Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-07 (8)MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, February 7, 1994 A tape recording of this meeting is on tape in the City Clerk's Office Mayor Moulton -Patterson called the regular meeting of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency to order at 5:00 p.m. in Room B-8 of the Civic Center. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL PRESENT: Silva, Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Sullivan, Leipzig (arrived 5:15 p.m.) ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille STUDY SESSION - PRESENTATION BY SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS, INCORPORATED, WESTMINSTER The Special Projects Manager presented a staff report. Jim Miller, Executive Director for the Shelter for the Homeless, presented a report about the three part program regarding emergency shelters, transitional housing and permanent housing. Dale Bloomingdale, Comprehensive Housing Services consultant, spoke regarding a non-profit homeless shelter to be provided with the city to finance and rehabilitate the building for affordable housing, federal funding, and low income guidelines. (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING - HOLLY-SEACLIFF COST REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 93-1 RESOLUTION NO 6565 (350.30) The City Administrator announced that the consultant engineer would not be available to present his report due to a death in the family. Tom Zanic, Seacliff Partners President, requested the Holly Seacliff Cost Reimbursement District be continued as two Councilmember are absent. Councilmember Leipzig stated that people who want to speak on the issue tonight be advised to return and make their presentation to the full Council. CALL CLOSED SESSION The Mayor called a Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to meet with its designated representatives regarding Labor Relations Matters - Meet and Confer. (120.80) The Mayor called a Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation - State of California v. BP America, et al (American Trader Oil Spill) - OCSCC 646339. (120.80) 91.0. Page #2 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 6:25 p.m. FLAG CEREMONY - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION The Flag Ceremony and Pledge of Allegiance was conducted by Boy Scout Webelos, Pack 404, Den 6 from Hope View and Harbor View Schools, Huntington Beach; Den Leader, Valerie Finch. PRESENTATION - $25,000 - RAINBOW DISPOSAL - BRANCH LIBRARY - OAK VIEW COMMUNITY Mayor Linda Moulton -Patterson accepted, on behalf of the City Council, a check in the amount of $25,000 to be used for the establishment of a branch library in the Oak View Community, from Ron Shenkman, Rainbow Disposal. PRESENTATION - $5,000 - McDONNELL DOUGLAS AEROSPACE WEST SUPPORT READING PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC/MULTI-RACIAL CHILDREN AT OAK VIEW BRANCH LIBRARY Mayor Linda Moulton -Patterson accepted a check for $5,000 on behalf of the City Council and Bruce Powers, President, Library Patrons Foundation, from Mr. Henry (Hank) Todd, Vice President, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace -West, to support reading programs for Hispanic/multi-racial children in the proposed Oak View Branch Library. PROCLAMATION - GRAND OPENING - YOUTH SHELTER Mayor Linda Moulton -Patterson presented a proclamation to Mr. Thomas G. Harman, President, Huntington Youth Shelter Board of Directors, recognizing the grand opening of the Youth Shelter providing a safe haven and counseling for youth with the goal of reconciliation with parents. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jeannie Collins commented on the Neighborhood Watch newsletters, boycotts, flag burning and hate crime laws. George Arnold stated he believed Councilmember Silva should abstain from voting on the Bolsa Chica issue because of a conflict of interest with the Koll Company. Mr. Arnold stated a restaurant in the second block of Main Street needed an additional trash container. He commented on street lights that were out on Main Street and street sweepers leave debris behind their vehicles. He disagreed with the hiring practices of the city Personnel Department. Theodora Parnavelas urged Council not to appoint Shirley Carey to the Community Services Commission because of what she believed was Ms. Carey's stand on the American with Disabilities Act. Jessie Cabrera urged Council to vote no on appointing Shirley Carey to the Community Services Commission and stated she was surprised Council would consider an applicant who she believes opposes the American with Disabilities Act and special education programs. oil Page #3 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 Jon Ewine stated he was a disabled person and to appoint Shirley Carey to the Community Services Commission would be appointing a person to supposedly represent him that he believed did not support the American with Disabilities Act. Pat Davis, referring to an item scheduled later on the agenda, stated there was a need for a three par or executive golf course in Central Park and nothing had changed regarding that need since the last Council meeting when it had been approved. Steven Anderson spoke regarding action taken at the last Council meeting to approve the golf course in Central Park Master Plan. He requested an explanation as to the reason the matter was being reconsidered. He stated he did not believe it was in the best interests of democracy to reconsider an item late at night, and with only five Councilmembers input, Tom Zanic, representing Holly Seacliff, spoke regarding the Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan. He stated city staff recommended additional changes to the plan, however, his company did not agree with the proposed changes. He stated he would be present when the item was considered by Council later in the meeting if Council had any questions at that time. Richard Henderson stated he supported the golf course portion of Huntington Central Park Master Plan and urged Council to not reconsider the issue. Tom Duchene stated five years ago a site was approved by Council for a youth sports center which was later changed to the Gothard-Talbert site by another task force. He stated that since the Gothard-Talbert site has been deemed unacceptable, why not use the former site approved by the former City Council. He urged Council to include a youth sports center in Central Park when the plan is reconsidered later in the meeting. Mike Hoops stated he opposed the appointment of Shirley Carey to the Community Services Commission because of her comments in newspaper articles. SUGGESTION - PUBLISH LIST OF GROUPS NEEDING VOLUNTEERS Councilmember Silva stated he had an opportunity to meet with a large group of volunteers and stated many people are not aware of the various groups that could use volunteers in their organization. He suggested a list of groups that need volunteers be published, together with the groups telephone number, in city publications such as the Sands magazine which is distributed to all the residents in the city. DISCUSSION RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS - YOUTH SPORTS COMPLEX IN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK Councilmember Sullivan requested clarification regarding encumbrance on the property proposed for a three par or executive golf course in Huntington Central Park. The Director of Community Services stated a Youth Sports Complex could not be constructed on that property as the property was encumbered for a golf course under the terms of the Mobilehome Relocation Agreement with the Driftwood Mobilehome Park and Waterfront Phase II. Mr. Hagan stated he believed Mr. Duchene, who spoke under the public comments portion of the meeting, was referring to the site located next to the nature center which was designated for a passive area. 012 Page #4 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 RECONSIDERATION OF GOLF PORTION OF HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN - MOTION TO DELETE GOLF COURSE ELEMENT APPROVED - "WHITFHOLE" APPROVED On motion by Silva, second Winchell, Council agreed to consider the item on the agenda pertaining to the Huntington Central Park Master Plan at this time by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille A motion was made by Moulton -Patterson, seconded by Winchell, to delete the golf course element from the Huntington Central Park Master Plan which proposed a golf course use adjacent to Goldenwest Street, south of the methane mitigation area, west of the police golf range, north of Sully -Miller lake and east of the Oceanview Mobilehome Estates, and "whitehole" this area of the master plan. The rest of the master plan would remain as designated. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Sullivan NOES: Silva, Leipzig ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille COUNCIL COMMITTEE/COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Downtown Specific Plan Committee - Report to Council Scheduled for 3/7/94 Councilmember Winchell reported on the Downtown Specific Plan Committee meetings and requested their report to Council be scheduled for March 7, 1994 rather than February 22, 1994 as the committee still had work to do on their recommendations. On motion by Winchell, second Sullivan, Council granted the request of the Downtown Specific Plan Committee to present their report and recommendations to Council at the meeting scheduled for March 7, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Moulton -Paterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Trash Problem in Downtown Area The City Administrator responded to comments made by George Arnold during the public comments portion of the meeting, and agreed there was a trash problem in the downtown area. City Budget Report Scheduled for 2/22/94 The City Administrator informed Council he would present a budget report, including employee attrition, on February 22, 1994. f Pacific Coast Hiehwav_Between Goldenwest and Warner The Police Chief informed Council that due to a combination of storm and high tides Pacific Coast Highway was closed between Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue. He stated a Thunderstorm Watch was still in effect with another high tide due at 7 a.m. in the morning. He stated Pacific Coast Highway could possibly open late tomorrow afternoon. 