Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1985-05-28 5-20-85/5-28-85 regarding pending litigation, California Coastal Commission vs. Surfside Colony, Ltd. and City of Seal Beach, and Frisbee vs. City of Seal Beach. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened at 10:40 p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed matters previously reported and one personnel matter on which no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT Risner moved, second by Clift, to adjourn the meeting at 10:41 p.m. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, wilson None Motion carried Appr~ed'~ M-<G Mayo ~. ",<1""" ~ 42.--~ Attest: I I Seal Beach, California May 28, 1985 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 Also present: Mr. Parker, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services I Mr. Hemphill, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mr. Osteen, Recreation Director Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk Mayor Brownell presented a plaque to Mrs. Risner recognizing her services to the community as Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency for 1984/85. 5-28-85 I WAIVER OF FULL READING Clift 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. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried COUNCIL REORGANIZATION Selection of Mayor Mayor Brownell declared nominations open for Mayor. Mayor Brownell nominated Mrs. Risner as Mayor of the City for 1985/86, and so moved. Councilman Clift seconded the motion. There being no other nominations, Mayor Brownell declared nominations closed. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Mrs. Risner stated it would be an honor to serve in the capacity of Mayor and accepted the gavel from Mr. Brownell. Mayor Risner and members of the Council conveyed their appreciation to Councilman Brownell for his service to the City as Mayor for 1984/85, and presented him with a plaque of appreciation. I Selection of Mayor pro Tempore Mayor Risner declared nominations open for Mayor Pro Tempore. Councilmember Wilson nominated Mr. Clift as Mayor Pro Tempore of the City for 1985/86, and so moved. Councilman Clift seconded the motion. There being no other nominations, Mayor Risner declared nominations closed. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Brownell, Risner, Wilson None Clift Motion carried AGENDA AMENDED Brownell moved, second by Wilson, to consider agenda Item "C", Bixby Old Ranch Business Park Precise plans, and agenda Item "X", a report regarding the Business Improvement Area, out of order as the first items of business. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK - PRECISE PLANS and ASSOCIATED MATERIALS Mayor Risner declared the public hearing open to consider the Bixby Old Ranch Business Park Specific Plans. The City Clerk certified that notice of public hearing had been published and mailed as required by law, and reported no communications had been received either for or against the item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report regarding the submittal of Precise plans and associated materials for the Bixby Old Ranch Business park, as required by the Specific Plan. He reported that the review before the Council is for the specific areas of architecture, the building structures, parking circulation, landscape areas, height and location of buildings, and materials and textures of the elevations, stating that the Bixby Ranch Company is requesting approval of the submittals. Mr. Baucke reported that the office buildings 5-28-85 are located in the same area as submitted on the conceptual plans, have been reduced to sixty feet in height, and that the three four-story office buildings are connected by a glass atrium, and further, reviewed the materials proposed for the office building elevations, the hardscape and parking areas, parking, circulation and landscaped areas, noting particularly the landscaped area at the north boundary of the project to be a wind row of trees ten feet on center I with a height of fifteen to eighteen feet at the time of planting. Mr. Baucke reported the staff has reviewed the submittals of the Bixby Ranch Company and noted the following: I) that all street and parking lot circulation precise alignments have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer as represented in the Precise Site Plan; 2) that all precise Plan submittals are in accordance with the regulations and procedures of the Specific plan and the conditions of the EIR Resolution; 3) that a convenient bus stop location has been incorporated in the Precise Site plan and approved by the City Engineer; 4) that the two types of Solarban gray glass has been reviewed and field surveyed and found to be non-mirrored in nature; 5) that a traffic safety study has been done by ultra Systems showing that conditions exist which make the relocation of the dinner house unsafe and not practically feasible; 6) that the office buildings have been reduced in height to sixty feet as required by the Specific Plan; and 7) that the precise plans and associated materials have been found to meet all requirements of the Specific plan, therefore staff would recommend approval of the Precise Plan submittals before the City Council. Mayor Risner invited members of the audience wishing to I speak in favor of the Precise Plans to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Ron Bradshaw, 911 Studebaker Road, Long Beach, addressed the council on behalf of the Bixby Ranch Company, owner of the property for which the plans were submitted, stating that as in the past, they have worked closely with city staff, responding to their concerns and those of the Council, in an effort to reach agreement that would be satisfactory to both parties. Mr. Bradshaw stated that subsequent to the election, the Bixby Company and their consultants studied the Plan further, and that the plan before the Council represents changes required by the Ordinance and those that were suggested, including materials. He stated that due to site circulation they have elected to leave the buildings in their original location, that the building materials have been changed, explaining that the buildings now include features that were not required, such as the energy management system, reducing the requirements of electricity and power consumption, computer controlled security and elevators. Mr. Bradshaw pointed out that attention to detail has been demonstrated and is based upon Bixby's commitment to bring to Seal Beach a development that the citizens, the government and developer can look upon with pride. Mr. Robert Braunschweiger of Albert C. Martin and Company, architects for the project, reported I that the material proposed for the wall of the building has been changed from lucribond, a painted aluminum panel, to granite panels both in polished and plain finish to soften the texture, that the facade of the buildings are articulated separately depending upon their exposure, from a columnar framework to a flush rendition consisting of non-mirrored rose and gray glass and granite, and that the three four-story buildings will be connected with a glass interior lobby atrium, bringing the extensive exterior 5-28-85 I landscaping into the building. Mr. Braunschweiger stated that to lower the building height the mechanical system and elevators were changed, the