Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1985-06-24 6-10-85 / 6-24-85 Mayor Risner calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had met in Closed Session and discuss a personnel matter on which no action was taken, and pending litigation as previously reported. I ADJOURNMENT Wi I son moved, 9:19 p.m. AYES: NOES: second by Grgas, to adjourn the meeting at Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried of the Approved: . Attest: ~.,.tL,)n City Clerk I Seal Beach, California June 24, 1985 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Risner calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL present: Mayor Risner councilmembers Brownell, Clift, Grgas, wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Parker, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services Mr. Thomas, Finance Director Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I WAIVER OF FULL READING Brownell 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 PUBLIC HEARING - 1985/86 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET Mayor Risner declared the publIC hearing open to consider the 1985/86 fiscal year budget and the proposed use of Revenue Sharing Funds. The City Clerk certified that notice 6-24-85 of public hearing was advertised as required by law and reported no communications had been received either for or against this item. The Assistant City Manager presented the staff report, and reviewed projected revenues and recommended expenditures for fiscal year 1985/86, reported the budget to be a surplus document, revenues exceeding expenditures by $240,990, and includes changes resulting from budget work sessions. The Assistant pointed out the budget revenues reflect a 4.8 percent water rate increase in keeping with Council policy to recoup increases in operations costs, noting that the $80,000 loan repayment to the General Fund has been forgiven for 1985/86. Mr. Joseph reported the revised budget reflects an additional $76,000 Revenue Sharing Funds, those funds designated for four new and one unmarked Police vehicles, and for design of a landscaped median at the Rossmoor Center. Mr. Joseph reported other budget changes resulting from the work sessions were $25,700 for sidewalk repair plus $5000 being encumbered from the current year, and $10,000 for personnel costs relating to City sponsored or co-sponsored special community events. Mr. Joseph reported a $632,000 capital project budget is proposed, to include: Seal Beach Boulevard overlay, slurry seal of Hill area street, alley improvements, westminster Boulevard overlay, College Park East street reconstruction, Main Street improvements, East Beach sand replenishment, Citywide sidewalk repair, and a computer system for the Finance Department. Mr. Joseph continued, reviewing the four changes proposed in the area of personnel. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 7:17 p.m.; the Council reconvened at 7:21 p.m. with Mayor Risner calling the meeting to order. with regard to total budget figures as reflected in proposed Resolution 3487, the staff advised that the General Operating figure should read $8,053,490, the Cash Basis figure of $1,000,000 should be deleted since there are no expenditures, Revenue Sharing should read $152,000, Community Redevelopment Agency figure revised to $1,070,000, for a total budget figure of $12,242,600. The City Manager pointed out that the budget message reflects a surplus of $240,990, which should be clarified to read "not including CRA", and noted that the budget does not reflect salary or fringe benefit increases. Mr. Parker referred to the Fund Balance Sheet, explaining that $350,000 CRA monies will be reflected as a fund transfer and placed in a Zoeter School trust fund, and that the total Fund Balance, $3,507,540, will not change with the exception of adding in the additional Revenue Sharing Funds. 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. Glenn Dulac, 1019-1/2 Electric Avenue, referred to a report relating to consultant services previously requested of staff, also the proposed purchase of a multi-user computer, with four work stations and software for the Finance Department, which he deemed to be expensive, over-priced, and stated his feeling that the City does not have the need for the complex software as would be needed for his insurance business. Mr. Thomas, Finance Director, reported he has been investigating various types of computers for over two years, that the multi-user system proposed will allow the greatest flexibility for future City needs. He stated five work stations are proposed initially, the system is capable I I I 6-24-85 I of disc storage for all of the City, excluding the Police Department, software, tape backup, at a total cost of less than $30,000. Mr. Thomas recalled a prior request for proposals for a system for both City Hall and the Police Department, with similar capabilities to the one proposed, those proposals in excess of $100,000. Mr. Thomas pointed out that the Northstar System, at a cost of approximately $29,000, includes the hardware, software, hard disc storage, as well as the municipal government package, and stated he felt this to be a good system at a reasonable cost. Mr. Thomas noted that similar systems may be comparably priced by the time purchase of a system takes place, explaining that no commitment has been made by the City to the Northstar system. The City Manager noted that municipal government software is unique and more expensive than software used for other types of businesses, explaining that the bUdget proposes purchase of a computer system for $29,000 or less, which the staff feels is a very reasonable cost. Mr. Dulac expressed his concern with the City Attorney's budget, suggested hiring a full time attorney on a retainer basis be investigated, or consider an elected City Attorney, also pointed out that the City will be considering retaining the City Attorney as the City Prosecutor at an additional fee. Mr. Dulac also stated he did not feel people in the City want a Code Enforcement Officer to start enforcing violations of ordinances that are most likely unfair and unnecessary. The Mayor responded that Code enforcement was discussed during budget work sessions, explaining that the Officer will be following up on a backlog of violation complaints. In response to Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th Street, the Mayor explained that $350,000, interest earned on the 1982 Mortgage Revenue Bond issue, will be transferred from the Agency to the City and placed in a special fund to be used for a long term lease or purchase of the Zoeter School site. with regard to Code Enforcement, Councilman Grgas stated that it was his understanding that one of the reasons for this program is that the City could stand liable for possible litigation in cases where violations are known and not corrected. The City Manager responded