number 3412 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEAL A-3-84 FILED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF VARIANCE V-7-84." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3412 was waived. The City Attorney recommended Finding Number 8 of said Resolution be amended to read "That legal grounds for approval of a variance under the Seal Beach Municipal Code do not exist for this application." Clift moved, second by Brownell, to adopt Resolution Number 3412 as amended. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried In response to a member of the audience, Mr. Baucke again stated the setback requirements for a spa only are four feet from the side and four feet from the rear property line. I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3410 - SALARY RATES/WAGE SCHEDULE/BENEFITS - POLICE ASSOCIATION Resolution Number 3410 was presented to Council entitled "A 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 CERTAIN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND REPEALING, ON THE EFFECTIVE DATES SPECIFIED, ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3410 was waived. The Assistant City Manager presented the staff report relating to employee salaries and benefits for 1984/85 for the Police Association, Orange County Employees Association, Executive Management and Middle Management, and reported the approximate number of employees within each category. Clift moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3410 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3413 - SALARY RATES !WAGE SCHEDULE/BENEFITS SCHEDULE/BENEFITS - ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Resolution Number 3413 was presented to Council entitled "A 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 CERTAIN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND REPEALING, ON THE EFFECTIVE DATES SPECIFIED, ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH." lO-8-84 By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3413 was waived. The City Manager reported Section 10- D-3 of the M.O.U. amended to read "The City shall not change medical/dental insurance plans..." Risner moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 3413 as amended. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3411 - SALARY RATES!WAGE SCHEDULE BENEFITS - MANAGEMENT NON-REPRESENTED PART-TIME HOURLY SEASONAL Reso1utlon Number 3411 was presented to Council entltled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A CHARTERED CITY, ESTABLISHING SALARY RATES, A SALARY AND WAGE SCHEDULE, AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND REPEALING, ON THE EFFECTIVE DATES SPECIFIED, ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3411 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3411 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3414 - APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 83-1008 - BROWN - 507 OCEAN AVENUE Resolution Number 3414 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 83-1008." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3414 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3414 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 34lS - PROHIBITING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES - BOLSA AVENUE Resolution Number 34lS was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PROHIBITING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES FROM BOLSA AVENUE." By unanimou~ consent, full reading of Resolution Number 34lS was waived. The Director of Public Works presented the staff report and justification for this action. By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3415 was waived. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 34lS as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "M" THROUGH "R" Councilmember Risner requested Item "Q" removed from the Consent Calendar, and Councilman Grgas requested Item "R" removed. Wilson moved, second by Clift, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items "Q and R", as presented. M. Approved the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of September 10, 1984. N. Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned City Council meeting of September 17, 1984. O. Approved regular demands numbered 53547 through 53676 in the amount of $506,595.62; regular demands numbered 53677 through 53873 in the amount of IO-8-84 $23S,Sl6.31; and payroll demands numbered 10633 through l0799 in the amount of $l36,037.50 as approved by the Finance Committee and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for the same. P. Approved Navy Contract N62474-84-L-008 to provide water service to the Naval Weapons Station, and authorized the City Manager to execute the Contract on behalf of the City. I AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "Q" - AGREEMENT - PIER TELESCOPES Councilmember Risner inquired as to the number of telescopes being considered, stated her feeling that there should be no more than one, and expressed concern with the telescope base design from a safety standpoint, suggesting that it be flat based for direct mounting on the pier. Mr. Joseph reported he had been informed that the base is designed in this manner in order to: 1) allow small children to step up to use the telescope; and 2) for safety reasons, whereby the base extends past the width of the telescope, therefore avoiding intrusion into pedestrian traffic by the telescope itself. He reported that installation of two telescopes was being considered, as once existed on the pier, and verified that there is no expense to the City relating to this matter. Councilmember Risner moved to limit the number of telescopes to one; there was no second to the motion. The