013 Page #5 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 Earthquake Preparedness Report The Fire Chief presented a report, with slides, on the city response in the event of an earthquake and what citizens should be prepared to do for themselves. He announced several earthquake classes were offered by the City and were listed in issues of the Sands magazine. (City Council) CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED TO NO CERTAIN DATE - TO BE RE -ADVERTISED - CODE AMENDMENT 93-2 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91-32 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING - INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO 3214 (430.50) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a decision on a public hearing closed October 4, 1993. The public hearing was to consider the following: APPLICATION NUMBER: Code Amendment No. 93-2/Negative Declaration No 91-32 APPLICANT; City of Huntington Beach, Dept. of Community Development LOCATION: City-wide REQUEST: To amend the City's Zoning code to include provisions for affordable housing which require all projects of three (3) units or greater to address affordable housing. The ordinance also provides incentives for providing affordable housing. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 91-32 which will also be considered by Council. The City Clerk presented a staff report prepared by Community Development A motion was made by Winchell, seconded by Leipzig, to continue to no certain date Code Amendment No. 93-2 and Negative Declaration No. 91-32 and re -advertise prior to setting a new public hearing. The motion carried, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Moulton Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO 6565 - CONTINUED OPEN TO 2/22/94 - HOLLY-SEACLIFF COST REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO, 93-1 (350.30) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing for the purpose of considering the establishment of a cost reimbursement district for the financing of certain public facilities and related improvements within the city, otherwise known as the Holly Seacliff Cost Reimbursement District No. 93 1. The Mayor read the following statement: "If your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Cost Reimbursement District, then your property may be subject to a lien to pay a portion of the cost of providing public facilities which benefit your parcel of land except for the conditions listed below. If within a 20 year period from the date of forming this district, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or apply for a building permit, the lien and accumulated interest would become due and payable. The proposed boundaries of the district are more particularly described by Diagram No. 93-1 which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Exceptions: ions: Building permits for: building alterations for non-residential uses which do not exceed a third of the value of a building, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, and which effect no change in occupancy; 014 Page #6 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 2. building alterations or additions for residential use which add no residential units; 3. fences and walls; 4. repair of construction defects or damage due to fire, civil unrest, flood orany other destructive act of nature which does not increase the building area by more than one third the original area; or 5. temporary uses as specified in City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Article 973. The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 6565 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE HOLLY SEACLIFF COST REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO.93-01." The City Clerk presented a staff report prepared by Public Works. The City Administrator presented a report and explained that due to the Brown Act staff was recommending two public hearings be held, one at this meeting and one which is scheduled for February 22, 1994. The Director of Public Works presented a staff report. Steve May, Principal Engineer, presented a staff report. He stated staff had prepared an engineering report which would be presented to Council at the meeting scheduled for February 22, 1994. Councilmember Leipzig requested information regarding what percentages of improvements have actually been installed and how many remain to be installed in the future. He requested a report on what improvements have gone in, or would ultimately go in, for the non Seacliff Partner homeowners, how much of the costs of those improvements have been levied against those property owners through the city's existing mechanisms such as sewer fees, fire fees, etc. Steve May stated there would be sewer fees, drainage fees and water fees and he would research the matter and report to Council at the meeting on February 22, 1994. Councilmember Leipzig requested a listing of fees that would be applied to those property owners if Seacliff Partners were not developing the area around them. Legal notice a provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been mailed, published, and posted. The City Clerk stated she received communications in opposition from Milton Marrow, Alvin Cohn and William Carlson, Attorney -at -Law on behalf of Wilvion Renner. The City Clerk informed Council they had been provided by staff with a copy of a document titled "Supplemental Information for City Council Agenda Pertaining to Cost Reimbursement District 93-1 dated January 7, 1994 which includes additional property owners written comments, two City Attorney opinions: one dated March 19, 1993 and one dated January 27, 1994. The City Clerk stated a communication dated February 3, 1994 in support of the Cost Reimbursement District No. 93-1 from William Holman, Project Manager, Seacliff Partners and a communication from William Holman, Project Manager dated February 7, 1994 recommending the public hearing pertaining to Cost Reimbursement District 93-1 be continued to February 22, 1994. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Linda Espitia stated she, and her husband Albert Espitia, have been residents of Huntington Beach all their lives and owned their property for 60 years. She stated her family has paid property taxes on their lot since 1933 and had a sewer line constructed at the front of their lot which they paid for themselves. She stated that because all improvements, such as paved streets, lights, fire station, police station and all utilities are in place, and established, the fee proposed by the city is unfair and not in good faith. She questioned why they should pay for Holly-Seacliff s development. She stated when they built their home in 1959 they did not ask someone else to help in the expense and took care of it themselves and stated if Holly-Seacliff wants to develop their property they should take care of it themselves; if the infrastructure is needed to 015 Page #7 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 benefit the Holly-Seacliff development and the City of Huntington Beach, let the financial demands be directed to all the population of Huntington Beach, instead of a few property owners. She urged Council not to impose a lien of $28,951 on their small property, which is a lot and which is empty. She stated they had paid for their share of city development and public services for sixty years. Patrick Duffv, Attorney -at -Law stated he represented the following property owners affected by the proposed assessment district: Robert Anderson, Tom Greer, John Gutafson, Bill Pardeu, Mike Ramsey, Carl Weaver, Donald Wier, Bob Mandic, and Bill Williams. He referred to city Ordinance 3151 regarding developers installing public improvements which affects property not in their development and stated assessment districts were for the purpose of paying for improvements that solely affect the surrounding property. He stated he had provided Council with a copy of a report by their expert engineer Charley Abbot which analyzed Wildan and Associates analytical methods and stated they were contrary to ordinary civil engineering practices and contrary to the law and to the ordinance. He stated the developer had taken the total cost of the improvements then arbitrarily assigned a share of those total costs to surrounding parcels without any attempt to show that these improvements are solely for the benefit of the surrounding parcels. He stated what must be done is to point to a specific improvement such as a specific sewer line, specific water line, specific street, specific fire station and say that specific part of the development was primarily for the development of the adjoining parcel. He referred to the trip analysis performed by Wildan and Associates which concluded that the development resulted in more streets than needed and therefore the excess streets must be for the benefit of the surrounding property owners. He stated their expert Charley Abbot stated this conclusion is flawed unless there was an assessment as to the need and use of the surrounding properties. He stated the surrounding properties are not residential but are industrial and the Seacliff development does not enhance the industrial property in any way. He referred to his letter dated June 15, 1993 to which the City Attorney responded February 3, 1994 and questioned whether the City Attorney was aware these properties were industrial and not residential. He stated the businesses plan to remain as businesses, they are not developers and will never benefit from these assessments. Tom Zanic, representing Seacliff Partners, stated the plan being considered was not initiated by Seacliff Partners, but by city policy in 1990. He stated the General Plan Amendment, the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment, the General Plan, the Specific Plan and the Development Agreement all contemplated a fair share participation and infrastructure funding. He stated their company had to provide the infrastructure as they were the first developers and the largest property owners. He stated now the focus must be on the existing city policy regarding the mechanism for sharing those costs on a fair share basis. He stated the assessment district concept did not originate with their company, but from the city's consultant Wildan and Associates. He stated the improvements were not solely for Holly-Seacliff development, the improvements benefit other properties. He stated only 11% of the costs were placed on industrial uses, the