that the city has had numerous letters and phone calls pointing out illegal conditions that could pose a health and safety hazard, therefore if staff is aware of a violation and does nothing to correct it, it is felt that the City would indeed be liable, and further that the Code Enforcement Program will be dealt with on a complaint basis. He also pointed out that the City had a Code Enforcement Officer for several years, that position eliminated due to proposition 13, and that subsequently an attempt was made to shift that responsibility to other personnel, again noting the backlog of more than three hundred compaints on file. Mr. Parker explained that it is felt to be in the City's best interest to empower the City Attorney to prosecute cases on behalf of the City given the caseload and response of the District Attorney, noting that it is expected that few cases will go to court, however pointed out that it is staff's intention to eliminate potential dangerous conditions that exist. The city Attorney acknowledged that if a violation is known that may be a safety concern and the City takes no action to correct same, there is a potential for liability. The City Attorney reported that their firm has sent notices to violators in the past, to which most persons comply, however when they have not, the District Attorney has not taken any enforcement action on behalf of the City. He reported further that their firm contacted the District Attorney's office regarding prosecuting services subsequent I I 6-24-85 to the City Manager's request for a proposal, to which there has been no response. Charles Antos, 316 - loth Street, stated he felt that the budget should include a comparison of line items for the previous year; Mayor Risner responded that this was discussed at a workshop, that the City Manager and Finance Director agreed that an additional column would be added to reflect the previous years budgeted items. Councilmembers noted that comparison to the previous budgets has been done by individual Council members. The City Manager again clarified that Code Enforcement would be done citywide on a complaint basis, also that it is anticipated that prosecuting services would fall within the budgeted amount for the City Attorney. Mayor Risner referred to lawsuits against the City and cited the need to change State law as it relates to deep pocket liability. with regard to the suggestion to have an elected City Attorney, the City Manager responded that a strong argument against an elected position is that the individual elected to the position may not have a broad range of municipal law experience, additional costs would be involved for a secretary, law library, and that legal counsel for specialized fields would still have to be contracted for. He pointed out it is more cost effective for small cities to contract with a large firm such as the City'S present firm, where there is expertise in all aspects of municipal law rather than staff the position. Mr. Parker reported the retainer for the City'S legal counsel is $1500 per month, $95.00 per hour for legal counsel over that amount. Mr. Dulac suggested the City seek bids from other firms for legal counsel for a limited term, and that the budget should not be passed until Council holds more hearings. The City Manager responded that City'S do not go to bid for legal counsel, that cities seek the best legal counsel to represent their needs, noting that the present firm has represented the City for approximately fourteen years, and have not increased their rates for several years. The Council conveyed their satisfaction with the representation and services provided by the City'S legal counsel. The City Manager noted that this being a combined public hearing to also consider Revenue Sharing, the record should therefore reflect that the original Revenue Sharing $79,000 is designated for police purposes. There being no other communications, Mayor Risner declared the public hearing closed. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3487 - ADOPTING 1985/86 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET ReSOlution Number 3487 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A BUDGET AND REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985/86." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3487 was waived. Mayor Risner moved to amend the budget relating to the trash collection contract, account 4751, deleting $25,000 for the administration of said contract, noting that that figure is contained in the departmental budget. Councilman Clift seconded the motion. The City Manager recommended that the $25,000 be subtracted from General Operating Expense, that figure changed to read $8,028.490. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Brownell moved, second by wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3487 as amended. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I I I 6-24-85 ZOETER SCHOOL TRUST FUND Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to transfer $350,000 from the General Fund to a Zoeter School Trust Fund. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I AGENDA AMENDED Grgas moved, second by Clift, to amend the agenda to allow comments from a member of the audience. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Mr. Paul Miller, Chairman of the American Legion American Flag Display and Sales, expressed appreciation to the City for taking care of the American Legion monument located at Eisenhower park, however stated that the American and State flags at Senior Corky's are tattered and are left flying at all times, and inquired if the City Hall flags were taken down on Memorial Day. The staff responded they did not know if the flags were taken down on Memorial Day; Mayor Risner noted that there is a problem of vandalism and that the City Hall flags are not meant to be brought down. Mr. Miller stated the schools, State and Federal agencies have been requested to take their flags down at the end of a day, and that cities should do likewise. Council expressed appreciation to Mr. Miller for his comments. I PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NUMBER 3479 - CODE MODIFICATIONS - LOCAL CONDITIONS - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1187 - ADOPTING BUILDING AND SAFETY CODES - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1191 - ADOPTING BUILDING AND SAFETY CODES - URGENCY - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1188 - FIRE PROTECTION Mayor Risner declared the public hearing open to consider adoption of Codes and amendments relating to Building and Safety. The City Clerk certified that notice of public hearing was pUblished for two consecutive weeks as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services reported that pursuant to requirements of State Law cities are mandated to adopt uniform model codes for Building Construction and Fire Safety, with an allowed