Assistant City Manager offered to investigate alternative telescope designs. Wilson moved, I second by Clift, to approve the agreement between the City and SEE Scopes for the placement of telescopes on the pier on a fifty/fifty revenue share basis, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson Risner Motion carried ITEM "R" - MERCHANT PARKING AGREEMENT Councilman Grgas recommended that section one of the Rules and RegUlations be amended to reflect no overnight parking between 1:30 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. as opposed to 3:00 a.m., and inquired as to the procedure for issuance of the permits. The Assistant City Manager responded that in the past the Association has announced the availability of the permits to its membership, placed an ad in the newspaper, and distributed them on a first come basis. The City Manager explained that some of the problems associated with availability of the permits will be eliminated by over- selling, also, that a number could be retained for distribution later in the agreement period as the need arises. Mr. Grgas further recommended that the agreement be for a period of six months rather than a year and pending further decisions relative to the downtown revitalization. Mr. Joseph reported that the cost of the parking permits to the City is approximately $50. Councilmember Risner referred to the expanded use of municipal parking areas under this program, and recommended that merchant parking in the Main Street lot located in the one hundred block be limited to the easterly (Tenth Street) portion of that lot. Grgas moved, second by Clift, to approve the Merchants Parking Agreement and Rules and Regulations as modified. I 10-8-84 AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried At the request of the City Manager, the Council, by unanimous consent, amended the agenda to include a report from the Finance Director. I REPORT - 1984 TRAN ISSUE The City Manager presented a report from the Finance Director regarding the 1984 TRAN Issue that was completed on October 4th by delivery of $2,500,000 in Notes to the Bank of America and receipt from them of $2,480,552, representing the proceeds of the sale, less $2l,000 expenses, plus accrued interest of $1,552. He reported further that the Notes were sold at 7.45 percent and assuming interest earnings of $271,000, the City would realize a net gain of $84,750 over the $186,250 interest paid on the TRAN. Members of the Council commended the staff for their efforts towards the 1984 Issue. Mayor Brownell declared a recess at 8:28 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:42 p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order. I CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION - REFERENDUM PETITION - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1170 - CITY OF SEAL BEACH BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN Councilmember Risner requested the right of personal privilege to make a statement regarding recent articles appearing in the News Enterprise relating to the Bixby project, and authored by the Editor of that paper, which she deemed to be biased, containing personal attacks, numerous misquotes and inaccuracies. Mrs. Risner also referred to fliers with a reprint of the news articles being distributed in the City. The City Clerk presented the Certification of Examination of the Referendum Petition to Ordinance Number 1170 as follows: "I, Joanne Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that a Referendum petition protesting the adoption of Ordinance Number 1170, "City of Seal Beach Bixby Old Ranch Business Park Specific Plan", was filed in the office of the City Clerk on August 28, 1984, that said petition consisted of ninety-three (93) sections and contained an actual total of three thousand twenty-one (3,02l) signatures affixed thereto. That the number of registered voters of the City as last reported to the Secretary of State by the County Clerk (Registrar of Voters) was eighteen thousand three hundred eighty-five (18,385), verified on August 28, 1984, ten percent (10%) of which being one thousand eight hundred thirty-nine (l,839), the requisite number of valid voter signatures required to qualify the referendum petition pursuant to the California Elections Code. 1 I do hereby further certify that the results of the examination of said petition are as follows: Total petition Sections Examined 63 Total signatures affixed thereto and subject to examination 2218 Total valid signatures as determined from the records of registration 2070 , Total number of signatures deemed to be invalid l48 lO-8-84 Pursuant to the above stated facts, I, Joanne Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby declare and certify the Referendum Petition protesting the adoption of City of Seal Beach Ordinance Number ll70 to be sufficient. DATED THIS 26th day of September, 1984. Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk City of Seal Beach" I The City Clerk reported that the City Council, upon submittal of the Certificate of Examination, has the following options: I) repeal Ordinance Number 1170 in its entirety; 2) call a Special Election at the October 8th meeting; or 3) postpone the order of a Special Election until a later date. The City Clerk stated election documents necessary to call an election had been provided to the Council for their consideration, and recommended that if it was the intent of the Council to call an election, that the order be postponed until the next regular Council meeting so that the election date would fall in late January. Risner moved, second by Grgas, to receive and file the Certificate of Examination. Councilman Clift expressed his feeling that it may have been shown that nearly three thousand qualified persons supported the referendum if it had been necessary to examine the entire petition. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I Mayor Brownell recommended that discussion on this matter be limited to a half hour for each opposing viewpoint. The City Attorney clarified that pursuant to the Elections Code, after the Certification of Examination is presented, the Council must then reconsider the Ordinance, decide whether or not to repeal the Ordinance, and if a decision is made not to repeal, then the only other option is to call an election. He explained that the Code does not specify when an action to repeal must take place, also that it is within the authority of the Council to postpone calling an election until a later date, noting that should a motion to repeal the Ordinance fail, the Ordinance would remain suspended until such time as an election is held. Mr. John FOllis, 4372 Elder Avenue, referendum proponent and co-chairman of the Concerned Citizens of Seal Beach, expressed his opposition to Ordinance 1170 and requested Council action for its repeal, stating he had no objection to development of the parcel, however any development should be within the thirty-five foot height limit and comply with other City development regulations. Mr. Marsh Blu, 4409 Ironwood, petition circulator, referred to the number of signatures gathered on the petition and the ease of obtaining same, and stated his feeling that the citizens do not want seventy foot buildings and the density of the Bixby project. He stated he had suggested to Councilmember Risner that a meeting be held regarding the Bixby project, which was arranged and held, however not as he had specifically proposed, that his stated objective was to find a compromise area where another project could be submitted and have citizen support. Mr. Blu asked that Ordinance Number 1170 be repealed. Mr. Jay Covington, 4260 Dogwood Avenue, stated he felt that the meeting that I lO-8-84 I had been arranged to discuss the proposed Plan, with Bixby in attendance, was appropriate and useful, and represented a last effort to determine if there was a basis for reconciliation of both sides. Mr. Covington stated he wished to request Council repeal of Ordinance 1l70, stating the potential of City liability as his main concern, and citing ultimate assessment of taxpayers as a means to satisfy City liability in the event of a disaster. As requested by Council, the City Attorney responded to the matter of liability for the City and its taxpayers, noting that he had previously addressed this issue to the Council by memorandum. Mr. Stepanicich summarized that at the present time reference can only be made to existing law as to what the City's rights or obligations would be, that there is statutory immunity for the City from liability in those cases where it acts in a legislative or discretionary manner. He stated that in this case the City is acting in a legislative capacity in a discretionary manner in approving or disapproving the Plan. He added that if one were to presume that at some time in the future the legislature, for one reason or another, repealed the immunity, it would become a question as to whether the City was negligent or not and therefore there would be a review of the record before the City Council. He stated that due to the fact that the proposed Specific Plan was consistent with the Orange County Airport Land Use Plan, and based upon the environmental studies that were done at the request of the City and received by the Council, it was their opinion that the City had acted reasonably in investigating and researching the matter prior to the time that it took action, so that the risk of liability from a point of view of negligence does not seem to be a severe one. The City Attorney referred to the second issue, whether or not individual taxpayers would be found liable in the case of a crash on that property, and reported they were not aware of any law where an individual taxpayer could ever be held liable in the case of a judgement against the City, such judgement would be strictly against the City government itself, not against its individual residents or taxpayers. He stated additionally that should there be a crash at that site the City would more than likely be involved in litigation, however the question would then become whether or not the City would be held liable, and on that basis it was felt that the chance of liability was not a serious one under existing California law. He further clarified that under Proposition 13 there can not be a real property tax exceeding the present one percent limitation, and under existing law, assessments are available to cities with respect to capital improvements and maintenance districts of improvements, explaining that there are no procedures set forth for assessment of court imposed liability. Mr. Van Tarver, 4380 Elder Avenue, and Mr. Ken Radcliff, 4880 Hazelnut Avenue, expressed their opposition to the development, the height of the buildings, commented on citizen support of the referendum, newspaper articles relating to the Bixby project, and urged that Ordinance Number 1170 be repealed. Mr. Frank Laszlo, 4480 Candleberry Avenue, stated his perception of what citizens would consider an acceptable development on this site: I) the original project approved in 1980, nine acres of commercial and nine acres of light manufacturing; 2) any project that is allowed under the Code without variances or minor variances; 3) garden office buildings within the height limit; and 4) any combination of the above. I I Mr. Howard McCurdy, 13922 EI Dorado Drive, commenced by stating aircraft patterns can be traced