bulk of the costs were placed on residential properties. He referred to a letter from his company to the city and stated the city needed to adopt some kind of fair share allocation method. He stated there were provisions for exemptions where the assessment is not due because of the sale of property or inheritance of property, assessments are only due at the time of the development of the property. Chris Taylor stated he owned a fifty foot lot and the proposed assessment would be $26,500. He stated he had adequate sewer and adequate water until the Holly-Seacliff development made his sewer and water lines inadequate, and wanted to pass their costs on to him. He stated when Seacliff Partners came to Council with their developers agreement and internally decided to go ahead with the project, the project penciled out and they were going to make over $100,000,000; however, $11,000,000 more is what they needed for a profit enhancer. He stated they were using the city as an insurance agent to assure getting the $11,000,000. He stated he believed he would be paying $5 everytime the people living in their new Holly- Seacliff homes watered their lawn, used their jacuzzi or their bar-b-que. Bob Mandic stated Seacliff Partners negotiated a deal with the city as willing buyers, willing sellers; they wanted to buy the rights to certain things such as being guaranteed 4400 housing units, and a zone change from industrial to residential with a medium to high density. He stated he believed they were good business people and would never have entered the deal if they had needed the $12,000,000 from the 016 Page #8 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 proposed assessment district, however now property values have declined. He stated it would cost him $400.000 to implement the assessment and at this time he already pays $14,000 per year in property taxes. He stated he could develop his property without these mandates as all he would need are curbs and gutters as he already has water line capacity, sewer line capacity, electrical capacity and does not need signals on Garfield Avenue and does not need widening of Goldenwest Street. He stated the assessment lien would devalue his property because it would affect borrowing power on the property.. Jerry Galich stated he was in favor of the reimbursement district. He stated he had been a business owner on the corner of Garfield Avenue and Crystal Street since 1984. He described trash and debris in the Holly-Seacliff property such as abandoned sofas, refrigerators and a car body. He stated he believed clean up of the property and the Holly-Seacliff project would raise property values in the area. Darryl Scott, representing his father Bill Scott, stated he opposed the reimbursement district. He stated he believed there must be a better plan to share the burden of the cost of the improvements, and suggested, perhaps, the whole city could share the burden. He stated he did not think it was fair they should be singled out to bear the costs. B. G. Williams stated he owned three parcels of property and his assessment would come to close to a quarter of a million dollars. He stated he does not think it was needed, or necessary, or fair or just. He stated when the first notice went out for this item, which was rescheduled to this time, on the first notice the assessment was a fraction of the real assessment and inquired how this happened. He inquired as to how the boundaries were drawn, and asked if it were to benefit the whole city, then why not include the property the Huntington Beach Company owns at Main and Yorktown in the assessment district. He stated his concerns regarding the realignment of Gothard Street and abandonment of the old Gothard Street. He inquired if property owners paid this assessment when they developed their property were they excused from paying other development fees. Ken Kelter stated he represented the Huntington Signal Oil Company and his three partners and it was their position that the proposal, which would encumber their property, was totally unacceptable. He stated as a small builder in Huntington Beach they have paid for every improvement and all costs associated with every project they have built since 1980. Discussion was held between Councilmember Sullivan and Patrick Duffy regarding why industrial users would not benefit from some of the improvements. Councilmember Leipzig and Steve May discussed how many property owners would benefit solely from some of the improvements and which improvements would benefit everybody. Steve May stated the proposed assessment district was being formulated pursuant to the Developers Agreement and Government Code 66000 which specifies proceedings and procedures to go through to impose a development fee. In response to inquiry by Councilmember Leipzig regarding the phrase "for the sole benefit of Mr. Mays referred to a City Attorney opinion provided to Council which he stated was given to Council at the last minute in the supplemental information with the staff report. Councilmember Sullivan requested a staff report at the next meeting regarding comments by Mr. Duffy on Ordinance No. 3151. The Mayor announced the public hearing was continued open to February 22, 1994. RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess at 9:45 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:55 p.m. 017 Page #9 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL BY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 93-20 - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 93-20 APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 93-19 - BLUFFTOP PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND BEACH PARKING LOT (420.80) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the following appeal: APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Coastal Development Permit No. 93-20/Negative Declaration No. 93-19. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Dept. LOCATION: Coastal side of Pacific Coast Highway, between Goldenwest Street and Ninth Street. ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan, District 11-FP3 REQUEST: To permit bluff top park improvements, including the addition of a new pedestrian walkway which will be separated from the existing asphalt bike path, enhanced landscaping and design of a new irrigation system, and removal of the existing crib retaining wall and installation of a new retaining wall which will be located approximately five (5) feet westerly (oceanside). The construction of the new wall will include the removal of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of soil. The wall will be terraced and landscaped to reduce visual impacts, and will provide a greater separation between the bike path and pedestrian path. The project also includes a new 246 space beach parking lot on the existing service road below the bluff with two (2) bicycle undercrossings at the vehicular access points to the parking lot at Goldenwest Street (entry) and 1 lth Street (exit). The undercrossing will provide a continuous bike path along the oceanside of Pacific Coast Highway without any conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians at the access point. The parking lot will have centralized ticket dispensers (no controlled access gates) and will be closed during night time hours. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The project is covered by Negative Declaration No. 93-19. COASTAL STATUS: Appealable This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final. However, approval of the Coastal Development Permit is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code, S. 30603. A denial of the Coastal Development Permit may be appealed (S.13319, title 14, California Administrative Code) only if the City has denied the issuance of a coastal development permit because it cannot make the findings required by Section 13311, Title 14 of the California Administrative Code. Pursuant to Public Resources Code, S. 30603, an appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed in writing with the Coastal Commission. 1 Page #10 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 The appeal period begins when the Commission receives a notice of the City Council action and continues for ten (10) working days. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission's review period, and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. The Planning Director presented a videotaped on -site report showing the proposed Blufftop Park improvements and beach parking lot. Jim Pickel, representing Purkis-Rose & Associates, consultants who designed the project, used wall maps to show the design of the project. The Community Services Director described the suggestion of the Downtown Residents Association of switching the entrance and exit so entrance would be from 1 lth Street and exit off Goldenwest. He explained this would eliminate automobile headlights shining into residences at night if the exit remained at 1 Ith Street. He stated it would eliminate intersection and signal modification at Goldenwest Street, as modifications required for entrance would not be needed if it were used as the exit. He stated the city Traffic Engineer was meeting with CALTRANS to gain their concurrence on the change. The Community Services Director stated he had applied for and received a number of grants that could be used for the project. He addressed the maintenance costs of the area before and after the proposed improvements. He stated the project included showers at the restrooms and the undergrounding of overhead lighting wiring and a traffic signal at 1 lth Street. Councilmember Winchell requested Jim Otterson, Traffic Engineer to return with a report on why a bus turn out is not included in the project. In response to inquiry by Councilmember Sullivan, Mr. Otterson stated the median at 1 lth Street is constructed with a left turn pocket and a traffic light with a left turn arrow would have to be installed. Discussion was held between Council and staff regarding parking for bicycles, future plans for a bus turnout area, and the waiting areas. Discussion was held regarding the design of the overpass over the pedestrian and bicycle lanes and traffic flow at the entrance and exit of the proposed parking lot. Discussion was held between Council and Mr. Pickel of Purkis, Rose & Associates. In response to inquiry by Councilmember Silva, Mr. Otterson stated a traffic study was done at one time based on 