option to make changes or modifications to said Codes to satisfy local conditions. Mr. Baucke reported the City staff, the contract plan check consulting firm, and the Orange County Fire Department have reviewed the Codes and recommended amendments thereto. Mr. Baucke clarified that the proposed Ordinances contain amendments that have been adopted previously, that sections have been recodified for clarity, adopts fees approved by the City Council, and amends the time period for a permit from 120 days to 180 days as set forth in the Uniform Building Code. He reported the Ordinance proposes the use of an emergency exit ladder and fire sprinkler system for a single family dwelling unit in excess of two stories in lieu of a second required exit for Surfside lots of one thousand square feet or less, this requested by the Surfside Board of Directors and approved by the Fire Department. with regard to Section 1206(b), Mr. Baucke explained that this Section would allow a four story structure in the Surfside area within the thirty-five foot height limit to be built with a three foot yard without necessitating the administrative process to waive the additional one foot requirement as set forth in the UBC. He noted that I 6-24-85 historically the City has waived the additional one foot requirement for four story structures in Surfside within the height limit in order to realize the same benefits as a three story structure. There were communications from the audience; Mayor Risner declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Wilson pointed out that there are dwellings in the City having second stories with only one exit, and inquired if it would be possible to place an additional exit to the rear of such properties. Mr. Baucke explained that the UBC requires a second stairway for two story dwellings with an occupancy load of ten, the occupancy load based upon a square foot determination, that in this community it is rare to find a two story dwelling large enough to meet this requirement. I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3479 - MODIFICATIONS TO CODES - LOCAL CONDITIONS Resolution Number 3479 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, SETTING FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO CERTAIN OF THE FOLLOWING CODES ARE REASONABLY REQUIRED BY LOCAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH: THE 1982 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE 1982 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, THE 1982 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, THE 1982 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL CODE, THE 1982 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, THE 1982 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, THE 1982 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM SOLAR ENERGY CODE AND THE 1984 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3479 was waived. Brownell moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 3479 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1187 - ADOPTING BUILDING AND SAFETY CODES Ordinance number 1187 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, 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; THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 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, I full reading of Ordinance Number 1187 was waived. Clift moved, second by Brownell, to adopt Ordinance Number 1187 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1191 - ADOPTING BUILDING AND SAFETY CODES - URGENCY Ordinance Number 1191 was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, 6-24-85 I CALIFORNIA, 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; THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1982 EDITION, APPENDICES AND THE 1983 ACCUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT; THE UNIFORM SOLAR ENERGY CODE, 1982 EDITION; THE UNIFORM BUILDING SECURITY CODE, 1982 EDITION, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF." By unanimous consent, full reading of ordinance Number 1191 was waived. Brownell moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Urgency Ordinance Number 1191 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1188 - FIRE PROTECTION Ordinance Number 1188, as revised, 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 CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO FIRE PROTECTION." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1188 was waived. wilson moved, second by Brownell, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1188 and that it be passed to second reading. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to recess the meeting at 8:40 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:55 p.m. with Mayor Risner calling the meeting to order. I PUBLIC HEARING - ZTA-2-84 - NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES - ADDITIONS and MODIFICATIONS Mayor Risner declared the public hearing open to consider Zoning Text Amendment 2-84, establishing specific limitations and public review procedures for additions and modifications to non-conforming residential properties. The City Clerk certified that notice of pUblic hearing had been advertised as required by law and reported no communications had been received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explaining that ZTA-2-84 is a request to establish modified limitations and public review procedures for additions and modifications to non-conforming residential buildings and uses by amending specific existing provisions within the Municipal Code pertaining to non-conforming buildings and uses. Mr. Baucke reviewed in detail the general background of zoning actions and policy changes that have resulted in properties falling into a non-conforming status, reviewing also the existing provisions of the City Code. The Director reported that ZTA-2-84 proposes to remove existing Code provisions which allow no structural alterations, additions or improvements unless the required parking is provided and a Conditional Use Permit is granted, and to allow minor and major improvements to non-conforming buildings through a three level review process. He pointed out that ZTA-2-84 as proposed allows the greatest flexibility the City has had in over twelve years as to provisions for non-conforming 6-24-85 residential buildings, and is designed to promote the improvement and upgrading of non-conforming residential buildings while protecting the goals of the City's General Plan. Mr. Baucke reported the extensive stUdy, indepth review, public testimony, and numerous modifications to ZTA-2-84 since it was considered by the Planning Commission in October 1984. The Director stated ZTA-2-84 proposes the establishment of three review levels for particular I types of improvements to non-conforming buildings: Level 1, staff over-the-counter building permit review, requiring only the presentation