directly over his 10-8-84 Leisure World residence, referred to the various objections raised regarding this project, expressing his feeling that traffic would possi9ly be the only valid argument against the project and noted that any project will generate additional traffic. Mr. McCurdy stated the thirty-five foot height limit has long since been broken, referred to Leisure World's request for a height variance some years back which ultimately cost its residents about two and one-half million dollars due to delays and increased construction costs and substantially increased the cost of the condominiums. He expressed his feeling that the height limitation should be raised for everything north of the Hill, and suggested that it will be necessary for Leisure World to construct high-rise at sometime in the future in order to maintain housing for the elderly. Mrs. Barbara Lukinovich, 70l Marvista Avenue, stated her support for the project, and that citizens in favor of the development will express their views at the polls if an election is called to resolve this matter. Councilm~mber Wilson reported that of the persons she has spoken with that had signed the petition, they did not understand that the petition was for anything other than placing the issue on the ballot, and that they were not opposed to the height or the project. Counci1member wilson stated she has reassessed and studied the project thoroughly and still feels it will be an asset to Seal Beach. She stated she has heard almost unanimous support for the project from Leisure World and College Park West, also from persons in Rossmoor and that portion of College Park East in District Two. Mrs. Wilson expressed her feeling that any threat from the air would have been to Leisure World rather than the eighteen acre Bixby site, that Leisure World has lived in harmony with the Armed Forces Reserve Center since its existance, that the traffic study is authentic and acceptable and that traffic changes proposed will have a positive effect on traffic in the area, and that the proposed building height for that particular site under the Specific Plan is legal and far superior to a possible seventy-five foot manufacturing development under the General Plan. Mrs. Wilson expressed her respect for the validity of the referendum process, however stated the persons initiating the referendum become responsible for the cost of a special election rather than the Council. councilmember Wilson stated she feels strongly that once the Bixby land is developed, residents of the area will be pleased with the asthetic improvement and the added revenue to the City. Mayor Brownell reported for the record that he had received a communication from James Hagadorn, 408 Emerald Place, making reference to his letter to the editor published September 20, 1984 in the News Enterprise, urging the Council to reconsider their vote in favor of the Bixby Specific Plan. Councilman Clift referred to the location of the Bixby property in relation to the A.F.R.C. and Leisure World, citing the greater potential for a crash at the eighteen acre location, also the reference made to the possibility of building a seventy-five foot high structure on the M-I zoned portion of that site, to which he expressed his disagreement with the legal opinion of the Code provisions. He made further reference to a 1975 Council action rezoning the eighteen acre Bixby parcel, which used nine acres to describe the area rezoned M-l, and noted that the Code states that a building in excess of thirty-five feet is only allowed on sites of ten acres or more, and expressed his feeling that the intent of the Council was to prohibit any building exceeding thirty-five I I I 10-8-84 I feet on that site. Councilmember Risner expressed her respect for the referendum process, noting that the petition reflects the wishes of its signers to express their views on this project or support resolution of the matter through the election process, stating however that the majority of the City's registered voters have yet to express their opinion, therefore the petition would not mandate a change of her position on the project. Mrs. Risner stated that concerns expressed relating to the project have been studied and mitigated in the best possible way, she referenced testimony relating to air traffic safety to which the Deputy Attorney General presented a statement on behalf of the AFRC and the FAA had given approval, and reviewed the numerous conditions placed on the project and resulting amenities to the City. Counci1member Risner referred to the 1980 development plan for the Bixby site that would result in more traffic, retail/commercial use that would dilute downtown and Rossmoor business, and pointed out that Bixby will not build corporate offices that are not visible from the freeway. Councilman Clift stated that concern lies with persons on the ground, noting that the FAA's concern is with airspace, expressing his feeling that if the thirty-five foot height were maintained, the density would be spread out, thereby reducing the number of persons within a building. He mentioned the AFRC Master Plan that had been submitted, then withdrawn by the Deputy Attorney General, which set forth a new orientation of the APZ's which allowed one-third of the site to be free of that zone. Mr. Clift referred to a conversation he had with Deputy Attorney General Blake regarding possible legal response from Bixby if this Plan were turned down and in some way implicate the Air National Guard in that action, and a discussion relating to the 1980 approved Plan, which Bixby ultimately withdrew and redesigned. Councilmember Risner stated it was her understanding that if the Council made a determination to deny