450 parking spaces and there was no need for a deceleration lane for southbound traffic and no need for a right turn lane, as there was a traffic light at Goldenwest and Pacific Coast Highway and a right turn on a red signal is allowed. Councilmember Sullivan asked if there had been a traffic study on reversing the entrance and exit and would automobiles back up with the entrance on 1 Ith Street. Mr. Otterson stated there had been no analysis, however, the pocket was about 350 or 400 feet long which would hold about 17 or 18 cars and he did not believe there would be a problem. In response to an inquiry by Mayor Moulton -Patterson, the Planning Director referred to a letter from California Coastal Commission staff dated November 22, 1993 which stated that the city has a certified local coastal program and the project site falls within the coastal management jurisdiction of the city. The project is appealable to the Coastal Commission. Mayor Moulton -Patterson asked the Chief of Police whether the project would affect crime in the area. The Police Chief stated he was very supportive of the project and stated: the retaining wall would cut down on graffiti; with separate bicycle and pedestrian lanes there would less accidents, particularly those involving children; parking enforcement would be easier; the design of the undercrossing as it relates to tunnels would be good because of grading, visibility and lighting; and there would be easier access to the beach by emergency vehicles. He stated whenever many cars were in a small area there was the possibility of crime, however, later in the meeting an issue would be considered that would deal with that problem. 019 Page #I 1 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 The City Clerk presented a staff report prepared by Community Development. The City Clerk announced that the Community Services Director had provided Council with a communication regarding revised budget information. Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been mailed, published, and posted. The City Clerk presented a communication and petition listing forty signatures received from Tim Wetzel. Thirty-three communications in opposition were received February 2, 1994 (these 33 signatures were the same signatures as appeared on the petition; communications in opposition were received from Dave McGorrin and John Walt. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Roy Richardson, Planning Commissioner, described action taken at the Planning Commission meetings when they voted against the Coastal Development Permit and explained that they were only against the parking lot portion of the project, not the rest of the project; that the concerns for the public safety should not take a back seat to public access. He stated he did not believe public access had been denied as stated in the appeal. He stated he believed the parking lot projected income was overstated and the expenses were understated. He stated his concern there would not be enough room for one car to pass another car which was backing out of the angled parking space. Don Slaven, representing North Orange County/Long Beach Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, stated their opposition to the CDP. He stated he believed the project would have a negative impact on the beach from Goldenwest Street to 10th Street and that the additional parking is not necessary. He stated his concern a parking lot in the area would result in additional surf restriction to beaches North of Huntington Beach pier. He stated there should have been an Environmental Impact Report on the project. He suggested Council allow parking along the Huntington cliffs immediately South of Bolsa Chica State Park which he believed would increase city revenue. He suggested 17th Street access could use the high school and elementary school parking lots with a shuttle bus to carry people to the beach. David McGorrin stated his opposition to CDP 93-20 and stated there is an excess of beach parking in Huntington Beach. He stated the Negative Declaration did not adequately address all of the problems with the project and an EIR should have been done. He stated his concern that there would be congestion at Goldenwest Street entering the parking lot and that he was one of the people who suggested reversing the entrance and exit. He stated his concern that there is severe erosion of the beach in this segment along the bluff top and he believed the parking lot could be taken out by a severe storm. In answer to an inquiry by Councilmember Silva, Mr. McGorrin stated he lived next to the beach and would rather have a parking meter in front of his house than a parking lot on the beach. Dana Lustner stated her concern that undesirable adolescent activities would take place in the proposed parking lot at night. She stated her concern that there would be problems with gas, oil and exhaust fumes from the cars, music from car stereos, beer bottles and cans, vandalism in surrounding neighborhood and the parking lot under water during a storm. She stated she believed the project would make the beach unsafe. She stated there was always available parking in the area. Tom Wetzel distributed additional petitions to Council. He stated there was no EIR on the project. He stated the Negative Declaration mitigation measures did not deal with air quality, noise, land use and transportation and he would like to have some of these reports. He stated he believed there were inconsistencies with the California Coastal Act and that earth was being removed and graded away to create more parking which was against the California Coastal Act. He stated he did not believe there were sufficient studies on the project. 000 Page #12 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2n194 Jim Knann stated he opposed CDP 93-20 and he wanted all the improvements except the parking lot. He asked if there had been a needs assessment for a parking lot. He stated he did not believe the parking lot was an appropriate expenditure. Todd Arnold stated he opposed any more parking as there was plenty of parking now. He stated his concern that he would lose his view of the beach to a view of a parking lot. He stated his concern with problems with crime in a parking lot and cited problems in Newport Beach's parking lot near their pier. Miriam McGorrin spoke in opposition to the blufftop park improvements and the beach parking lot. She stated she believed safety was an issue and a parking lot that could not viewed from the street would be a dangerous area. Rick Davitt stated he believed it was unanimous that the people do not want the parking lot, but the rest of the improvements were all right. He stated his wife worked for a major soft drink vendor and there was a real problem with people breaking into the soda pop machines which cost huge sums of money to repair, and all the robber would get were the coins. He stated his concern that there would be large amounts of money in the computerized parking devices and they would have to be repaired over and over again because of theft damage. He stated staff described the turn out lane over the pedestrian and bicycle lane would hold 17 to 18 cars and he believed the length of it would only hold eight cars. He requested Council deny the CDP for the parking lot. Cindy O'Dell stated her opposition to a parking lot. She stated the bike trail, pedestrian trail and landscaping would be a benefit to the area, however, a parking lot is unnecessary as there is adequate parking available from Bolsa Chica all the way to Brookhurst Street, as well as along the highway. She stated concern whether the beach was wide enough for a parking lot and concern the beach would eventually erode and all that would be left is a parking lot. She suggested instead of a parking lot a park be constructed there where everyone could relax, visit and enjoy the ocean. She stated she was a real estate appraiser and the exit leading to 1 Ith Street would cause increased traffic through that residential area which would have a negative impact on the property value of the residences. Robert London Moore. Jr. commended staff for their hard work, but urged Council to take careful consideration of the action taken by the Planning Commission on this project. He stated there were improvements that needed to be done to the face of the bluff, improvements to landscaping and a need to take a look at the possibilities for improvement of the bike trail and pedestrian walkway. He stated he had severe doubt about the proposed parking lot and questioned it from the standpoint of someone in the parking lot business. He described the overflow summer season parking lot owned by Mills Land and Water across the street from Bolsa Chica State Beach which has not been utilized in four or five years. He urged Council to look at the numbers, consider the costs and prospective revenue from the parking lot project. In response to the Mayor, the City Clerk stated that there were no more speakers on the hearing. Councilmember Sullivan inquired why an Environmental Impact Report was not done. The Planning Director described the process and sequence of events as follows: the Environmental Assessment Committee recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration be prepared; the Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated to state agencies and responses to that were then prepared; the California Coastal Commission prepared a response to the original mitigated Negative Declaration as did CALTRANS and the Environmental Board. Staff then responded to their inquiries. After the Planning Commission reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as the responses from the state agencies, the Planning Commission approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He stated if Council needed additional information staff would return to Council with that information. In response to inquiry by Councilmember Sullivan, the Community Services Director stated the parking lot was considered for this area because of the loss of parking due to the development of the area. He 921 Page #13 - Council/Redevelopment.Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 explained that many vacant lots, which had been used for parking, have disappeared as the city allowed more density to the area and it was developed. He stated in ten or fifteen years, twenty at the most, the remaining lots would disappear as they are developed. He stated staff was planning for long term coastal access and places to park. In answer to inquiry the Community Services Director stated projected revenue from the parking lot was figured conservatively. Councilmember Silva stated he would address parking meters north of Goldenwest Street at a future meeting. In response to his inquiry, the Community Services Director stated there were six days in 1993 that the existing parking lots were sold out. Councilmember Silva stated he opposed the project. He stated because of the financial burden he would prefer the beach return to the state. Councilmember Leipzig requested a breakdown of costs of the 2.3 million, including source of funding and the cost of the project components, such as concessions, restrooms, earthwork, construction of a new wall, etc. He stated he supported the project, but was concerned whether the city could afford it. Councilmember Winchell stated the project was an attempt at future planning as lots were disappearing in this area. She described the deteriorating situation between 9th Street and Goldenwest Street with graffiti and poor access to the beach. She stated the service road already exists and the one row of parking would be tucked below the bluff behind the service road and there would be no encroaching on the beach. She stated she supported the project. Councilmember Sullivan stated he supported the project with the proviso if the finances did not pencil out the project would be shelved. Mayor Moulton -Patterson thanked staff for the modifications to the plan which was much better than the one presented the previous year. She stated she believed strongly in public access to the beach and believed the project would alleviate accidents involving bicycles and pedestrians. A motion was made by Leipzig, seconded by Winchell, to overrule the Planning Commission's action and approve Coastal Development Permit No. 93-20, with findings and suggested conditions of approval as set forth in the Request for Council Action, dated February 7, 1993, Attachment No. 5, as follows: Findings for Approval - Coastal Development Permit No, 93-20: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the bluff top park and lower beach parking lot will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity, nor be detrimental to property values and improvements in the area. With the conditions imposed, the bluff top improvements and lower bluff parking lot, including bicycle under crossings, will not impact the surrounding residential streets nor will it impact traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. 2. The location, site layout, and design of the bluff top park and lower beach parking lot properly adapts the proposed streets, driveways, and other structures and uses in a harmonious manner. With the conditions imposed, the access to and parking for the bluff top park and lower beach parking lot will not create an undue traffic problem. 3. The granting of Coastal Development Permit No. 93-20 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed bluff top park improvements and lower bluff beach parking lot are consistent with the Open Space -recreation Land Use designation of the General Plan, City's Local Coastal Program, State Beach Master Plan, and Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 022 Page #14 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 Conditions of Approval - Coastal Development Permit No. 93-20: The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated December 27, 1993 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The proposed sidewalk along the oceanside of the parking lot drive aisle shall have a rolled curb. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall complete the following: a. A grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and it must be approved (by issuance of a grading permit). A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/exiting plant materials (location, type, size, quantity), an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Section 9607 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits. A detailed soil analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities. d. All final construction drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works e. The Design Review Board (and Community Development Department) shall review and approve the design of the entire project. The Board shall review walls, temporary structures, landscaping and under crossings. 3. All proposed lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto residential properties and into traffic along Pacific Coast Highway. 4. Gates shall comply with Fire Department Standard 403. Prior to the installation of any gates, such plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. 5. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25') in width and shall be of radius - type construction. 6. Drainage flows from adjacent properties shall not be obstructed. Flows shall be accommodated per Public Works Department requirements. 7. On -site drainage shall not be directed to adjacent properties, but shall be handled by a Public Works approved method. 8. Fire lanes shall comply with Fire Department Specification No. 415. 023 Page #15 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 9. Fire hydrants shall be located approximately every 600 feet. Construction drawing shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved prior to installation. 10. The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification Nos. 422 and 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. 11. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 12. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to operation of the beach parking lot. 13. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; C. Use low sulfur fuel (.05% by weight) for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second state smog alerts. 14. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 15. Prior to operation of the beach parking lot, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall stripe the parking lot to conform with the provisions of Article 960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. b. All improvements (including landscaping) shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein. 16. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Coastal Development Permit No. 93-20 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 17. Coastal Development Permit No. 93-20 shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Silva ABSENT: Robitaille, Bauer 024 Page #16 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING -UP-HELD PLANNING COMMISION DENIAL WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-44 - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 92-47 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.92-40 - PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER - 8541 EDISON AVENUE (420.40) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the following appeal: APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No 92- 44/Conditional Exception No. 92-47/Negative Declaration No. 92-40. APPLICANT: Dan Brimlow APPELLANT: Dan Brimlow and Ken Brimlow LOCATION: 8541 Edison Avenue ZONE: M2-O-FP2 (Heavy Industrial Combined with Oil with Floodplain Overlay) REQUEST: To improve in concept a 310 foot tall communications tower which exceeds the maximum height requirement of 40 feet in an M2 district. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Assessment No. 92-40 will also be considered by Council. COASTAL STATUS: This project is in a non -certified area of the Coastal Zone and must be ultimately reviewed and approved by the California Coastal Commission. The City Clerk presented a staff report prepared by Community Development. Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been mailed, published and posted. A communication from Southern California Edison Company dated January 31, 1994 included, which requests that certain conditions be imposed if appeal is approved. She stated two communications in opposition were received, one communication dated February 7, 1994 from Bob Biddle; and one communication from Bruce Romano dated February 7, 1994. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. David Johnson distributed a communication to Council and stated he was speaking on behalf of the Orange County Humane Society were opposed to the revised project. He stated the revised project did not adequately, address their concerns. He stated he investigated the history of the tower and it was over 65 years old and has been disassembled and moved twice before which created a concern regarding the structural integrity of the tower. He stated the revised plan was to only erect 212 feet of the tower and stated that to only erect 212 feet of a tower designed to be 310 feet seems inconsistent with good engineering practices. He requested the project be denied entirely, but if it was approved he stated it must have the engineering caveats listed in his communication. He stated the tower was not designed for cellular telephone antennas, so significant structural analysis for the suitability of this purpose must be performed. He stated significant inspections of the structural members to see if they have suffered from fatigue and the lack of maintenance should be performed. He stated his concern that all the frequencies, in concert together, could create harmful radiation and there were properties within a few feet of the proposed placement of the tower. He stated according to FAA regulations the tower must be painted red with orange and white stripes as a pre -condition to licensing, so the visible impact would be significant. 