of the plans required in the building permit process and the standard building plan review period; Level 2, Consent Calendar plan ~eview by the planning Commission, requiring filing a plan Review Application and plans with the associated $10 filing fee fourteen days prior to a scheduled Commission meeting, and notice to all property owners within one hundred feet of the subject property ten days prior to the Commission's consideration; and Level 3, Conditional Use Permit review by the Planning Commission, with the standard filing fees and requirements. Mr. Baucke reviewed in depth the various types of improvements, their particular level of review, parking and inspection requirements, as proposed by ZTA-2-84 versus existing Code requirements, as set forth on a chart provided in the staff report. The Director recommended City Council approval of ZTA-2-84 by its adoption of Negative Declaration 6-84 and proposed Ordinance Number 1192, as recommended by the planning Commission for the following reasons: I) that existing Zoning Code regulations do not permit any minor or major structural alterations, enlargements or expansions to a large majority of legal non-conforming residential buildings or uses; 2) that complete prohibition of minor I and major structural alterations, enlargements or expansions of non-conforming residential buildings can serve as a deterrent to property maintenance or improvement; 3) that by permitting minor and major structural alterations, enlargements or expansions to legal non-conforming residential buildings, the quality of these buildings can be maintained and improved; 4) that the amendment will not cause any significant environmental impacts as outlined by Negative Declaration 6-84; 5) that the amendment is in conformance with the Seal Beach General Plan; and 6) that the proposed zoning Text Amendment will allow the greatest flexibility the City has ever had for over twelve plus years as to its provisions for non-conforming residential buildings. 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. Charles Antos, 316 - lOth Street, stated he favors the ZTA in that it allows certain modifications to non-conforming buildings that were not allowed in the past, however referred to the first staff finding that would not allow major additions to most of the non-conforming buildings. Councilman Clift clarified that the finding states "that existing zoning regulations do not currently permit minor or major structural alterations." Mr. Antos continued, stating that although I the Amendment allows minor modifications, most buildings that are non-conforming due to density, such as two units on a lot, can do very little, and that those with the required parking by tandem are presently over-density. Mr. Antos requested assurance that if the Council finds that changes or modifications are needed sometime in the future, that the Council will direct that they be brought forward through a public hearing process. He referred to previous discussions regarding what properties fall into the twenty year non- 6-24-85 1 conforming category, and expressed his opinion that it includes Leisure World, except for the condominium project, which does not meet Code requirements because of parking and unit size, Surfside for various reasons, specifically setbacks on "A" row, Hill properties, with few exceptions, due to garage sizes, etc., adding that nothing exempted Leisure World from having to meet changing Code requirements. With regard to inspections, Mr. Antos stated he could find nothing unique about non-conforming buildings of twenty years old requiring an inspection versus a building that is conforming. He stated further that inspections are to bring to light safety violations or hazards, therefore should be removed from this ZTA and placed in the Building Chapter of the Code. Mr. Antos recommended that the Council impose similar requirements to conforming structures of twenty years or older. The Mayor asked if electrical wiring, as an exa~ple, not allowed under current Building COdes, however de'termined to be safe, would be required to be brought up to Code. Mr. Baucke responded that during the process of a major improvement application, and based upon a determination by the Inspector, if wiring was found to be unsafe lit would have to be corrected, however it would not automatically be required to be brought up to Code. He explained further that if an Inspector observes something that is a Ihazard it would be noted and transmitted to the Planning Commission, and if determined to be a hazard it could be made a condition of approval. The City Attorney clarified that under this procedure, once a safety hazard is noted, it should be corrected immediately, that the purpose of the condition is to assure that deficiencies that are not an immediate hazard are corrected as part of the improvement to the premises, therefore the City does not open itself to a liability. with regard to placing a provision for inspection of twenty year old structures in the Building Chapter of the Code, the City Attorney responded that that proposal deals with a broader issue, that the proposal under consideration is a concern that non-conforming buildings do not have critical problems in terms of the remodeling, offering that the City could consider such a provison for the Building Chapter at another time. Mr. Bruce Stark, 204 Ocean Avenue, stated that regretably he would have to speak in favor of the ZTA, as it appears it is the best the property owners are going to get, noting the many hours the staff, Commission and citizens worked on this issue, however noted many items of concern were not dealt with. Mr. Stark questioned the City'S long term goals, General Plan and general philosophies, referred to density as the problem, not parking, suggesting that properties should be allowed to be improved whether or not all required parking can be met. Mr. Stark also commented on garages that are rented out, that can be observed daily, also referred to a liquor store that was found to be operating without a business license at the last Commission meeting. With regard to the business license, Mr. Baucke responded that the information received from the Finance Department was that they did not have a business license, however upon further investigation it was found that they had applied for a license, noting that it can not be issued until the Conditional Use Permit is approved. In response to Mr. Stark, Councilman Clift stated he and other members of the Council would always be willing to consider positive recommendations to improve any City statute. Mr. Joseph Ribal, 1215 Seal Way, extended appreciation to those who devoted their time to this matter, noting that a number of concerns have yet to be satisfactorily addressed, however with the assurance that the Council will be willing to ,I I 6-24-85 address those issues in time, recommended this proposal should