the Plan on the basis of air safety, that action would leave the City open for an inverse condemnation suit by Bixby. The City Attorney responded that the question had come up at the. Planning Commission level as to whether or not the City could impose an air crash zone on the property and it was the opinion that if the City took action to down zone the property to the extent where there was no economic use, the City could be subject to an inverse condemnation suit. He also confirmed that there are no APZ's on that site at this time. A member of the audience stated APZ One and Two zones exist at the federal level for the land leased to the Air National Guard. Councilman Clift reported communication with the Aviation Division of CalTrans in Sacramento prior to the July 9th meeting, during which he was advised that they were in receipt of correspondence regarding establishment of .the APZ's as part of the AFRC Master Plan, to which the CalTrans representative said he concurred, also, that the representative had advised he would be in attendance at the JUly 9th meeting. Mr. Clift reported that he was later informed that the CalTrans representative had been at the AFRC, however had returned to Sacramento, and stated he could only assume that the Ca1Trans representative had been advised by the Deputy that this matter was under the reigns of the State National Guard, therefore the representative chose not to attend that meeting. I I Risner moved, second by Wilson, to hold over a final decision to call a special election until next meeting. The City Attorney clarified that a motion for the repeal of Ordinance Number 1170 was not necessary, that the entire matter would be returned for consideration at the next meeting. 10-8-84 AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried APPOINTMENT - SEAL BEACH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AUTHORITY Councilman Grgas moved to appoint Ms. Mitzi Morton to the Seal Beach Administration Building Authority representing Councilmanic District One for the unexpired term ending July 1986. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I APPOINTMENTS - CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FOUNDATION Mayor Brownell moved to appoint Mr. Howard McCurdy to the Cable Communications Foundation representing Councilmanic District Five for the full term of two years. Mrs. Wilson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Councilmember wilson moved to appoint Mrs. Teri Jones to the Cable Foundation from District Two for the full term of two years. Mrs. Risner seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Councilman Grgas moved to appoint Mr. Peter Arnold to the Cable Foundation representing District One for the full term of two years. Councilmember Risner seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I The City Attorney reported that an organizational meeting of the Foundation can not be held until approval is received for the entity from the State Tax Board. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Brownell declared oral communications open. Councilman Grgas reported he had attended a recent meeting of the Seal Beach Homeowners Association and that a letter would be forthcoming from the Association requesting City assistance regarding the Happy Holiday Hotel on Seal Beach Boulevard and the surrounding two block area, and that the Association would also be suggesting that a Citizens Committee be formed to assist in future plans for that area. Mr. Grgas also reported trucks are again parking on Seal Beach Boulevard. Councilman Clift reported concerns expressed by his constituents regarding the operation of motor vehicles in residential areas as it relates to the potential of accident or serious injury. He reported that a letter has been completed for forwarding to all residents, bringing this matter to attention and requesting evaluation and discussion of driving habits. Mr. Brian Sweeney, 140 - lOth Street, stated his prev~ous involvement with the I Zoeter School Cultural Center Board, the goal being to formulate a plan to retain the Zoeter site as public use. Mr. Sweeney reported he had received inquiries from parents regarding the status of the Zoeter site, and suggested that any Council discussion of this matter should include interested public. Councilmember Risner stated it may be timely to commence public discussions relative to the Zoeter site. In response to Council discussion, the City Manager reported that in his discussions with persons 10-8-84 / 10-22-84 I involved with the preschool and day care operations a statement was made that they would be included in any proposal made by the Zoeter School Cultural Center Non- profit Group regarding lease the facilities, that he had not spoken on behalf of the City. Mr. Sweeney asked if a date has been established for submittal of plans by the Cultural Group for the Zoeter site. The City Manager responded that nothing definite was forthcoming to his knowledge. There were no other oral communications; Mayor Brownell declared oral communications closed. CLOSED SESSION The City Manager reported the Closed Session was no longer necessary. ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, at 10:45 p.m. AYES: NOES: second by Risner, to adjourn the meeting Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I Approved: ~-' f', i , ~'..v ~..I' J.... _..rJ~.e _ Mayor / Attest: '/1--1 , . , ' . Seal Beach, California October 22, 1984 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brownell Councilmembers Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Parker, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services Sgt. Stearns, Police 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