025 Page #17 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 Jerry Dominguez, Area Manager for Southern California Edison, referred to his letter dated January 31, 1994 regarding his concerns about the project. He stated he met with Mr. Brimlow several times, however, Mr. Brimlow's appeal letter did not address Edison Company's concerns. He stated they were concerned the tower would collapse on the Edison plant power lines in the event of a natural disaster. He asked for some type of mitigation agreement from Mr. Brimlow to indemnify Southern California Edison, if any losses occur. He stated there was a 220,000 barrel fuel storage tank approximately 120 feet from the property line and if the tower fell in a southerly direction it would puncture this tank. The fuel capacity of the tank is about 3.4 million dollars in low sulfur petroleum, which does not include the cost of the tank or clean up of a spill. He stated he was concerned about the possibility of an electrical fire, as the whole surrounding area has 12,000 volt distribution lines. Discussion was held between Councilmember Sullivan and Mr. Dominquez regarding the consequences of the tower collapsing on the 12,000 volt distribution lines and regarding the consequences of the fuel tank being punctured. Robert London Moore. Jr. stated he spoke on behalf of the family of owners of the Mills Land and Water Company and for the management of Huntington by the Sea Mobilehome Park. He stated Mills Land and Water property was located on the west side of Newland Street about 200 feet west of where the proposed tower would be installed and he was concerned regarding the public safety.. He stated the applicant has not given any specifics regarding the antenna that will be installed on the tower, the types of transmissions which will be emanating from the tower and the public safety analysis of the emissions that will be thrown off by the transmissions. He stated the applicant should make this information available to Council before a decision is made on the matter. He urged Council to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 92-44. Tim Boetcher, speaking on behalf of the applicant, stated the line of sight visibility of Orange county would be best suited by an antenna of this height to support the growing needs for public safety activities, including fire, police and emergency rescues. He stated there is currently insufficient radio coverage in this area and the exploding need for wireless communication is astounding at this time and any aid and development in the information highway would be a great advantage. He stated this would be the best site for a full service communication tower to minimize the visual impact. He presented slides of the area near the proposed site with the tower superimposed to illustrate how the finished structure would appear in eight directions around the site. Ken Brimlow stated he owned the property where the proposed tower would be located. He distributed a communication to Council. He referred to a letter from his consultant Shaffer and Associates dated February 4th regarding the preliminary market survey and evaluation. Mr. Brimlow read the findings contained in the letter. He read a letter from Orange County General Services Agency dated April 8, 1993 and signed by the Director of Information Systems. He stated the letter confirmed there was a need for a communication tower in the southwestern area of Huntington Beach. He stated the county of Orange has operated a coordinated public safety system since 1934 and there was a need for new communication towers to support public safety activities including police, fire and emergency medical services. He requested Council give serious consideration of their request. Dan Brimlow, applicant, stated Fire Chief Dolder was probably aware of the 800 MHz system that will be implemented by the county for coordinating all of the fire, police and emergency vehicles together. He stated the Orange County Director of Information Systems has spent the past week holding a series of international coordination meetings on communications, so he believed the Director's letter of support was very important. Mr. Brimlow stated there is a great need for a place to put a line of sight communications tower. He stated they would have the 800 MHz and offer free space to the Fire Department, Police Department and Council, and pointed out it would be a great help in earthquake preparedness. He recounted how the only way he could communicate with his aunt in Northridge following the recent earthquake was through wireless communication, not the telephone lines. He stated if an engineer 026 Page #18 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 determined the tower was not structurally sound they would not put it up, but would put up a new tower. He related how he tried to address the concerns of people opposed to the project. Councilmember Leipzig inquired whether Mr. Brimlow, as the applicant, would accept staffs recommendation of a modified 212 foot tower. Dan Brimlow stated they would lose quite a bit, but it would be acceptable if that was the recommendation of Council. Ed Martin stated he had been fishing in this area for fifty years and over the years it has become more difficult to communicate between boats or from ship to shore, and often times in the summer he must wait one or two hours to communicate with home that he will be staying out an extra day. He stated more and more boats are relying on cellular phones to communicate with each other and with home, rather than on vhf which has become jammed with communications. He stated they find areas of blackouts, of non - service, and this area off Huntington Beach is one of those areas, and he believed a communications tower in this area would be of long range benefit to this community and certainly to the communication users of this community. He urged Council to give favorable consideration to the communications tower. And,, Figgie, Senior Structural Engineer for Tower Technology, stated the existing tower, irrespective of its age, would be considered a new installation when it goes back up and would have to meet the latest code standards. Mr. Figgie stated he dismantled the tower and would put it back up with his license and liability insurance on it and therefore there would be no concern about its structural integrity. He stated the FAA requires that any tower over 200 feet in height has to have an obstruction marking system, but does not necessarily have to painted. He stated a tower up to 350 feet in height required only one light at the very top of the tower and does not have to be painted. Councilmember Sullivan inquired why this tower had been replaced. Mr. Figgie stated it was removed because it was in the right-of-way and removing it was part of the street widening process. Councilmember Leipzig inquired why it was not removed to the new site. Mr. Figgie stated it was used for a FM radio station which would have to be off the air for approximately 45 days while the tower was taken down and put back up in the new location, also the station took this opportunity to upgrade their signal to a higher platform, so the new tower is 410 feet tall. Darrell Dau hg ga stated he was a telecommunications planner based in San Diego and with Mr. Brimlow's agreement recommended Council approval of the 210 foot height for the tower. He stated the FCC has been very clear about RF radiation issues which staff has reviewed; also, the antenna would be horizontal directional antenna and would point away from the ground. He stated sites like this were needed and the city and county would receive free space on the 800 MHz system. The Fire Chief and Police Chief reported there was no advantage at this point in time of an additional communications tower for public safety services. The Fire Chief described the existing services and repeater stations available, including one on Catalina Island. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Councilmember Sullivan stated his concern regarding the stability of the soil under the site of the proposed tower and whether it was a liquefaction site. He stated the report says there would be a prior submittal of a detailed soils analysis which would be prepared by a registered soils engineer and inquired whether that process would find out if there was a problem. The Director of Public Works stated the report would answer that question. Councilmember Sullivan inquired whether there was any tax potential to the city in the use of cellular communications. The Director of Finance stated a portion of the cellular bill was captured on the utility tax for services within the city, but there were legal problems on cellular phones in terms of gaining any additional revenue. 027 Page # 19 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 Councilmember Sullivan referred to a letter Ken Brimlow referred to from Orange County General Services Agency which indicated that there were benefits to the county in the public safety area, and asked the Police Chief to comment on this. The Chief of Police stated he knew Mr. Gray at the General Services Agency, but did not feel it was appropriate to comment on the matter since he did not have a copy of the letter and could not verify it with Mr. Gray. He stated he and the Fire Chief, as noted earlier, believed the present facilities were compatible with the Fire Department, Police Department, and Public Works Department 800 MHz plans. Councilmember Winchell stated her concerns regarding locating the tower in an area that was fault ridden and on the flood plain of the Santa Ana river. She stated she was also concerned regarding the potential hazards Mr. Dominquez pointed out in relation to the Edison plant. A motion was made by Winchell, seconded by Moulton -Patterson, to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Negative Declaration No. 92-40, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-44 and Conditional Exception No. 92-47 with findings, as set forth in Attachment 2 of the RCA dated February 7, 1994, as modified by adding Conditional Use Permit Finding 2d. The findings are as follows: Findings for Denial - Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 92-47: Since the subject property an be fully developed with other industrial uses, such a conditional exception for a communication tower is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 2. Granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 92-47 for a 310 foot high communication tower would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. The subject property was legally subdivided and developed in a manner consistent with applicable zoning laws. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. Findings for Denial - Conditional Use Permit No. 92-44: 1. The proposed 310 foot high commercial tower will not be compatible with adjacent properties/uses because the tower may create adverse visual impacts due to the substantial height increase. Other structures in the vicinity do not exceed 212 feet in height. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the communications tower will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood because: a. The antennas have the potential of emitting radiation onto surrounding properties and onto persons and animals living or working in the vicinity of the proposed tower. b. Operation of the tower may create electrical disturbances to businesses and residents in the vicinity of the proposed tower. Testimony at the public hearing revealed that the structural stability of the 65 year old tower has been weakened by the two (2) previous dismantling and reconnections, corrosion, and lack of maintenance or safety inspections. Therefore, the tower at the proposed location may be unsafe for installation. f `1 Page #20 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 d. Despite safety checks on the structural stability that would be required there still remains the location which is in an unstable soil area and the potential safety hazard with the proximity of the power lines and Southern California Edison fuel tanks and the potential safety hazard due to the location in a fault area and the potential of liquefaction. There are sufficient communication opportunities within the city of Huntington Beach and other locations in the county are available for the proposed tower. In addition, construction of the proposed tower and future placement of a variety of antennas will be detrimental to the visual and aesthetic quality to persons utilizing Pacific Coast Highway, a scenic highway, which is within 2,00 feet of the subject property. 4. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 92-44 for a 310 foot high communications tower will adversely affect the General Plan of the city of Huntington Beach, in particular, the Scenic Highways Element. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Sullivan NOES: Leipzig ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille MOTION TO CONTINUE MEETING PAST I I P.M. TO CONSIDER CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS AND FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM On motion by Winchell, second Leipzig, Council continued the Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting past 11 p.m. to consider the Consent Calendar items and the first Administrative item, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Silva ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille CONSENT CALENDAR - (ITEMS REMOVED) Councilmember Winchell requested Resolution No. 6554 pertaining to the City Classification Plan regarding Art Center classifications be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration. Councilmember Leipzig requested the following items be removed for separate consideration: Community Services Appointment Shirley Carey, Notice of Completion for Tract No 13269; and Notice of Completion for Tract No. 13270. Councilmember Sullivan requested the following items be removed for separate consideration: the Federal Beach Erosion Control Project Agreement Number D93-176; the Intergovernmental Service Agreement between the city of Huntington Beach and the city of Irvine; and Resolution No. 6567 pertaining to certain benefits for non -represented employees and elected officials. CONSENT CALENDAR - (ITEMS APPROVED) On motion by Leipzig, second Sullivan, Council approved the following items, as recommended, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille 029 Page #21 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 (City Council/Redevelopment Agency.) MINUTES - APPROVED - Approved and adopted minutes of Council/Agency adjourned regular meetings of October 25, 1993, revised October 30, 1993 and November 1, 1993 and regular meeting of November 1, 1993 as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Submitted by City Clerk. (City Council) RESIGNATION ACCEPTED WITH REGRET - PERSONNEL COMMISSIONER HARRY J. BUHLER - Accepted the resignation of Harry J. Buhler from the Personnel Commission with regret and authorized the City Clerk to post the vacancy on the Personnel Commission and accept applications from interested parties consistent with State Law and City policies. (110.20) (City Council) AUTO THEFT EDUCATION PROGRAM - APPROVED - AT CITY/STATE BEACH PARKING FACILITIES & CERTAIN MAJOR ARTERIALS - Approved an educational sign program to be installed at twenty-five locations in the city and state beach parking facilities and along major arterials to the beach and approved an amendment to the FY 93-94 budget to appropriate $3,000 into Account No. E-AA-CS-346-2-2 1 -00 from the General Fund unappropriated reserve balance for the purchase of signs. (530.10) (City Council) BID AWARD - APPROVED - ALLIED SPRINKLER CO. - NORMA BRANDEL GIBBS PARK - PHASE II - CC-882- Accepted the low bid of $256,741.55 submitted by Allied Sprinkler Company, Inc. for the construction of Norma Brandel Gibbs Park, Phase II and hold bid bonds on the lowest three bidders until execution of contract, authorized the Director of Public Works to expend $292,415.71 to cover contract costs of $256,741.55, estimated construction Change Orders of $25,674.16 and anticipated supplemental expenditures of $10,000, rejected all other bids and directed the City Clerk to notify the unsuccessful bidders and return their bid bonds. The bids were a follows: Contractor Base Bid Bid Alternates* Total Bid Allied Sprinkler Co. 208,802.55 47,939.00 256,741.55 Zagros, Inc. 228,562.85 38,649.20 267,212.05 Marina Construction 229,529.00 120,000.00 349,529.00 DWM Construction 229,912.60 45,798.00 275,710.60 John C. Ettlin 238,808.00 43,964.00 282,772.00 Sunrise Landscape 256,255.05 88,850.05 345,105.10 Wakeham-Baker 257,257.00 54,868.60 312,125.00 Lambaren Contractors 257,580.25 38,490.00 296,070.25 BoPark 278,541.65 48,340.00 326,881.65 Civil Works Corp. 293,327.00 82,782.00 376,109.00 Golden Bear Arboritia 334,207.70 172,848.00 507,055.70 (600.65) Citv Council) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT - APPROVED - TOWN LOT CONCRETE ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS P &-D TECHNOLOGIES OF ORANGE - CC-907 - Approved staffs selection of P. & D. Technologies of Orange (a civil engineering firm) to prepare plans, specifications, cost estimates and a Record of Survey for the Town Lot Concrete Alley Improvements, approved and authorized execution of a Professional Services Contract between the City of Huntington Beach and P. & D. Technologies Inc., for design of Townlot Alley Improvements Plan and authorized the Director of Public Works to expend $71,000 to cover contract costs of $62,670, anticipated change orders of $5,000 and supplemental expenditure of $3,330. (600.10) 030 Page #22 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 (City Council) INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL - APPROVED - YORKTOWN AVENUE & DELAWARE STREET - PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS/CALL FOR BIDS - CC-880 - Approved plans and specifications for construction of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Yorktown Avenue and Delaware Street and authorized the Director of Public Works to advertise for bids, approved sample contract subject to award of contract to Council approved lowest responsible bidder. (600.55) (City Council) RESOLUTION NO 6555 - ADOPTED - DISPOSITION OF RECORDS - OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS Exhibit "A" - (Cash Contracts, Conditional Use Permits which have been microfilmed) (170.50) itv Council) APPROPRIATION OF FUES IN CONJUNCTION WITH AMERICAN TRADER OIL SPILL - JAMEKERMAN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING CITY - Approved appropriation of $50,000 to pay most recent quarterly billings and provide for estimated next quarterly billing in conjunction with American Trader Oil Spill as provided by contract amendment approved by the City Council on February 1, 1993. (600.10) (City Council) TRAFFIC CONTROLS UPDATE - CONFIRMED ALL -WAY STOP SIGNS SHOULD BE LEFT IN PLACE PALM AT OFELIA/CHERRYHILL - CONFIRMED 45 MPH SPEED LIMIT POSTED - PALM AVENUE BETWEEN GOLDEN�YEST GREET AND SEA POINT - Confirmed that the all -way STOP signs installed on Palm Avenue at Ofelia Lane and Cherryhill Lane should be left in place and confirmed that the 45 mile per hour speed limit posted on Palm Avenue between Goldenwest Street and Sea Point Avenue should be left in place .(580.60) (City Council) RESOLUTION NO. 6554 - CONTINUED TO NO TIME CERTAIN - AMENDMENT TO CITY CLASSIFICATION PLAN -ART CENTER CLASSIFICATIONS (700.10) The City Clerk presented a communication from the Deputy City Administrator regarding modification to the Classification Plan which adds new classifications: Art Education Coordinator, Exhibitions Coordinator, Preparator. The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 6554 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO AMEND THE CITY CLASSIFICATION PLAN." Councilmember Winchell requested further information on the three new positions for the art branch of Community Services including an analysis of the duties of the positions, justification for the positions, when the positions would be filled and inquired about funding for the positions. The City Administrator stated he would provide Council with an operational report of the Art Center that would address how these positions would be established, paid for and what the people would be doing. On motion by Winchell, second Sullivan, Council continued consideration of Resolution No. 6554 pertaining to an amendment to the city classification plan which would add three new classifications of Art Education Coordinator, Exhibitions Coordinator and Preparator, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille 031 Page #23 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 (City Council) COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION APPOINTMENT - APPROVED - SHIRLEY CAREY (110.20) The City Clerk presented a communication from the Director of Community Services regarding the appointment of a new representative from the Huntington Beach City School District to the Community Services Commission. Councilmember Leipzig stated that this item was opposed by a number of speakers earlier in the meeting during public comments and he thought it was worthwhile to put on the record that those articles Ms. Carey authored in the newspapers were very similar to comments that virtually all people in public service at the local level, on school boards, city government and county government, have made for a year or more about unfunded mandates. He stated that state and federal government have been placing on local government a large number of costs, which are often very well intended, but which increase the costs of local government and school districts. He stated he did not believe Ms. Carey to be uncaring toward the handicapped or does not have a commitment to Americans with disabilities. Mayor Moulton -Patterson concurred with Councilmember Leipzig's comments and stated she supported the appointment of Ms. Carey to the Community Services Commission. A motion was made by Leipzig, seconded by Winchell, to approve the appointment of Ms. Shirley Carey to the Community Services Commission replacing Dr. Gary Nelson as the Huntington Beach City School District representative. Her term of office would be February 7, 1994 to June 30, 1996. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille (City Council) AGREEMENT - APPROVED - COUNTY OF ORANGE - FEDERAL BEACH EROSION CONTROL - STAGE 10 - SAND REPLENISHING PROJECT (600.25) The City Clerk presented a communication from the Director of Community Services regarding an agreement with the County of Orange for Federal Beach Erosion Control Project Agreement number D93-176, State 10. A motion was made by Sullivan, seconded by Leipzig, to approve and authorize execution of the Federal Beach Erosion Control Project Agreement Number D93-176, Stage 10, and approve an amendment to the current year budget by appropriating $95,400 for Stage 10 of the Sand Replenishing Project from the General Fund, unappropriated fund balance. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille Erosion Problem to be Addressed in Environmental Impact Report Councilmember Sullivan stated his concern that the proposed jetty for the Bolsa Chica Project would impact the beach erosion problem which already exists at the bluffs and that it should be fully addressed in the Environmental Impact Report. 032 Page #24 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 (City Council) INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT - APPROVED - JAIL SERVICES -CITY OF IRVINE (600.10) The City Clerk presented a communication from the Chief of Police regarding a contract for jail services with the City of Irvine. In response to Councilmember Sullivan's inquiry, the Chief of Police stated there was no indication at this time that people being released from the city's facility were committing crimes in our city or creating other social problems. A motion was made by Sullivan, seconded by Leipzig, to approve and authorize execution of the Intergovernmental Service Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Irvine for the Detention at the Huntington Beach Police Department of Detainees held in custody by the Irvine Police Department. (Yearly revenue estimated at $6,000 to $7,500). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille (City Council) NOTICE OF COMPLETION - CONTINUED TO NO TIME CERTAIN - TRACT NO. 13269 - THE DAHL CO - SE CORNER OF ELLIS AVE & EDWARDS ST (420.60) The City Clerk presented a communication from the Director of Public Works regarding a Notice of Completion for Tract No. 13269. Councilmember Leipzig requested continuance of this item to give him time to meet with staff to obtain answers to questions he had regarding the matter. A motion was made by Leipzig, seconded by Sullivan, to continue consideration of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 13269. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille, Silva (out of the room) Citv Council) NOTICE OFF COMPLETIQN_-CONTINUED TO NO TIME CERTAIN - TRACT NO. 13270 - THE DAHL CO - SE CORNER OF ELLIS AVE & EDWARDS ST (420.60 The City Clerk presented a communication from the Director of Public Works regarding Tract No. 13270. Councilmember Leipzig requested continuance of this item to give him time to meet with staff to obtain answers to questions he had regarding the matter. A motion was made by Leipzig, seconded by Sullivan, to continue consideration of the Notice of Completion for Tract No. 13270. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille, Silva (out of the room) 033 Page #25 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 (City Council) RESOLUTION NO. 6567 - ADOPTED - NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES/ ELECTED OFFICIALS (720.20) The City Clerk presented a communication from the Deputy City Administrator/Administrative regarding Resolution No. 6567 which would modify certain benefits for non -represented employees contained in Resolution No. 6274. The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 6567 for Council consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MODIFYING CERTAIN BENEFITS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993-94 NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS." Councilmember Sullivan stated that the provision for salary spiking had been deleted during negotiations and recommended that the same action be agreed to by the rest of the employee groups. On motion by Sullivan, second Leipzig, Council adopted Resolution No. 6567 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille, Silva (out of the room) (City Council) HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP - LOAN AGREEMENT - APPROVED AS AMENDED - ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORP (OCCHQ - FUNDING REQUEST FOR THE ACQUISITION & REHABILITATION OF 17372 KEELSON LANE - OAKVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD- (APPROVED IN CONCEPT ON 1/3/94) (600.10) The City Clerk presented a communication from the Director of Special Projects requesting authorization to enter into an affordable housing agreement with the Orange County Community Housing Corporation (OCCHC) for the acquisition and rehabilitation of a four unit multi -family property in the Oakview Neighborhood with HOME Investment Partnership Funds. The Director of Special Projects presented a staff report, with slides, and stated he had discussed the agreement with Councilmember Sullivan that afternoon and recommended additional language be added to the provision pertaining to the terms under which the borrower intends to transfer the property or terminate the agreement. A motion was made by Sullivan, seconded by Silva, to approve and authorize execution of a Loan Agreement between the City and Orange County Community Housing Corporation concerning the Acquisitional Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing on Keelson Lane with funds obtained from the Home Investment Partnership Program to acquire and rehabilitate 17372 Keelson Lane with HOME funds, in an amount not to exceed $225,000; and to include the following additional language "...less the principal amount of HOME funds originally loaned to the Borrower and adjusted annually for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index, or another comparable index as mutually agreed upon by both parties...". The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille 034 Page #26 - Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 (City Council) CONTINUED FROM 1/18/93 - HOLLY SEACLIFF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN - DEFERRED TO 2/22/94 (430.50) The City Clerk presented a communication from.the Planning Director transmitting the Holly-Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan. The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan requires all developers of residential projects to submit an affordable housing plan in conjunction with any subdivision. The City Clerk stated she had received a communication from Seacliff Partners dated February 28, 1994 which requested Council to approve the revised plan without the changes recommended by staff , a communication from the Planning Director dated February 1, 1993 in response was included. By consensus Council deferred consideration of the Seacliff Partners Affordable Housing Plan to February 22, 1994. (Redevelopment Agency/City Council) EDUCATIONAL REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND (ERAF) PAYMENT - (HUNTINGTON CENTER & LOW & MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND EXPENDITURES) -DEFERRED TO 2/22/94 (400.10) Communication from the Redevelopment Director/Deputy City Administrator regarding the requirement to make special payments to the state's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund in order to assist in balancing the state's budget. The Redevelopment Agency's obligation is $278,284.25 for FY 1993-94. By consensus Council deferred consideration of borrowing Low and Moderate Income Housing funds to make the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund payment to February 22, 1994. (City Council.) ORDINANCE NO. 3229 - ADOPTED - POLICE SERVICES AT LOUD PARTIES OR OTHER ACTIVITIES - (640.10) The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 3229 for Council consideration - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 8.42 BY AMENDING SECTIONS 8.42.010(c), 8.42.020, 8.42.030, 8.42.040 AND ADDING SECTION 8.42.050 PERTAINING TO USE OF POLICE SERVICES AT LOUD PARTIES OR OTHER ACTIVITIES." On motion by Sullivan, second Leipzig, Council adopted Ordinance No. 3229, after reading by title, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Moulton -Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer, Robitaille (City Council) ORDINANCE NO. 3230 - SPEED LIMITS ON CITY STREETS - DEFERRED TO 2/22/94 (640.10) The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 3230 for Council consideration - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 10.12 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE PERTAINING TO SPEED LIMITS ON CITY STREETS.". By consensus, Council deferred consideration of Ordinance No. 3230 to February 22, 1994. 035 Page #27 - Couhcil/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 2/7/94 (City Council) ORDINANCE NO. 3228 -DEFERRED TO 2/22/94 (640.10) The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 3228 for Council consideration - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 12.32 TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING." By consensus, Council deferred consideration of Ordinance No. 3228 to February 22, 1994. ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Mayor Moulton -Patterson adjourned the regular meeting of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Monday, February 14, 1994, at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California. t�� 0 Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency and City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California tor� City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman 936