penthouse eliminated, that the buildings are energy efficient, and stating every effort has been made to make this a first class project. Mr. Braunschweiger explained that the glass areas on the freeway side and the atriums step down for a greenhouse effect, that the other windows are flush with the side of the building. I Mayor Risner invited members of the audience wishing to speak in opposition to the Precise Plans to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. John FOllis, College Park East resident, stated the Concerned Citizens of Seal Beach wanted to go on record as opposed to any buildings in Seal Beach over the thirty- five foot height limit. Mr. Frank Laszlo, 4480 Candleberry, asked why the Planning Commission was not reviewing the Precise Plans, and if it would be legal for them to do so. The City Attorney responded that under the Specific plan approved by the Council and by the voters, the Precise plan was to be reviewed only by the City Council, and that the Council review was limited to the height and architectural features of the building, and for that reason it does not go back to the Planning Commission, confirming that the Specific plan Ordinance, which set forth procedures for review, was provided with the voting materials to the electorate. He stated further that in accordance with the Ordinance, the Planning Commission would not have the lawful authority to review the Precise plan, unless the Council chose to initiate proceedings to amend the Specific plan to allow for Planning Commission review. with regard to landscaped areas, streets, parking area, and traffic safety, the Director of Development Services reported they are a consideration only as they relate to the Precise Site plan, noting that such considerations are dictated by the building locations. Mr. Laszlo voiced dissatisfaction with the traffic safety reports prepared by Ultra Systems, expressed concern with potential problems arising from the bus stop location, stating his opinion that the Council does not have the expertise or time to review this project in the manner the Planning Commission would. The Mayor asked the Council's views as to amending the Specific Plan to provide for further Planning Commission review. Clift moved, second by Grgas, to support further Planning Commission review. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas Brownell, Risner, Wilson Motion failed I Georgiana Brown, 212 - 14th Street, stated she was representing the League of Women Voters in Seal Beach, and wished to confirm that the League did support limitation of buildings in Seal Beach at the thirty-five foot height limit. Mr. Jay Covington, 4260 Dogwood Avenue, stated he wished to cite reasons why the City Council should deny the precise plan, that the safety and lives of Seal Beach residents not be placed in jeopardy due to the deviation of aircraft in trouble, with aircraft accidents certain to occur, such as that in February, that the Precise plan should not be approved since actions taken by the Council, in his opinion, have been and will be clear violation of State and local laws. Mr. Covington requested, and was duly sworn by the Clerk. Mr. Covington again referred to the February aircraft accident, a flight that originated in Fullerton, stating his opinion that had it occurred earlier it would have changed the outcome of the election, 5-28-85 also that there is now a certainty that there will be crashes in Seal Beach due to the proximity to the Los Alamitos Air Station, and to air corridors of airports in other cities, that with the three sixty foot buildings proposed aircraft will not be able to follow their normal course therefore will impact residential areas. With regard to the liability issue, and based upon facts he would present to the Council, Mr. Covington stated it is clear that when the Council approves a plan that they know is invalid, that clearly places a liability upon themselves and the residents. Mr. Covington stated that no act by the City can legalize an ordinance that is already invalid, as was the case with Ordinance 1170 approved by the voters in January. He referred to CEQA procedures for valuation and adoption of an EIR, and inquired of the City Attorney who is the lead agency and responsible agency with regard to an EIR. The City Attorney responded that with respect to a legislative action, the lead agency would be the body that makes the final decision on the project, the City Council, and interpreting Mr. Covington's question, explained that a responsible agency would not be the Planning Commission since they were a recommending body within the City, citing as an example, if a project required a State or Federal agency approval, they would then be considered a responsible agency. Mr. Covington asked if the Environmental Quality Control Board had any valid legal purpose in the City, and under requirements of State law states that whenever substantial changes are made to an EIR that had previously been recommended to the lead agency, that the document is to be referred back for additional report and findings. The City Attorney responded that the EQCB function would only be to review the environmental documents and make recommendations, explaining that none of the City commissions or departments would be considered a responsible agency under CEQA, that other agencies could be considered a responsible agency under the appropriate project, however in this case there were no other responsible agencies that had approval power over the project. He explained further that CEQA defines what is being reviewed as being the project and in this case there was an EIR for the project, that being the Specific plan, and the Council being the final decision maker is therefore the lead agency, for that reason there were no otHer lead agencies involved in the project, nor were the planning Commission or EQCB a responsible agency for the project. Mr. Stepanicich pointed out that there is no approval or disapproval of an EIR, that State law states that the final decision making body, before making a final decision, must certify the EIR to be final and prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. He stated that once that action is taken, the lead agency is then in a position to make its decision with findings, and in this case, there was a separate resolution in which environmental findings were made with respect to each of the potentially significant environmental effects that were identified in the EIR. Mr. Covington referred to Sections of the Government Code, which he reported states that in any city having a Planning Commission, the Planning Commission shall be the lead agency in consideration, evaluation and adoption of a Specific Plan, that a proposed developer has no vested rights, also that a City Council can only act upon the recommendations for the plan to the City Council, and should a Specific plan be denied there is no basis for appeal because the only party having appeal rights would be the property owner. He reiterated that a Specific Plan is to originate from the City, under State Code, specifically from the Planning Commission, and if I I I 5-28-85 I there are any significant changes to the Plan, under Government Code Section 65504, they would be required to go back to the Commission for additional hearing and report. Additionally, Mr. Covington