now be accepted. Mr. Ribal questioned what would happen in the event of a catastrophic destruction of property. He stated property owners would like to reconstruct their homes to an equal amount of square footage or plus ten percent, without complying with current density regulations, noting that he understood the Commission has directed staff to prepare a recommendation. He stated another concern is that the City's Building Code does not include provisions, as in the County of Orange, with regard to flooding of non-conforming properties and reconstruction in compliance with building regulations. Councilman Brownell stated that he, and other members of the Council, will be willing to consider items not resolved at this meeting at a future date, that the matter before the Council is a constructive attempt to resolve certain non-conforming conditions. Mr. Ribal expressed his feeling that inequities exist between the non-conforming and conforming properties, suggesting that the issue may be to reduce the basis for non-conformity. Mr. Glen Dulac, 1019-1/2 Electric, asked for an explanation of what the General plan is, and questioned if it states that if a property is not a single family dwelling, it will be razed. Councilman Clift responded that the General plan does not state that. Mr. Dulac also concurred with Mr. Ribal's statement relating to reconstruction after a disaster, commented as to property owners rights, and suggested the proposed Ordinance be amended to provide for inspections of thirty instead of twenty year old properties. with regard to a catastrophic provision, the City Manager stated it would be covered in another section of the Code, not in this Ordinance. There were no other communications; Mayor Risner declared the public hearing closed. The City Attorney advised that the Council could make minor modifications to the proposed Ordinance without returning the item to the Planning Commission, however if new provisions are added it would require further Commission review and report to the Council. Mr. Baucke reported that the rationale for the twenty year time frame was that in 1965 the Building Codes were dramatically changed, primarily the Electrical Code. He added that the findings that the Department would have to make are specific under the Uniform Housing Code as far as faulty wiring is concerned, explaining that if it is determined not to be hazardous wiring, it would not be required to be brought up to Code. The Mayor referred to exterior stairways, noting requests for same from Seal way properties, and inquired if their installation could be simplified from a CUP process, when they are for safety purposes. The City Manager noted that exterior stairways not only require a CUP but require that parking be brought up to Code, the planning Commission not favoring exterior stairways since it tends to lead to illegal units. Councilman Grgas suggested that the Commission, through the CUP process, review each stairway request on a case by case basis to determine the needs of the resident versus the potential for illegal use, noting that the Reinhart ladder would provide an alternative for safety purposes. Mr. Parker advised that in order to accomplish the intent of the Council, the parking requirement would have to be deleted, then the Commission could consider each case on its merit. The City Attorney advised that if the legislative actions of the Council are in any way contrary to the Planning Commission decisions as it relates to Zoning Text Amendments, the matter must be referred back to the Commission, clarifying that the Council can not hold a public hearing open when a matter is referred back to the Commission. He noted I I I 6-24-85 I that after the Commission's decision, and if the Council wished to allow further public input, the Council could direct that another public hearing be noticed. Mr. Stepanicich added that if additional changes are made after receipt of the Planning Commission's report, it would again be required to be referred back to the Commission. Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to remove the provision of required parking for exterior stairways. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I The City Manager observed that where the chart indicates that parking must be required, it appears that it was the intent of the Planning Commission that in most cases they would not allow a major interior remodel, additional bedrooms, or a major enlargement, if the required parking is not met, otherwise it would require going through the variance procedure. Mr. Baucke confirmed that statement to be true, adding that the philosophy was that in those categories there would be a significant investment in the property and the Commission's opinion was that the parking should be dealt with at that time if it is non-conforming, and then the Commission would be willing to look at long term density of the property for the next sixty to seventy years. The City Manager noted that there could be a difference under the CUP process, if the Planning Commmission is attempting to provide on-site parking, if the language were changed to read "the Planning Commission shall encourage" as much on-site parking as possible, rather than "must provide required parking." with regard to major interior remodeling, Mr. Baucke defined the term as removal of fifty percent or greater of the structural bearing walls. Mayor Risner noted that as written, a major interior remodel would not be allowed without the required parking. Mr. Baucke stated that would not necessarily be so, it would depend on the situation, and that when remodeling is proposed to the lower level, alteration could be made to provide for the required parking, a cost decision of the landowner. He noted however, that remodeling cases where required parking can not be physically provided, a variance with findings can usually be made. The City Manager added that a CUP is a negotiated process and that the "must provide" removes the negotiations. He noted that if the Council chooses to bring properties up to Code with regard to parking it is not negotiable through the variance procedure, stating his feeling that each upgrading should be considered separately, and that verbage could be drawn up to accomplish this. Councilman Grgas referred to the qualifications and findings required for a variance, and asked if the City would stand exposed from a legal standpoint if the variance procedure were replaced with an "encourage" parking provision, which could become a subjective decision, expressing his concern with equitable treatment. Mayor Risner suggested possibly requiring parking for major enlargements and additional bedrooms, and "encourage" that parking requirements be met for major interior remodeling and minor enlargements or expansions. The City Attorney responded that there are few cases where a variance can technically be justified, that on a case by case approach there is the potential for claim that someone was treated unfairly, suggesting that it would be advisable to draft a procedure that would allow some flexibility, but with guidelines that would be applied uniformly to all cases. The City Manager stated that if the Council concurs, the exact intent of the Planning Commission could be obtained, I 6-24-85 also that the staff and Commission could draft procedural guidelines. Mr. Parker expressed his feeling that there should be some flexibility for the business areas as well as residential in order to encourage upgrading of properties. Grgas'moved, second by Wilson, to delete the parking provision for major interior remOdeling and instruct the Planning Commission to draft language that meets the intent of the Counc il . AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I Councilman Grgas suggested that the Council and Commission meet in a work session to discuss the Council's recommendations. Discussion continued. with regard to major enlargements/ expansions and additional bedrooms, Mr. Grgas asked for clarification of Council's intent to refer these items back to the planning Commission for justification of the parking requirements. Mayor Risner confirmed that as the intent, adding that the direction should include that statements made by the City Manager regarding guidelines for this requirement also be considered. Clift moved, second by Brownell, to refer Items 19 and 20 back to the Commission with the directives as stated. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Mr. Grgas suggested that possibly the Commission should also comment further on the three hundred square foot or ten percent floor area requirement for minor enlargements/ expansions. Mr. Baucke explained that the three hundred square feet or ten percent was based upon a survey of other I cities that allow such improvements, which showed a range from two hundred to three hundred fifty square feet, a basic floor/area ratio. Mr. Grgas asked when information would be forthcoming from the Commission relating to buildings that may be destroyed by disaster; Mr. Baucke responded that a survey is expected to be completed by the end of July or first of August. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to recess at 10:52 p.m. The Council reconvened at 11:00 p.m. with Mayor Risner calling the meeting to order. The Council, by unanimous consent, determined to consider zoning Text Amendment 4-85 as the next item of business, then Item "CC", a report regarding B-114, Surfside, Oral communications, and adjourn until 4:00 p.m. the following day to complete the agenda items. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 4-85 - SPECIFIC PLANS - STANDARDS/CRITERIA/REGULATIONS/PROCEDURES/REGULATION ZONE Mayor Risner declared the public hearing open to consider Zoning Text Amendment 4-85, establishing a Specific plan Regulation Zone and Specific Plan procedures. The City Clerk certified that notice of public hearing had been advertised as required by law and reported no communications had been received for or against this matter. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report and summarized the proposed zoning Text Amendment, and reviewed four amendments to the proposed Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission relating to developer/property owner participation, second Commission public hearing, and height. The City Manager stated that he and the Director of Development Services do not agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation relating to height, the feeling I' 6-24-85 I being that this, a procedural ordinance, should not speak to height, parking, etc. As requested by Councilman Clift, Mr. Baucke read the Planning Commission amendments in full, adding that approval of the amendments were unanimous with the exception of the amendment dealing with height. 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. Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th Street, reported the height limit was discussed extensively at the Planning Commission meeting, stated that citizens are concerned about the height limit and support placing the height limit in the ordinance. Barbara Rountree, 1300 Twin Hills Drive, stated her understanding of the staff recommendation is to remove the height limit, and spoke in favor leaving the height limitation in the Ordinance. The City Manager responded that he did not agree with placing specifics in a procedural ordinance. Charles Antos, 316 - 10th Street, commented on the discussion at the Commission meeting relating to how the height was proposed to be measured, suggesting that if additional height or parking is needed, it be subterranean. There were no other public comments; Mayor Risner declared the public hearing closed. I Councilman Grgas expressed some concern with establishing a height over the thirty-five foot height of the area, stating he felt the height should be as conservative as possible initially. The City Attorney clarified that once a Specific plan is adopted there are no variances that can be granted to the Specific plan, however there could be a variance applied for in connection with, or at the time the Specific plan is being considered for approval, noting that it would be difficult to make findings, given the size of the parcel, to justify a variance. Mayor Risner stated her feeling that in order to have a quality development on the State Lands site it would have to be thirty-five feet from the grade of Pacific Coast Highway, measured within the City limits. She stated she did not feel the height provision is consistent with discussions during the study session with the Planning Commission, and that she would prefer language that would apply the height limit to the coastal zone, as well as along Lampson Avenue where there are concerns about development in that area. Mrs. Risner reported she had been informed Oakwood is thirty- one feet high and that the difference in grade of the two sites is approximately five feet, and stated she could see no necessity for having a development over thirty-nine feet on the State Lands parcel, nor the DWP or Hellman properties. Councilman Brownell stated he felt the desire for limited building heights near residential areas has been expressed by the community, however there may come a time when the community may want to go above the limit for a specific site, without harming other areas of the City, and spoke in opposition to placing a long term height restriction in this general provision ordinance. Councilmember Wilson concurred, stating she felt each parcel and project should be judged on its own merit. Councilman Clift stated he did not concur with the height provision as worded, suggesting that this matter be referred back to the Planning Commission with some suggested wording such as "no structure shall be permitted where the habitable space