referred to Section 65507, which states that when it is in the public interest, a public body may initiate and adopt a Specific plan and amendments thereto, stating however that in using this provision it is necessary to make a finding that it was in the public interest in order to bypass the regular procedures, which the City did not do. Mr. Covington stated it was his opinion, as well as many other attorneys in the community, that there is no Specific plan and that the City did not follow procedures as provided in State law. Mr. Covington also charged that misinformation had been given to the Council during the past year as to procedures relating to appealS to the Council of planning Commission denials, and urged that the Council seek an additional legal opinion as to the validity of the Specific plan prior to approving the Bixby precise Plan. Mayor Risner advised Mr. Covington that it was not the City Attorney that had misadvised the Council on appeal procedures, that it had been standing practice in the City that was brought to light, adding that the City Attorney has now been directed to draft an ordinance deleting the requirement for referral back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Risner requested that the City Attorney again address the matter of taxpayer liability should there be an air crash in any area of the City. Mr. Stepanicich stated that, assuming a judgement was entered against the City, there is no connection or direct liability between that judgement and the individual property owners, that the party that would be liable would be the City, as a corporate body, for its action if a court found that the City had acted wrongfully, which does not translate into higher property taxes or taxes imposed by a court to pay for the judgement. The Mayor asked if there has even been a case where this has happened. Mr. Stepanicich responded that in certain instances during the depression the courts determined whether or not a city had enough points to file bankruptcy proceedings, which is a drastic action that a city could take if it could not pay its debts. He again stated that if a judgement were placed against the city, they could only advise that there would be no liability to the individual property owners of the city, that the city would have to pay the judgement through its insurance or assets, or declare bankruptcy. The City Manager pointed out that should bankruptcy ever occur, the City would disincorporate, become a part of Orange County, with all municipal services provided by the County, clarifying that the City would be liable as would any other corporation, and that the electorate would not be personally liable for any debt incurred. Mr. Covington asked if the taxpayers would not be liable for a debt incurred through the sale of a bond issue to satisfy a judgement. The city Attorney explained that under the California Constitution a City can not issue bonds that would be secured by real property, the tax rate frozen by proposition 13, and further, to his knowledge there are no cases in California where a city has been placed in this type of liability position. with regard to the legality of the Ordinance, the City Attorney responded that all of the issues raised were addressed in a written memorandum to the Council, the conclusion being that the Ordinance was validly adopted, that opinion remaining unchanged. Mr. Tom Ritacco, resident of Rossmoor and member of the Homeowners' Association, posed several questions relating to the perimeter wall adjacent to Rossmoor. Mr. Baucke responded that the wall I I 5-28-85 will be constructed of masonry material, extending the length of the property, connecting with and equal in height to the CalTrans proposed wall along the Seventh Street connector, that the developer has indicated the wall and the wind row of trees will be the first phase of development. Mr. Ritacco also inquired as to what type of restaurants are planned. Mr. Bradshaw responded that although they I have not as yet been seeking restaurant users, the concept continues to be that one restaurant would be a family restaurant serving the three major meals, similar to a Coco's, the other being a moderately priced dinner house, similar to a Velvet Turtle or Charlie Brown's, and not conceived to be a major entertainment center. Mr. Ritacco noted the concern of residents bordering the project as to loss of privacy due to the building height, as well as disturbance from entertainment. Mr. Grgas pointed out that a provision of the Specific Plan Ordinance requires that the use of alcoholic beverages and entertainment would require City Council approval. Mr. Baucke added that a provision of the Specific plan requires the architecture and the tenancy of the restaurants to come before the City Council for approval. Mr. John Follis inquired about a previous reference to a "penthouse". Mr. Braunschweiger clarified that the reference was not to a dwelling unit, it was a term used to describe the enclosure of the mechanical equipment and elevator override on the top of the building, advising that this has now been adjusted so that there will no longer be anything on the roof. Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th Street, referred to the value of lawsuits pending against the City, and expressed her concern with adding any additional potential for liability. Barbara Rountree, 13300 Twin Hills Drive, stated her concern that the glass I appeared to be black and mirrored. Bixby representatives explained that the glass is solar gray, that on certain elevations the windows are set back about two and one-half feet, therefore they will not pick up as much light, however on the other surfaces the windows will pick up certain reflections of the sky and clouds. Mayor Risner declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Grgas expressed appreciation to Mr. Bradshaw for the Bixby Company's contribution of the artwork (seal) placed at the municipal pier. Mr. Grgas noted that although the Specific plan was approved, the electorate of his District did not approve it, therefore he would be voting against the precise Plan approval. Councilmembers Brownell and Wilson expressed their continued support of the project. Councilman Clift expressed his feeling that procedurally the project should have been referred back to the Planning Commission last July, stating that although this is a fine project, his concern lies with the location of the project, and stated his intent to vote against the Precise Plan. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3476 - SEAL BEACH BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK - PRECISE PLANS and ASSOCIATED MATERIALS Resolution Number 3476 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING PRECISE PLANS AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS, AND THEREBY FINDING SUCH PLANS AND MATERIALS TO BE IN CONFORMANCE TO THE REGULATIONS, CONDITIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3476 was waived. Brownell moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3476. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Risner, Wilson Cli ft, Grg as Motion carried 5-28-85 The Mayor, with consent of the Council, declared a recess at 8:38 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:46 p.m. with Mayor Risner calling the meeting to order. I REPORT - BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA The City Manager presented the staff report and final tabulation of the BIA protest, failing to qualify as a majority protest by $111, and conveyed the staff's concerns with the parameters used to determine the extent of the protest. The City Manager reviewed in detail concerns relating to the master list, adding and deleting businesses during the protest process, the categorizing of businesses and the related charges in the absence of a gross receipts business license system. He pointed out that although the proponents of the BIA believed that through the BIA all business interests, Old Town - Main Street, Bay City Center and the Seal Beach Center, would be brought together, the final tabulation showed that only Zone 1, Main Street, did not oppose the BIA by a majority. The City Manager stated that pursuant to the results of the protest, he could not recommend adoption of the BIA ordinance for both Zones, and recommended that Zone 2 be deleted, that gross receipts should not be the basis on which the retail businesses be charged, rather a square footage basis at ten to fifteen cents per square foot charge. The City Manager suggested that once the floor space has been measured and charges determined, the Council could then adopt a master list on which a legal protest would be determined. Mr. Parker concluded that he would recommend 1) that the council legally abandon the current Business Improvement Area process pursuant to the City Attorney's instructions; 2) that the staff be instructed to draw up a new BIA for Zone I only utilizing square footage as the basis on which retail businesses will be charged; and 3) that the staff return with a new resolution of intent and appropriate attachments which embody the previous recommendations. Councilman Grgas recalled the thorough discussion of this matter that has taken place, both sides of the issue expressing their differences and making valid points regarding the proposed program, also accusations made regarding various aspects of the procedures in establishing the BIA and to the program itself, expressing his feeling that those accusations should now be set aside. He stated all communities need and deserve a good business sector, which means it not only provides quality business services but serves the needs of the people. Councilman Grgas stated businesses must be good citizens themselves, to themselves and to the community, and that he believes that Seal Beach merchants in general, Old Town merchants in partiCUlar, have adhered to the aforementioned climate. Mr. Grgas noted that on one side the proponents have expressed the need for the benefits and by-products of a successful BIA, and while volunteerism is well practiced here, a paid professional would make their load lighter, and would provide the benefit of enhancing business opportunities and community benefits, therefore allowing the business people to concentrate their efforts to what they do best. On the other hand, there have been arguments that there is no benefit from the BIA, that it is imposing upon philosophies and activities of others. Councilman Grgas expressed his respect for the opinions of persons on both sides, also his desire that this community, his district, and the business community be the best it can be. He stated that to the extent that the business community is willing to pursue their objectives with community benefit in mind, he would support them. Councilman Grgas stated he wished to make it very clear I I 5-28-85 that the City is not now nor will it consider putting a redevelopment project area on Main Street, assuring that no blight appears on Main Street. He pointed out that the BIA protest evaluation clearly shows that those businesses in Zone 2 are primarily opposed to the BIA, while those in Zone I are primarily unopposed, by either business count or dollar value. With those businesses situated in his I District, Mr. Grgas stated he felt compelled to give the business community assistance when requested as long as there results some community benefit, such as increased sales tax revenues, which then allows the City to be on the right side of the inflation curve, citing as an example a 1.1 percent increase in property tax last year, while there was a 14.4 percent increase in sales tax revenue. Councilman Grgas expressed his feeling that the Business Improvement Area proposes to do a better job of promoting, coordinating, and presenting community events and activities that will benefit the business community, therefore he would support staff's recommendation, that a new BIA be drawn up for Zone I with the following conditions: 1) that all business licenses in the City, District One specifically, be fully updated as to their existance, current status, type of classification and probability of continued operation; 2) that the BIA zone map exclude any residential, income and housing units, and that the ordinance contain language making that clear; 3) that before the process begins, the staff meet with representatives of the proponents and opponents to try to resolve differences in an attempt to prepare a work plan that would benefit the needs of both sides; 4) that once these conditions are met, the process and procedures be clearly set forth so that both sides operate under the same rules; and 5) that the ordinance I provide for the ability to disband the BIA upon the request of a majority membership of the BIA, calculated by votes cast per square foot assessment. He clarified that the City Council would have the right to disband the BIA if requested to do so by a majority of the membership. Mr. Grgas added that it is his desire that Main Street be the best it can be, businesses be successful, with a good mix of commodities and services, which in turn will benefit the entire community. Councilman Brownell concurred with Mr. Grgas' remarks, spoke in support of deleting Zone 2 and commence the process once again. Councilmember Wilson expressed her concern with time devoted to this matter by City staff, suggesting that when the process is renewed the staff determine the square footage and charge, and the business community follow through from that point. Mrs. Wilson also suggested the BIA be given a one or two year trial that would indicate its success. Councilman Clift concurred with the recommendations of the City Manager and of Mr. Grgas, stating he believed in the principal of the BIA. Mr. Clift reported he had visited the Whittier business area, surveyed twelve different types of businesses throughout their area, with all but one of those businesses supporting their BIA and feeling they were benefitting from it. Mr. Clift stated he would like to see the BIA pursued, with the deletion of Zone 2. Mayor Risner also I concurred with Mr. Grgas, further suggesting that some businesses will need to be purged since they no longer exist, that, if possible, the business license indicate whether it is a retail or service business, and once the list is complete, it be the list used for the BIA. Mrs. Risner also suggested that discussions regarding a revised BIA proposal consist of three persons each of the opposing viewpoints. Mr. Neal Ward, owner of Johns Food King and Old Town Wine and Spirits, and proponent of the BIA, reviewed 5-28-85 I the history of their BIA efforts, and urged the Council and City staff to again pursue the BIA program and goals. Mr. Robert Carruth, Newport Beach, legal counsel for Free Enterprise, commended the Council for recognizing that procedural rules must be established in advance, requested a motion for formal abandonment of the BIA, and stated that reducing the BIA area, a greater burden would be placed on those businesses affected. Mr. Glen Dulac, business owner at 814 Electric Avenue, stated their committee was pleased with the recommendation to abandon the present BIA, commented on the majority protest figure as published, staff time spent on this proposal, a proposed sunset clause, the membership of the Downtown Business Association and the Task Force. Mr. Dulac stated he did not think anything would bring a BIA together in any zone, spoke in support of free enterprise, stating he did not support the BIA concept nor is there any basis to propose another BIA this year. Brownell moved, second by wilson, to formally abandon the current Business Improvement Area proceedings. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Grgas moved, second by Clift, to approve the recommendations as outlined by the City Manager and the City Council. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 9:23 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:29 p.m. with the Mayor calling the meeting to order. AGENDA AMENDED Wilson moved, second by Brownell, to consider agenda Items "D" and "E" as the next items of business. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING - TINY NAYLOR'S, INC. - APPEAL 1-85 and 3-85 Mayor Risner declared the public hearing open to consider Appeal 1-85 of two Planning Commission conditions of approval placed on Conditional use permit 21-84, and Appeal 3-85 of the planning Commission's denial without prejudice of variance 4-85, filed by Tiny Naylor'S, Inc. The City Clerk certified that notice of public hearing was published as required by law and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, reviewed the background of Appeal 1-85 dealing with two conditions of approval placed on Conditional use Permit 21-84 relating to illegal signage of the Center and the nonconforming nature of the Center's landscaping. Mr. Baucke also reviewed Appeal 3-85 to the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice of Variance Application 4-85, which was a request to permit structural alterations to a nonconforming property without providing the required signage and landscaping. Mr. Baucke reported that at the May I, 1985 Commission meeting at which this was considered, the landowner spoke and noted his opposition to the request for landscaping in the frontage of the property, therefore based upon that and other factors the Commission denied that request without prejudice, which 5-28-85 is now being appealed to the City Council. He noted that the request of the applicant is for basically what was considered at the Commission level with some minor modifications in the landscaped areas, noting further that the Commission was supportive of the efforts of Tiny Naylor's, however due to the opposition of the landowner they had no option but to deny the request without prejudice. Mr. Baucke confirmed that the landowner has now withdrawn his opposition. The City Manager reported that the landowner had two reasons for opposition, one being a tenant objection, and through subsequent negotiations,those objections have been resolved through a modified plan. He reported a second condition placed by staff on the landowner to require a landscape plan before other permits were processed, the landowner responding that he would withdraw the various applications should that condition be insisted upon. He reported that during a subsequent conversation with the landowner, it was agreed that the condition would be dropped, and in turn the landowner would develop a landscape plan. He noted that it is staff's feeling only Tiny Naylor's would be penalized if the landowner refused to develop the landscape plan. Mayor Risner invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Don Pearson, 801 South Flower, Los Angeles, attorney for Tiny Naylor'S spoke in favor of the Appeal, reported the remodel plan is expected to cost approximately $500,000, and will be in the interest of the City as well as Tiny Naylor'S. Mr. Pearson introduced Valerie Montgomery, Assistant to the President and Corporate Secretary of Tiny Naylor'S, Jim Corondoni, area supervisor, and Russ Barto, project architect. Mr. Pearson stated they are in full accord with the staff report, adding that it is expected the number of employees will increase from twenty-five to seventy-five, sales will increase more than $500,000 annually, resulting in a finer restaurant and increased sales tax revenue. He stated their belief that differences with the landlord have been worked out with respect to the landscaping, and confirmed their willingness to be in full compliance with landscape and signage requirements, adding that approximately $30,000 will be spent for landscaping in other areas within the shopping center. Mr. Russ Barto, '3 Malibu plaza, Palos Verdes Estates, project architect, referred to the time spent resolving the landscape issue with the landowner, and noted the change of concept and name of the restaurant. He reported the landscape proposal corresponds to the plot plan, concentrated at the Tiny Naylor site, the frontage along Pacific Coast Highway, between the two driveways, and around the sign. Mr. Barto confirmed that the property owner has sanctioned the landscaping proposal as modified to 500 square feet less landscaping than previously proposed, explaining that the concern of the property owner and tenants was with loss of parking spaces. Councilmember wilson inquired if some parking spaces could be converted to compact spaces. The City Manager stated that the Center's lease arrangement is unique in that parking spaces are specifically defined in the their lease, that is why the tenant involvement. Mr. Barto explained that the building materials will consist mainly of used brick and tinted glass. Mr. Corondoni confirmed that it will be a full service restaurant with an upgraded menu, that they will close at 2:00 a.m., and the name will be changed to "Monsoon Mikes." Lawrence Peters, 112 - 4th Street, requested that landscape plantings not obstruct the view of cars leaving the parking lot onto Pacific Coast Highway, and suggested a red curb marking for 400 to 500 feet on the Highway. There were no other communications; Mayor Risner declared the public hearing closed . I I I 5-28-85 I In response to Councilman Grgas, Mr. Corondoni confirmed that Tiny Naylor'S currently has a beer, wine, and alcohol license, that the request was for approval in conjunction with the physical modification. Councilman Clift stated that with the assurance that the property owner no longer has an objection to the Tiny Naylor application, his feeling toward this matter then changed, explaining that he would not want to see someone who refused to work with the City profit from Tiny Naylor'S efforts while non-complying. The City Manager stated for the record that it was his feeling that the legal staff of Tiny Naylor's could have challenged the City's interpretation of the legal non- conforming status, however through their efforts and those of Mr. Baucke to upgrade the Center, he extended his appreciation for their cooperation. The City Attorney reminded Council of the need to obtain a report back from the Planning Commission, noting that there will be an ordinance coming before the Council in the near future changing this procedure. Mr. Baucke reported the statute allows forty days for a report back from the Planning Commission. The Council requested that it be forthcoming at an earlier date if possible. Wilson moved, second by Brownell, to approve Appeal 1-85. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Wilson moved, second by Brownell, to approve Appeal 3-85 with the conditions as outlined by the staff. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Wilson Appeal within moved, second by Clift, to refer Appeal 1-85 and 3-85 back to the Planning Commission for their report forty days as required by the Code. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, wilson None Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 2-85 - SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAE - STANDARDS and REGULATIONS Mayor Risner declared the public hearing open to consider zoning Text Amendment 2-85 and Negative Declaration 3-85 relating to standards, criteria and regulations regarding satellite dish antennae. The City Clerk certified that notice of public hearing had been published as required by law and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, reviewed the background leading to the proposed Ordinance, and the recommendations of the Planning Commission. In response to Council, Mr. Baucke confirmed that the maximum antennae height is ten feet, not to exceed the height limitation for a particular zone, and that the placement is measured to allow for the standard receiving angle. He explained that for each foot in excess of the height of an adjacent fence, the antennae would be required to be moved one foot further from the setbacks. He reported that subsequent to testimony received by the Commission, this matter was referred back to staff for further consideration and a survey of other cities, at which time some modifications were made to the Ordinance. Mr. Baucke confirmed that the Ordinance does accomplish the objective for asthetics while it does not prohibit anyone from placing a satellite dish antennae. Mayor Risner invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this 5-28-85 item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. John FOllis, College Park East, asked if the antennae could be placed on a roof if there is not adequate area in a yard. Mr. Baucke responded that the antennae could be placed on a roof, with a maximum height of ten feet, not to exceed the height limit for the area, screened on all sides, requiring a building permit and submittal of drawings of the screen, materials, height, location, and when roof mounted, structural calculations. There were no other communications; Mayor Risner declared the public hearing closed. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1186 - SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAE - STANDARDS/CRITERIA/REGULATIONS Ordinance Number 1186 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADDING SECTION 28-2350 TO CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE 23, GENERAL PROVISIONS, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS, YARDS, HEIGHT, AREA, OPEN SPACE AND BULK OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING STANDARDS, CRITERIA AND REGULATIONS REGARDING SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAE." By unanimous consent full reading of Ordinance Number 1186 was waived. In response to Council, Mr. Baucke stated the building permit is based upon valuation of the structure, approximately $10 to $15. The City Attorney recommended minor amendments to the Ordinance; 1) Section D-l-A, Residential, to read "may" be installed; 2) section D-l-B, to read "may" be installed at roof or ground level; 3) Section D-2, Office, Commercial..., "may be installed"; and 4) Section G-B, to read "in conformity with the Building Code and this article." Clift moved, second by Brownell, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1186 as amended, and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1184 - ANIMAL CONTROL FEES Ordinance Number 1184 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO ANIMAL CONTROL FEES AND AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH CITY CODE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1184 was waived. Brownell moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Ordinance Number 1184 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1185 - FLOOD HAZARDS Ordinance Number 1185 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 9B OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, RELATING TO THE METHOD USED TO ANALYZE FLOOD HAZARDS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1185 was waived. Councilman Grgas asked if major modifications or new construction in the SUbject area of Electric Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard would be required to raise the floor elevation by two feet. The City Engineer acknowledged there would be a requirement to conform. Mr. Grgas also asked how this would effect the height limitation of a building. The Director of Development Services responded that no allowances have been made for that deviation, noting that this problem arose in one instance on Seal Way in which case the Planning Commission gave a minor height deviation permit for some architectural features, which was due to raising the floor level approximately three feet. The City Manager suggested that I I I 5-28-85 I Mr. Grgas' question be referred to staff. with regard to flood insurance, the City Engineer reported that the community is required to have a flood control ordinance in order to be eligible to obtain flood insurance, which is a benefit to the community. Grgas moved, second by Brownell, to adopt Ordinance Number 1185 as presented, and that staff be directed to look into the question of building heights as noted by Mr. Grgas. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I PROPOSED RESOLUTION NUMBER 3479 - LOCAL CONDITIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO CERTAIN CODES - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1187 - ADOPTION OF BUILDING CODES - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1188 - FIRE PROTECTION The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explaining that cities are required to adopt the most up-to-date uniform Building and Fire Codes that have been adopted by the State Department of Housing. Mr. Baucke pointed out that the proposed Resolution sets forth the findings for those amendments to the Uniform Codes directly related to this community, explaining that most of the local amendments were previously adopted and exist within the Code. The Director reported that one particular amendment relates to the Surfside area, an exception made for the requirement of secondary stairway access, allowing placement of a Reinhart ladder for third stories as long as the building is fire sprinklered and in accordance with approval of the Orange county Fire Department. Mr. Baucke explained that pursuant to State law, the proposed Ordinances require first reading, subsequent legal publication, then considered under public hearing. He recommended that adoption of the Resolution be postponed until the public hearing. Councilman Grgas requested that Surfs ide be notified of the public hearing. I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1187 Ordinance Number 1187 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO BUILDING AND SAFETY AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING CODES WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS: THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1982 EDITION, INCLUDING THE APPENDIX, THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1982 EDITION, THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1982 EDITION, THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL CODE, 1982 EDITION, THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1982 EDITION, THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, 1982 EDITION, THE UNIFORM SIGN code, 1982 EDITION, THE ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLING CODE, 1982 EDITION, THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1984 EDITION, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, 1982 EDITION, APPENDICES AND THE 1983 ACCUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT, THE UNIFORM SOLAR ENERGY CODE, 1982 EDITION, THE UNIFORM BUILDING SECURITY CODE, 1982 EDITION." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1187 was waived. Brownell moved, second by Clift, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1187 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1188 - FIRE PROTECTION Ordinance Number 1188 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 9 OF THE 5-28-85 CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO FIRE PROTECTION." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1188 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Clift, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1188 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I BUILDING CODES - PUBLIC HEARING Grgas moved, second by Brownell, to set a pUblic hearing to consider adoption of the Uniform Codes for June 24, 1985. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3480 - SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION Resolution Number 3480 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN DEMANDS AND CHECKS FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS ON DEPOSIT WITH THE BANK OF AMERICA, SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK, CROCKER BANK AND FIRST INTERSTATE BANK, AND AUTHORIZING ALTERNATE SIGNATURES, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 3382." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3480 was waived. Clift moved, second by Brownell, to adopt Resolution Number 3480 as amended, inserting the name of Joyce Risner as Mayor. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3481 - COMPLETION - RECONSTRUCTION OF SEAL BEACH PIER - PHASE III - PROJECT NUMBER 537-C Resolution Number 3481 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT i537-C RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PIER - PHASE III IN ACCORDANCE WI1H A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN CROWLEY CONSTRUCTORS, INC., AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3481 was waived. The Director of Public Works presented the staff report, explaining that the reconstruction contract was on a time and materials basis, the original contract price being $826,000 plus change orders 1 through 15 for an additional $32,504.91. Mr. Hemphill reported negotiations are continuing regarding the claim submitted by Crowley Constructors in the amount of $150,000 for addtional payroll, equipment and overhead expense due to delays encountered as a result of inadequate or mis-fabricated materials remaining from the previous contract. Brownell moved, second by Wilson, to: I) approve change order number 15 in the amount of $3264.93; 2) by resolution, determine that the work has been completed in accordance with the contract documents and declare the work to be accepted while acknowledging that an additional claim is being resolved; 3) by resolution, determine that the total amount of the contract is in the sum of $858,504.91 subject to change by the pending claim; 4) within ten (10) days from the date of acceptance, file a Notice of Acceptance with the Orange County Recorder; 5) upon expiration of thirty- five (35) days from filing of the Notice of Acceptance, make payment to Crowley Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $85,850.49; and 6) designate the City Attorney as negotiator for the City with the understanding that the final settlement is subject to subsequent City Council approval. I 5-28-85 AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Clift moved, second by Brownell, to approve Resolution Number 3481 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "M" THROUGH "w" The City Manager requested Item nW" be removed from the Consent Calendar, and the City Clerk requested Item "M" removed. Clift moved second by Brownell, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items "M" and "W", as presented. N. Approved regular demands numbered 56402 through 56560 in the amount of $102,871.39, and payroll demands numbered 13374 through 13529 in the amount of $135,546.11, as approved by the Finance Committee and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. O. Denied the claim of James Culwell, Jr., Steven Culwell, et aI, and referred same to the City'S insurance adjuster. P. Denied the claim of Southern California Gas Company and directed same be forwarded to L. E. Weed, Inc. I Q. Approved the agreement with the City of Garden Grove for the Senior Nutrition Meals Program, and authorized the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. R. Authorized notification to the City'S refuse collection contractor of the City's intent to renew the contract for an additional five year periOd subject to the same terms and conditions. S. Approved as to form the 1985 TRAN timetable and preliminary Official Statement. T. Approved the plans and specifications for project Number 548, Crack Sealing of Pacific Coast Highway, and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids. I U. Approved the plans and specifications for project Number 544, construction of Seal Beach Boulevard Reconstruction/Overlay, phase IV, and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids. V. Approved the plans and specifications for project Number 556, Reconstruction of Hazelnut between Heather and Rose, and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "M" - MINUTES The City Clerk requested Councilmembers Clift and Grgas 5-28-85 abstain from voting on the approval of were absent from the May 13th meeting. by Brownell, to approve the minutes of City Council regular meeting. the minutes as they Wilson moved, second the May 13, 1985 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Brownell, Risner, Wilson None Clift, Grgas Motion carried I ITEM "W" - AWARD OF BID - PATCH TRUCK The Clty Manager reported bids had been 2:00 p.m. this date at which time they by the City Clerk for one Public Works truck as follows: received until were publicly opened Department patch General Motors Corporation Paramount Chevrolet Company Mission GMC Trucks, Inc. $52,338.56 57,253.10 57,768.94 The City Manager recommended award of the bid to General Motors Corporation. Brownell moved, second by Grgas, to award the bid for the Public Works Department patch truck to the lowest bidder, General Motors Corporation, in the amount of $52,338.56. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Mayor Risner reported receipt of an announcement from the League of Cities seeking appointment to an alternate position from the Second, Third and Fourth Districts to the Senior citizens Advisory Council, the appointment requiring City I Council endorsement. There was no Council action on this appointment. Mayor Risner requested Council input regarding an upcoming appointment by the Mayor's Select Committee to the Orange County Transit District, reporting there to be two candidates for the position, Dick Edgar, Tustin and Dan Griset, incumbent, Santa Ana. Councilmembers Grgas and Brownell expressed their support for each of the opposing candidates for the position. There was no formal Council endorsement for either candidate. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Risner declared oral communications open. The City Manager reported that Mr. Charles Antos had posed a question at a previous meeting at which neither the City Attorney or the Director of Development Services was present, and requested that Mr. Baucke respond to same. Mr. Baucke stated that the question concerned 136 and 136-1/2 Main street, which is presently used as a retail store and a glass engraving business. He explained that one of the requirements of the adopted resolution for Hennessey's Tavern was the removal of a non-conforming accessory building. He stated it is staff's opinion, and as stated by the City Attorney previously, that the removal of a non-conforming building does not increase the non-conformity of the property I and therefore does not require a variance application, that the removal was specifically authorized by the Council through its adoption of the resolution. Mr. Baucke stated the staff's position has not changed from that of the City Attorney when the application was before the Council. Mr. Antos, 316 - 10th Street, stated his specific question dealt with the action at 136 and 136-1/2 Main street, referencing a statement on page eight of the minutes of that partiCUlar meeting by the City Attorney that the variance 5-28-85 I actions at that meeting were dealing only with 138 and 140 Main Street, that there was no variance consideration or any other action being considered for variance at 136 and 136-1/2 Main Street. He stated that one of the things he pointed out as part of the appeal was that the resolution that the City Attorney had prepared failed to address 136 and 136-1/2, in the legal description or in any other way regarding the land use action taken, which would be to remove the garage and parking that belongs on 136 and 136- 1/2 for the uses that have been indicated that exist on that property, and transferring the parking to other pieces of property. He stated he felt the response still does not address how you take parking away from a business or businesses and give it to another piece of property, thereby rendering that piece of property further non-conforming, stating that before, there was an existing garage and something could have been parked there. Mr. Baucke reported that there was no parking prior to the application, that the garage was leased and used for storage purposes, explaining that there were contractual agreements for lease of that particular space for something other than parking, that it has historically not been used for parking, and that the removal did not remove any parking spaces that were functionally used. with regard to parking at that location now, Mr. Baucke reported that the area has been asphalted, parking is available, and that the two existing businesses use the spaces as well as Hennessey's, on a functional basis. The City Manager added that the parking was not reserved for Hennessey's, it merely opened up additional parking spaces in the area behind the building regardless of what business it is used for, functionally. Mayor Risner stated that it would seem using a garage for storage would not be illegal, it is a matter of choice. Mr. Baucke stated that it was an illegal use of a garage, the Code requiring it to be used for storage of automobiles. Additionally, he stated that the placement of the garage violated the City's zoning requirements as far as setbacks which is another non-conformity. Mr. Antos continued, stating that in the resolution approving Hennessey's and also in the Coastal actions, there was a requirement for a certain number of parking spaces, and that one of the reasons Hennessey's was held up at the Planning Commission level was because of the suggestion through the Task Force that some parking be provided on-site, therefore the method used was to take property next door, remove the garage, put the parking on the site next door, providing six parking spaces in tandem, which is not allowed, also too small. He stated other parking was required, which was provided by restriping the beach parking lot, therefore by Council action the six spaces are to the benefit of Hennessey's. Mr. Antos stated he also asked when the Council was going to take an official action and notice the public that thirty spaces have been created in the beach parking lot for the purpose of satisfying Hennessey's parking requirement, since that is public property. The City Manager stated, as clarification, that the beach parking lot was not restriped for the benefit of one business, rather one business restriped the parking lots for the benefit of the public per the instructions of the Coastal Commission in their attempt to open up more parking, that the parking is not reserved for Hessessey's, however they did pay for the related cost. Councilman Grgas asked if a public notice is required. The City Attorney responded that in terms of the work done in the parking lot he did not believe there to be any requirement for a public hearing or public notice for that particular work, however noted there was public notice I I 5-28-85 / 5-30-85 and hearing with respect to the variance and the Coastal permit. Mr. Antos suggested staff contact the Coastal Commission to seek their opinion as to whether or not there is a requirement for notice to the public and official Council action dealing with public beach parking. The City Manager stated he did not find that necessary since the staff meets frequently with the Coastal Commission and if something is in error the City is informed, that I it is staff's understanding this matter has been closed by the Coastal Commission pursuant to recent conversations with Mr. Tims and Mr. Joseph of the Coastal staff. There were no other oral communications; Mayor Risner declared oral communications closed. CLOSED SESSION Mayor Risner reported the Closed Session had been cancelled. ADJOURNMENT Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to adjourn to Thursday, May 30th at 7:00 p.m. for a budget workshop. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. and ex-off' ~o cierk of-the City Council Appr~ed'~~' M yor I Attest: Seal Beach, California May 30, 1985 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:08 p.m. with Mayor Risner calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL present: Mayor Risner Councilmembers Brownell, Clift, Wilson Absent: Grgas I Councilman Grgas arrived at 7:17 p.m.