is higher than the building height limit for the district and the zone in which it is located or proposed to be located, pursuant to Section 28-2317 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code." The City Manager referred to previous Council actions that have designated the DWP and state Lands parcelS for hotel development, the Council determining I 6-24-85 that hotel development would benefit the entire community economically, again stating his feeling that a height limitation should not be included in this procedural ordinance, that negotiation and consideration be given to each project for each site on its own merit. The Mayor referred to the DWP Specific plan which presently sets the height limit for that site at thirty-five feet, therefore if a development will not be economically feasible within those guidelines, the 70/30 ratio may need to be amended. Councilman Clift stated he felt it would be more acceptable to increase the height rather than go through the Coastal Commission again to change the land use ratio. with regard to variance procedures for height deviation, the City Manager and City Attorney responded that it would be difficult to justify a variance for large parcels of land and could be subject to legal attack. Mr. Grgas stated his feeling that a height standard should be established. The City Attorney clarified that the proposed procedural ordinance would govern the DWP Specific Plan to the extent of future amendments, that Specific plan standing as it presently exists, however a State Lands Specific Plan would be in accordance with the proposed guidelines. Mayor Risner again stated she would like to see language that would determine the height by coastal zone and on Lampson Avenue, and that all other Specific plan areas be judged on their own merit. The City Manager noted there are currently four Specific plan designated sites, Bixby, Hellman, State Lands, and DWP. Councilman Brownell pointed out that the numbering of the Sections in the proposed ordinance duplicate existing Code Sections; the City Attorney stated that would be corrected. Mayor Risner requested that the Redevelopment Agency be included in Section 28-2902. The City Attorney confirmed that the Redevelopment Agency could initiate a Specific Plan subject to the approval of the City Council, explained that there is no appeal procedure, that the Planning Commission makes recommendations to the Council, with the City Council making the final decision, and confirmed that a Specific Plan Ordinance would be subject to referendum. It was the consensus of the Council to add the Redevelopment Agency as an initiating body, as requested. Mrs. Risner requested that the following sentence of Section 28-2902 be amended to read "Prior to plan adoption, the developer/property owner shall be notified and invited..." No objection to this change was indicated. with regard to Section 28-2906, the City Attorney clarified that the referral back to the Planning Commission is an option of the City Council, that the language of the Ordinance is consistent with State law with regard to "substantial modification," noting that the word "substantial" is subject to interpretation on a case by case basis. Mr. Stepanicich explained that the provision for a second public hearing by the Planning Commission when substantial modifications are made to a plan was a recommendation of the Commission, the original drafted ordinance only requiring review and report by the Commission, again, that language being consistent with State law. Mayor Risner and Councilman Brownell expressed support for the referral and report procedure rather than an additional public hearing. The City Manager noted that the Council has requested the City Attorney to delete Code requirements for referral back to the Planning Commission, that the language of the proposed Ordinance makes referral and a second public hearing mandatory. Councilman Clift spoke in support of the additional public hearing and Commission recommendations. Mr. Grgas noted that the key word of this Section is "substantial", stating he would support referral back to the Commission if the I I I c 6-24-85 1 modifications are, in fact, substantial. The Council indicated, by consensus, that the requirement for a second Planning Commission public hearing should be deleted, requiring only a referral to the Commission upon the determination of substantial modifications to a Plan. Mr. Brownell suggested that language be incorporated that would clarify the determination of "substantial." The City Attorney suggested wording could be added to read "the decision as to the determination of substantial shall be left to the City Council." Grgas moved, second by Brownell, to refer this item back to the Planning Commission with the proposed changes of the, City Council, and request their report at the earliest possible date. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried AGENDA AMENDED Brownell moved, second by Grgas, to amend the agenda to consider Item "cc" out of order at this time. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I B-114 - SURFSIDE The City Manager presented the staff report and reviewed the background of the subject building located at B-114 in Surfside, erected contrary to the terms of the building permit and in violation of setback requirements. Mr. Parker reported that in April 1984 the property owner was notified that the property was unsafe and advised that corrective measures would be taken within thirty days, the property then acquired through foreclosure by Safeco Title Insurance. He reported the City Attorney advised Safeco on May 8, 1985 that the structure would be demolished and the property owner charged the cost of such demolition if substantial work had not commenced within thirty days, that time periOd now lapsed with no work initiated. The City Manager reported that bids have been solicited for demolition of the structure, and the City Attorney has directed that the City Council be advised of staff's intention to award said bid to the lowest responsible bidder. He pointed out that should no bid be received below $5,000 the City would be obligated by law to advertise for bids. Mr. Steve Knowblock, Safeco Insurance, apologized for this problem, and advised that a bid has been received within the past few days to purchase the building and relocate the structure, therefore he requested postponement of the demolition pending the relocation. He stated the purchaser has been in contact with the City, the building movers, the Edison company for utility relocation, acknowledging that terms of sale have been agreed upon, therefore the matter should be resolved within a few days. The City Manager stated the staff would have no objection to continuing this matter for thirty days. Grgas moved, second by Brownell, to approve continuation of this matter for thirty days. Nancy Stephani, C-21, Surfside, stated she was present as a representative of the purchasers, that it has been confirmed that the building can be moved, however it may take three to four weeks to obtain the necessary permits from the Edison Company. Mr. Baucke acknowedged that the City'S Building Code does provide for moving buildings by permit. ,I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried 6-24-85 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Risner declared oral communications open. Councilman Brownell stated he would be absent from the July 8 meeting and requested to the excused. Mr. Steve Friedman, 142 Main street, read a prepared statement entitled "Save Zoeter," and urged consolidated citizen response in support of preserving the Zoeter property and buildings. Members of the Council concurred with the need to preserve the I Zoeter site, and confirmed that everything possible is being done at the Council and staff level to accomplish this goal. Mr. Brian Sweeney, 140 - 7th Street, expressed his strong support for preservation of the Zoeter site, referred to a recent news article reporting the City would purchase each portion of that site from the School District, stated he has seen a plot plan of the site showing a street extending through the property, a letter from the School District offering the sale of the property to the City, and inquired if the City has accepted a demolition bid for the subject buildings. The City Manager responded that no demolition bid has been accepted, and that there are several drawings that explored different possibilities for the property, one showing a street through the property, one depicting a division for residential, commercial, etc., one option to relocate the site for which a quote was obtained to relocate the buildings at a cost of approximately $165,000, adding that as City Manager, it is his obligation to explore all options. Councilman Grgas stated that the news article referred to the recreation facilities on the site, that the day care centers pay for their activities on the property. Mr. Grgas pointed out the the City Manager did prepare various analysis of what could be done on the property in order to be prepared for any proposal by the School District. Mayor Risner urged that an appraisal be obtained I for the Zoeter site. Councilman Grgas offered that an appraisal at this time may be premature, suggesting that an appraisal be postponed until the outcome of Senate Bill 887 is known. Mr. Parker noted that if SB 887 is approved, it will probably not take effect until January 1st. Mr. Friedman acknowledged the effort that-has been put forth by Councilmembers Grgas and Risner, and the City Manager to preserve this site, noting that he has never heard of any intent to divide the Zoeter property. Barbara Rountree, Twin Hills Drive, referred to the Specific plan item referred back to the Planning Commission with the recommendation to delete the second public hearing, and inquired if the Commission could direct a second hearing. The City Attorney responded that they could conduct a public hearing provided that it could take place within the forty-five day time frame. Charles Antos, 316 - 10th street, asked why three offers made by the School District for lease or sale of the Zoeter site had not been made public, which he reported Mr. McCully had informed him of the past week. The City Manager reported the District gave the City a value of 5.2 million dollars which was reported in the newspaper, which was not accepted, that they have offered a lease price of one-half million dollars, which the City rejected, noting that there has not been an offer the Council has I chosen to accept. Mr. Parker pointed out that the longer the Zoeter process is delayed, the longer it stays open space, explaining that whether or not offers are made, negotiations are not carried out in public, however upon any agreement by the Council to accept an offer, that would be made public. Mr. Grgas noted that the City retains the power of existing zoning on the site. Mr. Antos asked who and how it was decided to change the sidewalk treatment on Main street, and why no condition was placed on the 6-24-85 I property owners at 136 and 136-1/2 to repair the sidewalk in the same way others have paid to put in stamped concrete. The City Manager responded that several areas of stamped concrete are breaking up and causing a hazard, and that the Director of Development Services and the City Engineer decided on a new street pattern, noting that each of the parties involved paid a portion of the cost. Mr. Baucke explained that the Building and Engineering sections of the Municipal Code only requires the upgrading of those areas that are considered to be a hazard by the City Engineer. He explained that in this case the property owner proposed to do significant modifications greater than the small portion' of sidewalk that they would have been required by Code to be upgraded. He explained that Mr. Kyle and Mr. Hennessey came to the City requesting to improve the sidewalk in some manner greater than the scope of work required by the Code, therefore the City's involvement in the design. The City Manager added that since the property owners were requesting to upgrade the area, the city agreed to participate, and that there is no legal authority to mandate that they assume the entire cost, adding that the request to upgrade the sidewalk was after approval of the project, therefore could not have been a condition of approval. The Mayor informed Mr. Antos that the report regarding consultant services is included on this agenda and is available at ten cents per page. Mr. Antos stated the report did not address what he had requested in his letter to the City. Mr. Parker stated the Council had received a copy of Mr. Antos' letter, that he had been directed not to provide copies as requested, explaining that the Council requested a list of consulting services, which has been provided. Mayor Risner added that the council was responding to a request of Mr. Gilkerson. Mr. Glen Dulac commented on the shared cost of the decorative sidewalk, stating his feeling that it was to the advantage of special interests. The City Manager noted that several areas of sidewalk are now designated for repair and that at last meeting the Council directed the staff to contact property owners to inquire if they want to participate in the program by incorporating the brick pattern. Councilman Grgas stated he wished to personally, and on behalf of the Council, extend appreciation to Rich Eldridge for the contribution of the porpoise to the Tot Lot. There being no other communications, Mayor Risner declared oral communications closed. I ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until 4:00 p.m., TueSday, June 25th. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, wilson None Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 12:42 a.m. I Approved: Attest: