HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2002-02-11
2-11-02
Seal Beach, California
February 11, 2002
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
adjourned session at 5:04 p.m. in the City Manager's
conference room with Mayor Doane calling the meeting to
order.
I
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Doane
Councilmembers Boyd, Larson, Yost
Absent:
Councilmember Campbell
Councilmember Campbell arrived at approximately 5:18 p.m.
Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development
Services
Ms. Yotsuya, Assistant to the City Manager
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
PRESENTATION - CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY
The City Manager noted that Mr. Jonathan Shull, Assistant
Executive Director of the California JPIA, would be making a
presentation, a firm that the City is looking into, however
pointed out that a financial analysis has not been done as
yet to determine if a change would be worthwhile to the City,
the presentation merely to inform the Council of the services
that may be available.
I
Mr. Schull presented the Council with a hard copy of a power
point presentation relating to the California JPIA services.
* The California JPIA is a risk management pool not
dissimilar to the pool in which the City presently
participates, formed in 1977 at a time when the
insurance market walked away from cities;
* The thirty-three cities that originated the program did
so for liability protection, over the years they have
added workers compensation, property insurance, fidelity
bonds, special events insurance, health benefits which
in turn they wisely got out of, the original thirty-
three cities have now grown to eighty-seven;
*
What sets the California JPIA ahead of other pools for
purchasing insurance on the private market would be
member involvement, a member of the City Council sits on
the Board of Directors, those Councilmembers elect the
Executive Committee which consists of elected officials,
they meet on a monthly basis, the cities have the
opportunity to become involved with their staff by
having them attend City Manager Committee meetings,
finance officers meet quarterly, cities have the ability
to participate to the degree they desire;
I
* The City's current organization has a board which is one
representative from each Council but Council tends to
delegate that to staff, and on the rosters of OCCRMA the
positions are filled by staff members, yet from his past
experience as a staff member he now recognizes the value
I
o
I
2-11-02
of having elected officials that can sometimes step
outside the turf associated with the staff positions and
decisions, his organization over the past twenty-three
years has prospered as a result of its organizational
structure;
*
Another matter of importance is the breadth of coverage,
different lines of coverage have been added as well as
the type of things covered under liability protection,
typical coverage would be bodily injury, property
damage, personal injury, advertising injury, public
officials errors and omissions, automobile coverage, the
California JPIA and OCCRMA does that, in addition CJPIA
has accidental pollution, earth movement, employee
benefits administration, discrimination liability, non-
owned aircraft and watercraft, special contractual
liability which comes into play in situations of alleged
breach of contract, CJPIA defends those, if there are
damages above and beyond the disputed amount of the
contract that too is covered, they also cover
discrimination violations and violations of federal
statutes which is much broader than OCCRMA and other
pools, a typical commercial policy will not have these
things;
*
Why do they cover these things - their members decided
that those were the things for which they were being
sued so they should be covered, the financing mechanism
in place does that in an equitable manner and in an
allocation fashion that is fair to all of the members
from cities that have two employees to those that have
six hundred;
*
To a question with regard to accidental pollution,
response was that that could be a sewer break, an
example, under the liability protection program if an
employee should back a truck into a riser which would
cause a sewage spill then the regular liability program
would respond, in addition there is an environmental
liability program which started about two years ago, an
example under that could be if someone dumped or spilled
barrels of something into a park area then the
environmental liability program would respond to the
cleanup as well as adjacent properties should they be
impacted;
*
Fidelity bonds, that could be a situation where an
employee was embezzling, this would cover the City for
the loss from the embezzlement, the Manager, Clerk, and
Treasurer are required to have fidelity bonds in most
cities however some cities cover everyone, the blanket
fidelity bond covers everyone including the Council and
commissions, anyone having access would have coverage;
*
There is an extensive training program, in 2000-01 CJPIA
held one hundred twenty-five different sessions, nearly
five thousand of the member city employees on thirty-
seven different training topics, topics from trenching
and shoring, safety, entry to confined spaces,
prevention of sexual harassment, proper disciplinary
processes, etc., a very comprehensive program, most of
those programs are added as a result of city requests,
it is a risk management issue course, and CJPIA has the
resources to investigate what needs to be included and
who are the experts in those fields, CJPIA staff do not
2-11-02
do the training, they obtain experts to train;
*
An area where CJPIA does have expert staff is in loss
control services, there are risk managers on staff that
come to every member city every two years to spend up to
a week reviewing contracts, agreements, policies,
inspecting buildings, trying to identify exposures that
might put the city in an awkward situation whether it be
an injury or some type of contractual agreement where
the city has not properly transferred the risk in the
agreement and should something go wrong the city could
be held liable for payment of damages, the result of the
visit is a risk management evaluation report, the depth
of which will vary dependant upon the scope of services
of the organization, includes photographs, graphs and
charts that show how a particular organization is doing
as compared to the rest of the pool, various loss-areas,
recommendations on how things can be corrected;
I
* In response to a question, response was that they do
look at road maintenance, the policies in place are for
inspection, documentation of the inspection;
* The risk management evaluation report is comprehensive,
there is a loss analysis report which takes the claims
history of the city over a period of five years and
details every aspect of each claim, the department
involved, body part affected, the activity, etc., that
so the city can take its limited resources and
effectively apply them where needed;
*
A comparison of CJPIA to OCCRMA was distributed
identifying some of the differences, differences in the
types of coverage had been mentioned, the CJPIA limits
for all occurrences mentioned is $50 million, OCCRMA has
$42 million in general liability coverages and some of
the others are at a lesser level, self-insured retention
is similar to a deductible but it is not, it is cash
that a city will have to pay on every claim, in the case
of Seal Beach there is a $300,000 SIR so for every claim
that is up to $300,000 the City will fully pay for, with
CJPIA that is included in the coverage, with OCCRMA the
Councilor the staff or the third party administrator or
the attorney is responsible for handling those claims
until they reach $300,000, CJPIA handles the claims from
the first dollar;
I
*
Requirements with regard to reserves, OCCRMA through its
joint powers agreement and bylaws requires that the city
maintain a reserve for those losses under $300,000, it
is supposed to be three times the SIR or $900,000 held
in an account on an annual basis, he would presume that
most of the OCCRMA cities do not have that, in addition,
OCCRMA has a philosophy that if at some point there is
not enough money in the pooled layer then they will
assess the cities, and for that the cities are supposed
to have three times its highest premium over the past
five years also in reserve in the event of an
assessment, it is believed that the highest payment by
Seal Beach over the past three years is about $120,000;
I
*
To a question as to where the City is with that reserve
of about $1.3 million, the response of staff was it is
not believed that the City has complied with the highest
payment reserve for the past five years, the $900,000 is
I
I
I
2-11-02
in place however;
*
with regard to the form of coverage, there is an
occurrence form and a claims made! form, occurrence means
that during the coverage period in which a city is a
member of the JPIA, say 2002-2003, there is a claim that
is reported three years later and somehow it has managed
through the courts to require that the city respond, for
some reason the statutes of limitation have not run, if
the city was a member at the time the claim occurred
there would be coverage, on the claims made basis if the
claim does not get reported within the specified claims
period, that is the coverage period plus an extended
reporting period, which is usually three months,
therefore within three months after the coverage period
it would not be covered for some of the coverages, the
employment liability protection portion of OCCRMA
memorandum of coverage does not provide coverage, it is
claims made rather than occurrence, that is a large
exposure for things that happen after the claims period;
* Under the CJPIA program the governing board is elected
officials, they make the decisions and give policy
direction, it is not staff members from each individual
city, there are eighty-seven members of the governing
board, they elect an executive committee of themselves
and that board meets monthly, the board of directors
meets annually at a minimum;
*
Another important thing to know about JPIA program is
the retrospective nature of how things are costed, an
estimate is made at the beginning of the year of what
the cost of coverage will be for the upcoming period, a
primary deposit is made with CJPIA, it is similar to a
premium, at the end of the year if that was too much the
CJPIA would return some money to the city, if not enough
an invoice would be sent, if past history shows that the
city is doing the same thing year after year it would be
fairly consistent, but that is not the case, there is a
big loss one year, no losses the next year, to that
issue several years ago they implemented what is called
a rolling retro, it says that if a city owes CJPIA
$100,000 as an example the city would be billed for just
one-fourth of that amount for the following four years,
if CJPIA owes the city $100,000 they will pay that to
the city over the next four years, therefore for four
years there is .the combination of the good years and bad
years, there is no such program in place under the
OCCRMA program;
*
If there are a number of losses under $300,000 the city
will be paying those losses, there is no cushion or
float, to that it was stated it is balanced against the
over deposit, an under deposit is balanced against an
over deposit, what is important is the cash flow
consideration, it is better to know how much the
premiums will be rather than have the cost more than
expected which places the organization in a bad position
to deal with it;
*
Question was posed as to what happens when there is a
bad risk city, do the other cities pay for part of
that - the response was that there is a pooled portion,
the first $30,000 of every claim will ultimately be
borne by the city, somewhat of a prepaid SIR rather than
2-11-02
the way Seal Beach presently operates, paying and then
reporting, CJPIA does an estimate based on past history
of how many under $30,000 claims there will be, that is
built into the primary deposit that will be paid by the
city, the second layer from the $30,000 to $750,000 is
pooled among all of the members, therefore if there is a
bad city or a bad case every member will have a piece of
it and the following year it is likely to be someone
else, some year it may be your city, the city share of
the pool is based upon the frequency and severity of the
smaller claims, therefore if the smaller claims are
controlled there will be a smaller share of the pooled
amount, the largest claims are pooled based on payroll,
so whatever the payroll percentage or prorata share of
the entire pool, which is over a third of a billion
dollars, from $750,000 to the pooled self-insured
retention;
I
*
As to whether CJPIA has found cities that they do not
wish to include in their program because of their past
reputation, the response was that they have not turned
down any city for that reason, several years ago the
city of Tehama was turned down because of a concern with
the ability to deliver services to them, that is not a
concern in this case, Seal Beach is near, their office
is located in La palma, the cities of Signal Hill,
Lakewood, Cerritos, Fountain Valley, La Palma are all
members of the CJPIA and face issues similar to this
city;
.
It was confirmed that in the case of a claim being filed
with the City it is then forwarded to CJPIA, it is not
handled by the City, not investigated, no City legal
review, the CJPIA decides whether or not to pay, the
comment was that they too use Carl Warren & Company,
City staff would be involved in the investigations, in
the case of any staff involvement as to paying a claim
if it is under $30,000 there will be almost no
discussion because that will come directly from the
City, in most cases however they do not pay claims, they
want to make certain that the City has some liability
before a claim is paid, that is important.
I
The important thing that needs to be considered is that
the City can fight a claim and spend considerable money,
even though it may look like a bogus claim it may be
settled for a little amount of money, if initially it is
determined how much it will cost to fight a claim versus
the injuries alleged, what liability can be shown, and
then settle early rather than fight it for a lengthy
period of time, it is a business decision, the cities
have significant involvement in the investigations and
discussions with .the third party administrator as to how
the claim is progressing, should it be settled, should
it be defended, there have been cases where the city has
said they did not want a case settled, two such cases
are known, the city wanted to fight the claim, the JPIA
has said that they would settle for a certain amount,
the claimant has agreed to settle at that amount, then
the JPIA has said they would be responsible for a
certain amount, in that case the city can continue to
fight it, maintain the same legal counsel, in the end if
it is a judgment against the city the JPIA puts up their
amount and the city is responsible for the remainder, in
one case the city was right and received a defense
I
I
I
I
2-11-02
verdict;
*
The executive committee is the claims board, claims that
reach the level of authority where the claims committee
needs to get involved, those elected officials look at
all factors, they then make a decision as to what should
be done, settle it or defend it, the city is always
invited to be involved and participate, ultimately, in
joining the JPIA, the authority to settle claims is
vested with the JPIA;
* A JPIA is not insurance, it is a pool, basically a city
is paying for its own losses, the only thing the members
actually pay for is the losses and the defense of
claims, the operating expenses, overhead, the
reinsurance premiums, which is from $5 million to $50
million, pays the third party administrators to
administer the claims, that is included by the
investment earnings of the pool, that is not charged
back, currently the City pays for Carl Warren services,
the attorney, there is a difference too between
defending a claim-and administering a claim;
* Resources include risk management training, risk
evaluation, a web site which allows the members to get a
great deal of information from the JPIA, there is a
policy library, a lending library for videos and other
materials, electronic copies of their quarterly
newsletters;
*
The CJPIA applies their resources to try to address
exposures that cities have, a couple of years ago they
identified contractual risk transfer as a big problem,
cities were entering into contracts and not transferring
the risk to the contractor, the city may get sued for an
incident but it should automatically be tendered to the
contractor, yet due to the fact that contract language
may not have been in place properly the cities became
liable, the CJPIA hired an expert to write a book on
Contractual Risk Transfer for Cities, it discusses
language, forms, the things cities run into, things that
contractors will try to get by with in their contract
language as compared to what CJPIA wants the cities to
have in their agreements, members receive this book and
its updates;
*
A staff person is assigned to each ,member city, the
newsletter shows the risk management assignments, the
city has this contact person with whom they can develop
a rapport, this has proven to be helpful even though
anyone on staff could respond to questions;
*
There is a memorandum of coverage that shows what is
covered, a comprehensive document that is interpreted by
the CJPIA board to try to extend coverage to the
members, there are very few coverage disputes that have
occurred among the membership, that because the document
is broad and the intent is to give coverage to the
members;
* Comment was made that CJPIA is a self-insurance risk
pool, cities self-insure but belong to the risk pool
that does administration management and covers up to a
certain threshold, the response was that that was
correct, yet OCCRMA is similar in concept, a difference
2-11-02
between CJPIA and OCCRMA is that the City does not
handle the claims, they are presented to the City,
forwarded to CJPIA who deals with them, the City staff
then does not have to deal with claims management, the
City receives twenty claims a year in a bad year, CJPIA
staff handles twenty claims a day, they are experts, the
SIR, the City is responsible for the first $300,000 with
OCCRMA, with CJPIA the City is not, similar in concept
to a retained level, a pooled level, then they buy
excess insurance, CJPIA buys reinsurance, there is a
difference, excess insurance is a policy that says it
will pay, as an example, from $10 million to $40 million
for certain things, which may be narrower than the
underlying insurance or agreement, reinsurance will do
exactly what the memorandum of coverage says for more
money, to a higher level, in the case of CJPIA it is
from $5 million to $50 million, they take direction from
what the claims committee decides, when it gets close to
the retention level however they want to know what is
going on and encourage CJPIA to do what is best for the
company, also, the memorandum of coverage and management
of the organization has been reviewed by them before
they agree to reinsure the program;
I
*
The biggest differences are most likely the retentions,
claims administration, reserving requirements, CJPIA has
no reserve requirements, and the level of service to the
City, CJPIA provides a complete risk management package
with training, inspection, loss control, and resources,
over the past few years that is something that OCCRMA
has struggled with and talked about but it is felt there
is not another pool that comes near what the CJPIA can
present;
I
*
Comment was that the City does not participate at the
Council level in the decision making with OCCRMA which
has been a concern with regard to management and
administration of claims, yet it is said that CJPIA has
a board of elected members;
*
Comment also that before any decision is made an
analysis needs to be done of the costs over the last
three to five years versus what it would cost to use the
CJPIA, also, what would be realized with CJPIA that
would be better than what the. City has now, although the
extra coverage sounds good, being self-insured under the
umbrella of an organization can make considerable
difference in the costs;
*
Past data has been made available by the City, also from
Carl Warren & Company, an analysis is being worked on,
with that, the book, and the executive summary, that is
believed highlight some of the differences in what the
City will get to make an informed decision;
I
*
Comment that given public perception with regard to
claims, it would be well to have an experienced claims
board that is making recommendations or provide input to
the City, a committee that has the expertise to evaluate
the claims;
* Response was that that is one benefit of having an
organization as large as the CJPIA because, although
having eighty-seven cities is not a statistical sample
it is better than twelve that can look at the average
I
I
I
2-11-02
cost of a trip and fall claim, the elements that go into
the source of claims of the members, the loss report and
risk management evaluations highlight those things;
*
Their coverage is per occurrence, a car accident is a
good example where there would a potential for twenty
claims, all of those claims add together as one
occurrence;
*
Comment was made that in the past it has been felt that
if you fight claims in time there are not as many filed,
as if the City is easy on claims, is that not thought to
be financially rewarding in the long run - response was
that the CJPIA has found that that is a good position to
have, you can not just settle claims, there is a gift of
public funds issue that needs to be addressed no matter
what you do, just settling claims is not likely, on the
other hand overly working claims is costly also,
fighting claims that do not need to be fought is not
cost effective as well, their experience has been that a
determination can be made as to which ones need to be
fought and those that need to be paid, the benefit of
having claim managers that do this daily is that they
have that experience, they act in the best interest of
the members as a member and a member asa pool, there
are times when a city will say that they want a claim
paid for a particular incident, there is a mechanism in
place that will expediently get that claim paid so that
it does not become a political issue;
*
Some cities have adopted a resolution that delegates to
staff the ability to deny claims and in that case they
do not appear on a Council agenda, that takes the claim
out of the limelight with a Council denial and it starts
the clock faster, if staff gets a claim, refers it to
Carl Warren, they review it and determine there is no
liability, then staff can immediately send a letter
advising that the claim has been rejected, that starts
the clock for the next part of the process, the claimant
then has a year to act to file a lawsuit;
*
This being a beach city and it appears the CJPIA
represents other beach cities, is there an expertise or
special services available for such cities - the
response was that there was no recollection of anything
at a staff level, however a good thing about their
organization is the interaction among the members, there
are risk manager round-tables every quarter at which
there is usually a period for a special topic and then
round-table discussion where specific issues of a city
can be brought forth, there is an attempt to document
the issue for their policy or lending library, issues
brought forth are shared with the members;
*
The CJPIA was formed in 1977, the first date of coverage
was April 1st, 1978;
*
with regard to looking at and tracking a history of
claims, the response was that when the risk management
evaluation is done there is general discussion within
the report, along with the risk management evaluation
there is a loss analysis report, examples would be a
comparison of a particular city with the pool, how many
of a certain type of claim, by department, a comparison
with similar cities to police departments, miles of
2-11-02
streets, by budget, payroll, etc., that is done on a
five year basis, however it can be done at any time to
show the cities history of membership in the pool;
*
There is coverage of wrongful discharge, sexual
harassment, employment liability protections,
discrimination;
I
*
The CJPIA has covered the City of Dana Point since its
inception, many newly incorporated cities join their
program, Goleta is a new member after receiving voter
approval, and are considering a number of alternatives;
*
The purpose of the presentation was to give an overview
of their organization, provide written information for
review, some claims data has been obtained, they are
working on that with staff to come up with quotations
for the liability program, the property and fidelity
bonds are with the same broker, there is also a self-
insured workers compensation program, that is not a
mandatory program but could be looked into if desired;
*
To the question posed if CJPIA is a reciprocal type
organization, if it is a good year there is a refund,
the members share in losses;
*
To the comment that the City is self-insured, pays for
its own losses, may be alright in a good year but lose
in a bad year - the response was that that was not
entirely correct, as an example explained that if the
City had a $1 million claim the first $30,000 of the
claim would be charged to the City, from $30,000 to
$750,000 it would be pooled among all members, whatever
the City's share of the first layer.of the whole pool
will determine the share of the second layer, example,
if it is one percent of the first layer it would be one
percent of the second layer, what typically works out
over the years is that a claim in the first layer that
costs about $30,000 will ultimately cost about $75,000,
therefore for a $l million claim $30,000 will be the
City and another $45,000 will be added to the City's
layer as a result of the claim being added to the total
for the City, the remainder is shared by all other
members, with eighty-seven cities they do not all pay a
lot for their share, the amount above $750,000 will then
get pooled based on payroll, for the small cities there
is a minimum payroll for the purpose of calculation
which is $300,000 even if they have only two employees;
I
*
The excess coverage comes in for general liability
claims such as the typical trip and fall and car
accident claims at $5 million, from the list of
liability protections other than property damage and
personal injury all of the remaining attach at $1
million, therefore the pool is only exposed up to $1
million on what is called special liability cases;
I
* The reinsured insurance was first obtained in 1997, at
that time the market was right for it, the market is now
changing however the members like having this coverage
therefore it will continue and it is being paid for from
the investment earnings, thus the cycle of the insurance
market will not have the impact it would if someone were
paying a premium for reinsurance and the members share
in that premium;
2-11-02
* It was noted that further fiscal analysis needs to be
done as to comparative costs;
*
It would be of interest to look back at costs and see
what they would have been with the CJPIA - response was
that that is what is being done, taking the Seal Beach
data, use that as if the City had been a member for the
past seven years and do a comparison of costs showing
what would have been paid from year to year, for
instance if the premium is $200,000, one year the cost
of coverage could have been $70,000 because there were
few claims yet the next year may be $300,000 because of
an increased number of smaller claims, however the
rolling retro can then be seen which smooths out cost
differences from year to year;
I
* Question was raised as to what happens when two cities
are involved in a claim, one a CJPIA member and one
not - the response was that they typically try to
determine aforehand how it is going to be defended,
working with the other city, there is no awareness of
having fronted money in the case of another city, they
handle the claim for their member city, the other city
needs to deal with their end, there will usually be
common counsel, do whatever is necessary to keep the
cost down for both parties, and if a resolution can not
be reached it is the attorneys that would need to
resolve the disputes later as to who owes how much to
whom;
I
*
Mention was made that the comparison graphs were not
clear - response was that the intent was to show high
and low frequencies as well as preferred averages,
however the comment would be taken under consideration.
Appreciation
presentation.
at 5:55 p.m.
was expressed to Mr. Schull for his
Mr. Schull excused himself from the meeting
I
MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE
The City Attorney explained that the Seal Beach Municipal
Code predates the City Charter by a number of years, with the
approval of the Charter in 1964 there was considerable
overlap between the two documents, in fact the Charter
adopted major portions of the Code, it is not known why the
provisions were left in the Code, the Personnel section is an
example where in the Charter there is an entire section on
Civil Service and since the Charter was by vote of the people
it superceded the Code, to change the Charter requires a vote
of the people, the Council has the authority to make changes
to the Code. He noted that the staff and the City Attorney's
office has commenced review of the various Code chapters to
eliminate the overlap, duplications, and inconsistent
provisions which is felt will be a much more streamlined Code
with the intent to be user friendly.
Councilman Larson pointed out that there are a number of
things moving rather rapidly in the City, his hope is that
this matter will not need to be put on the back burner yet in
turn he does not want it on the front burner, there have been
a number of changes in the past year, the street sweeping and
tree trimming initiatives, personnel changes, there is an
upcoming election, so his hope would be to work on this
matter gradually. As far as being user friendly, Councilman
Larson said he would make some comments relating to that. An
2-ll-02
initial point was that there are many people who confuse
gender with sex yet they are not the same, and read the
dictionary definition of 'gender', suggesting it could be
said that 'each gender includes the other two genders' as is
stated in the Government Code.
The City Attorney agreed, that is the purpose of the study
sessions, the revisions should go as slowly as possible so
. that everyone is comfortable with the changes. Councilman
Boyd said what he has noticed over the past three plus years
is that the decisions being made are not bad, it is the
process which draws criticism, and what will the process be
to do these amendments to the Code. The City Manager said
the process is that the staff has gone through and reviewed
the chapters, the City Attorney firm is doing further review,
three chapters at a time will be discussed with Council in
workshop sessions such as this until the entire Code has been
addressed, even after initial Council review it will be
possible to return to certain sections if there are concerns
or suggestions, and explained that neither the Zoning or
Building Code chapters will be included in the review and
revisions at this time. The City Attorney mentioned that as
it will be seen during the reviews over the next few months
there are sections that are identical to the provisions of
the City Charter and should not be in the Code, made a
comparison to Codes of other cities that are about half as
many chapters, a much more logical document, and although the
initial Code of the City may have been logical at the time,
the Charter, adopted by the voters, made a big difference.
I
Councilman Larson referred to Section 3.20.040, Informal Bid
Procedure which states that if something is less than fifteen
thousand dollars it is informal, if more than fifteen
thousand dollars it is formal, and pointed out that if
something is exactly fifteen thousand there is nothing,
therefore it should read either 'fifteen thousand or less' or
fifteen thousand or more'. To a question of Councilmember
Campbell, staff confirmed that term limits apply only to City
Council and the Planning Commission, none of the other boards
and commissions, and Councilmember Campbell noted with
interest that it is only the Council, Planning Commission,
and Civil Service Board that receive any compensation.
Councilman Boyd suggested that the Code revision matter be
placed on the Council agenda for information purposes, have
the City Attorney describe the process, what the Charter is,
how it was enacted, etc., as well as the three chapters under
review, this to let the public know what is being reviewed
and considered. The City Attorney agreed, noting that after
the workshop review sessions are concluded a series of
noticed hearings will commence, although not legally required
his firm would recommend them. Councilman Boyd again urged
that this issue be placed on the Council agenda to inform the
public of this process. Councilman Larson stated that it is
necessary that it be emphasized that this is more for the
people than the Council, the Code needs to be reasonably
understandable to the people. It was pointed out that the
City Code is available in the office of the City Clerk and at
the libraries, and will be on-line in time. Councilman Yost
made reference to the duties and responsibilities of the
Parks and Recreation Commission, stating that when they are
not involved in changes that are taking place, as set forth
in the Code, people do get upset, agreed that this process
should go slow, there are many people in the community that
are knowledgeable and involved, to not give them the
opportunity to be involved would just bring forth another
I
I
2-11-02
I
issue. Councilman Boyd countered with his thought that there
are a small number of people involved for a City of twenty-
five thousand, but it seems right to let the public know what
is proposed to be done which in turn eliminates another
conflict. Councilmember Campbell pointed out that there are
also a number of people that are just resistant to change and
their reaction will simply be no, however there are a number
of things that need to be brought up to date with the
present, there needs to be assurance as well that the changes
will be applicable for a good period of time. Councilman
Yost mentioned that there were about a hundred people at the
recent Homeowners meeting who have an interest and want to be
involved.
I
Councilman Larson said the provision relating to misdemeanors
and infractions needs to be made clear so that there is no
misunderstanding on the part of the public. The City
Attorney explained that the Enforcement Section is the first
substantial change to the existing Code, now identified as
Section l.lO.OOO, explaining that all Code violations are
misdemeanors, some years ago there was a trend and
recognition that some violations could not be prosecuted as
misdemeanors, they should just be called infractions,
councils adopted codes to identify sections that should only
be treated as infractions when people violated portions of
the Code, people allowed to pay a fine rather than going to
court and there is no misdemeanor on their record. He noted
that in 1996 the State legislature provided a third layer of
prosecution which is called administrative penalties, this
City has not adopted that as yet even though it was discussed
in the mid-1990's, the Council may feel there are some
violations of the Code that are neither misdemeanors or
infractions yet should still be penalized through an
-administrative process. The City Attorney agreed that that
is one provision that should be made available to the public
with an explanation of what is proposed and make it very
clear, however what the Council has in hand needs revision
with respect to administrative penalties. He noted that upon
review of the Code if it specifically states that something
is an infraction it is not a misdemeanor, it was found there
are very few sections that that statement, the first was
section 3.10-45(ii) relating to animal control where a person
can be cited for an infraction as opposed to a misdemeanor,
the recommendation is that the Council and staff attempt to
identify other provisions of the Code that do not rise to the
level of an infraction or conversely possibly give the City
some discretion, although it is yet uncertain as to whether
there can be a wobbler on administrative penalties, there is
need for further research as there has been a challenge of
that. with reference again to 3.l0-45(ii), infractions can
either be identified in the Code or at the discretion of the
prosecutor. Mayor Doane said he was under the assumption
that this was being proposed in that the City will finally
have some Code enforcement, also a statement has been made
that the police should be called to enforce the leash law in
Gum Grove Park. Councilman Larson stated as he reads the
section one is guilty of a misdemeanor if the Code is
violated unless a prosecutor decides it is an infraction, he
can deal a misdemeanor down but not an infraction, a Code
violation is a misdemeanor unless it is specifically stated
as an infraction, or as in 3.l0-45(ii) by a prosecutor. The
Attorney confirmed that that is the intention however it is
yet uncertain as to whether the City has that authority. As
to whether a charge can be rolled up as well, the response
was eventually. It was noted that three infractions within a
I
2-11-02
year could be a misdemeanor, a similar provision for
administrative penalties. The City Attorney advised that
this will be revisited as soon as things that are felt should
be identified as administrative penalties can be identified,
as well as infractions, the administrative penalty procedure
is common, the difficult part is to identify what falls under
that procedure. It was noted that the identification of
penalties can also change by district.
I
with regard to Section 1.lS.000, Review of Administrative
Decisions, the Attorney mentioned that this had been
considered in the past, first reading of the ordinance was
held and then the Council determined to not adopt this
process, this Section however is different from what was
proposed at that time where any member of the Council could
bring something up for review, as can be recalled there are
certain due process problems associated with appeals by
members of the Council, as an example there was an issue in
Thousand Oaks where the Council appealed a decision and the
Court of Appeal reinstated the Planning Commission decision,
stating the Council was biased as the Council can not be the
appellant and the appellate court. In response to that
decision he mentioned that their firm drafted ordinance, this
nearly identical to the Torrance ordinance that was upheld in
a subsequent case where this procedure was in place, the
Council brought up a Planning Commission decision on review,
overturned the decision of the Planning Commission, the Court
of Appeal determined that the process was done correctly.
Mention was made that Torrance and Anaheim place all Planning
Commission decisions on their Consent Calendar as a receive
and file item for-review only, that seems to be a good
process without going through the appeal process. The
Attorney agreed that all Planning Commission decisions could
be placed on the Consent Calendar as a group, the difference
with the proposed ordinance is that should only one member of
the Council ask for review and the remaining members object,
that is the end of the issue, it would take concurrence by
more than just one member of the Council. Councilmember
Campbell stated she would disagree with that in that four
memhers of the Council could be deemed to be making a
decision without adequate review, assuming that one member
was asked for review by a constituent, that could result in
Brown Act issues. The City Attorney noted it would not
involve the Brown Act, one member of the Council could pull
the item for discussion without getting into the merits, as
example if the item would be worthy of review because it
involved a citywide matter that is felt should be determined
by the City Council, if two other members agree then there
would be an appeal and public hearing at a subsequent
meeting. Question was who could appeal, the response was any
member, if the member requesting review does not receive two
other consenting votes, there is still the opportunity for
appeal however that brings forth due process problems, also
that this would be a de nova hearing where arguments could be
new and not limited to arguments at the first hearing on the
issue.
I
I
with regard to Title 2, no substantive change, two minor
changes, section 2.00.010, Filing Fee, throughout the Code
there are filing or other fees, the trend of the City over
recent years is to place all fees in a comprehensive fee
resolution, which is the recommendation, also, after
Proposition 34, clearly for general law cities voluntary caps
can not be required on campaign expenditures, it is still an
open question for charter cities, however the Attorney
2-11-02
I
General takes the position that charter cities too can not,
the recommendation here is to delete the voluntary cap, as
the Code previously read if a candidate agreed to limit the
contributions they could receive more, that has been deleted,
this provides for a voluntary cap with no penalty, the
penalties were struck by a previous Proposition. Councilman
Larson said as he understands the political Reform Act if a
candidate does not raise or spend $1,000 there is no need for
a committee or a bank account, this proposal still defines a
committee as any person who receives contributions of $2S0.
In reference to Section 2.0S.01S(E), Councilmember Campbell
said she has applied that to contributions of $100 or more,
not to contributions of $99 or less. The City Attorney
explained that the sample ordinance from which this ordinance
was prepared was done by a person from South Orange County,
it was presented to certain Seal Beach residents who in turn
presented it to the Council, that is how the campaign
provisions were generated, it was not and is not a model of
clarity. It was confirmed that if necessary, a clarifier
will be added that the contribution requirements apply to
only $100 or more contributions. Councilman Larson noted
that the problem is that the FPPC likes to know who the $99
contributors are, to that Councilmember Campbell said for
those who contribute $99 or less she makes a copy of their
check which gives the name, address and telephone number, it
just does not identify their employer, these records are kept
should it be necessary to provide them to the FPPC or
whomever. Suggestion was made to provide language that would
make the requirements consistent with State law. The
Attorney mentioned that there have been three propositions
passed since adoption of the campaign reform ordinances, each
time there is a new proposition it is difficult to determine
what is still in effect and what is not. Councilman Larson
offered that the Political Reform Act is not being
liberalized nor being made easier to follow, but he would
suggest just following the Act, the City Attorney agreed with
the suggestion. Mentioned also that the regulations will be
consistent with what the voters approved at any prior
election, again clarified that State law does not require the
reporting of the name, address and phone number of
contributors of less than $100, at seminars that are put on
by the FPPC they are unable to give guidance relating to a
local ordinance, cities do however have the power to some
extent to adopt regulations in addition to State law, yet a
certain percentage of those that have been declared
unconstitutional, and confirmed that a spending limit is one.
There appeared to be a consensus to follow State law.
I
I
with regard to Title 3, Administration, the City Attorney
advised there were few changes until Section 3.1S. with
regard to the Code revision process, the Manager explained
that the Council will go through all of the revised chapters
and then there will be public hearings scheduled, to that it
was again suggested that an overview of the process be placed
on the upcoming agenda to explain the workshops, hearings,
etc. for information of the public. To a question relating
to the relevance of Section 3.00.030,-Exclusion of
Residential Areas, the City Attorney explained that is the
language of the existing ordinance, an example would be if
the Agency were to adopt a new project area that would
require staff to go back to 1967 to determine if it had been
residentially zoned, developed and used, if it was it could
not be included as part of the Redevelopment Agency.
Councilman Boyd mentioned that he is hearing comments from
other Council candidates on issues such as the section just
2-11-02
referred to, yet this is something that is part of the Code,
people are saying it needs to be changed because it is not
part of law, that is good reason for making these changes
now, let it be reported in the local press. Suggestion was
made that a column be used in the local news to report to the
public some of the things the Council is doing, the funding
of improvements as an example, people do not understand that
money can not be taken from one encumbrance for another use.
Again with reference to Section 3.15.000, Civil Service, the
City Attorney noted Code Chapter 7 is thought to have been
adopted in approximately 1940, when the Charter came into
being in 1964 it virtually duplicated the Code language, his
question over the years has been why it remained in the Code
given the fact that the Charter superceded the Code, the
conclusion has been that there were City employees at the
time of Charter adoption, they were grandfathered therefore
certain rules applied to them and the Charter applied to
those employees after 1964, there are no longer employees
from that era therefore it is an appropriate time to delete
those Code provisions, there were only two sections not
covered by the Charter, credit for military service which
should more appropriately be included in the personnel rules,
which are adopted. by Resolution, that will be presented to
the employees for consideration, the second provision is
3.15.015 which relates to sick leave during workers
compensation, that will require meet and confer as well, that
issue is in the Government Code, Section 18973, with which
the City needs to be consistent, the same is true with
provisions relating to the City Manager, the duties, thereof
in the Charter and the Code are identical, thus the proposed
language would be that the Charter controls, the only other
section deals with removal of the City Manager, a one month
provision, which is common, there will be reference made to
where the provision exists in the Charter. Councilman Boyd
requested an explanation and clarification of the
administrative process for information of the public, the
Council in fact sets policy, it does not run the City. The
City Attorney offered that there are a number of ways to
convey that, one is in the personnel area where the Council
is not the appointing authority for any employee except for
two, the City Manager and City Attorney, the City Clerk is
elected, in the case of dissatisfaction with a personnel
decision the most appropriate manner to deal with it is to
discuss it with the City Manager. ,Mention was made as to
authority to remove positions, as set forth in the Charter,
response was that the council can only authorize layoffs, the
City Manager then implements that as seen fit, the Council is
the only body that can abolish positions, also, it is the
Council that authorizes the amounts of money that the Manager
has to spend.
I
I
The City Attorney offered to provide an explanation for
information of the public that this process has been
initiated, explain the process briefly, the intent being to
recodify existing law and remove obsolete sections.
I
CLOSED SESSION
Intent was indicated to hold over the Closed Session items.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to adjourn the meeting at 6:51 p.m.
2-11-02
o
ex-off'cio clerk
Seal Beach
I
Approved:
tJ~
Q~lh~
{:I City Clerk .
Attest:
Seal Beach, California
February 11, 2002
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
session at 7:04 p.m. with Mayor Doane calling the meeting to
order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Doane
Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Larson, Yost
Absent:
None
I
Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development
Services
Mr. Dancs, Director of Public Works/City
Engineer
Ms. Arends-King, Director of Administrative
Services
Mr. Vukojevic, Assistant City Engineer
Mr. Cummins, Associate Planner
Ms. Yotsuya, Assistant to the City Manager
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilman Yost requested that Item "F" be removed from the
Consent Calendar. Boyd moved, second by Larson, to approve
the order of the agenda as presented, except Item "F",
removed for separate consideration.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
I
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Doane mentioned the passing of former member of the
City Council Paul Snow, and with the consent of the Council
moved to dedicate this meeting in his memory. Councilman
Boyd seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
On behalf of Mr. Shanks, Councilmember Campbell announced the
candidates night program to be held the following evening in
2-11-02
the Council Chambers, hosted by the Homeowners Association.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Doane declared Public Comments to be open. Ms. Carla
watson, Catalina Avenue, stated that Seal Beach has many
special qualities, the ocean, the small town flavor,
distinctive neighborhoods, people who go the extra distance
to create and support events, and the people are feisty,
especially when decisions are made that do not support their
mission statement, things that are held dear today is not
because of one or two people, because they had a monopoly on
policy, it is because of hundreds of people who have given
input and worked to create the small town that is loved and
enjoyed today. For those who are newcomers but chose Seal
Beach because of the smaller town character, let it be known
that there were feisty and even rude people who worked to
make this a special place. Ms. Watson said what she fears
most today is apathy, the townhall government structure has
been checked, no longer can citizens make comments on agenda
items, no longer can citizens speak at the end of the Council
meeting so as to be part of the process and rebut any
arguments that come up during the meeting, no longer are
citizen commissions consulted regarding decisions, example
the Recreation Department and Commission were overlooked when
decisions were made, it is noticed there is an agenda item
for this meeting relating to an appeal to the denial of use
of Zoeter Field, that never came before the Recreation and
Parks Commission, and finally, a Councilman's wishes for his
district to allow people to have input on a major
development, four of the five votes were against that. For
those at home, Ms. Watson offered that the townhall type of
democracy was not easily won, it has taken years, and those
voices should be heard. Mr. Robert Hend, Santa Ana Heights,
said the Heights area is the buffer zone for the John Wayne
Airport as opposed to the fourteen thousand acres that is a
buffer around El Toro. Mr. Hend stated of concern is the
'Great Park' initiative, Measure W, it is hoped the Council
will vote against the initiative and recommend that vote to
its constituencies, should the initiative pass then the Navy
will put a chainlink fence around the facility and walk away,
that was basically stated in the EIR, an example is Hamilton
Airfield in Marin County, in 1985 the Air Force offered that
facility to Marin County who took the attitude of not in our
backyard, the chainlink fence is still there, so people have
to go to San Francisco or Oakland for air flights, that is
what will happen here if 'W' is passed, so he would plead
that the Council and those listening vote no on 'W'. He said
if one wants a great park just look south of Irvine 'and there
are hundreds of square miles of park area, they are called
State parks, have all of the amenities plus an ocean view.
Mr. Hend mentioned his concern of losing his home because if
'W' passes then John wayne will need to expand.
Councilmember Campbell requested that Mr. Hend read a news
article that described what would happen to the area around
the John Wayne facility should the initiative pass. Mr.
Charles Antos, 14th Street, made reference to the agenda item
relating to contract Building Department services, stated
that over the years he has known ten building inspectors,
worked with most, six have retired, three have gone on to
other things. He noted that plan check is currently
contracted out, there have been some disastrous results over
time, that is because there are no combination inspectors to
do the plan check. Mr. Antos suggested some caution if the
determination is to contract for building services, that it
not be a learning experience for a new building inspector at
I
I
I
2-11-02
I
the City's expense. Mr. James Satchell, Newport Beach, said
he would like to continue with the comments of a previous
speaker with regard to what will happen if measure 'W' is
approved which in turn will cause the John Wayne airport to
expand, he too will lose his house, in fact the whole bay
area of Newport Beach and much of Corona del Mar will become
another Playa del Rey. Mr. Satchell stated that on March 5th
an election will be held that is key to the future of Orange
County, the choice will be economic growth or stagnation, an
airport that will generate $6 or $7 billion in revenue per
year plus sixty-nine thousand countywide jobs or a park that
will cost an estimated $240 million per year to maintain and
operate. Mr. Satchell said his comments to Measure Ware
costs, toxics, and tricks, a poll by the Orange County
Business Council clearly shows that voters oppose any
additional taxes to pay for the Great Park, the cost of
building the Park having been estimated at $2.1 billion and a
$352 per year countywide property tax increase for twenty
years for the average Seal Beach homeowner, that is more than
$7,000 of his or her money just so Irvine can have another
park, El Toro is considered one of the most severely polluted
bases in the United States, the estimated cost to cleanup the
Base for park use ranges from $1 billion to substantially
more, the Navy has a year 2002 budget of $139 million to
cleanup El Toro and other bases that are closing, therefore
where will the extra funds come from, surely not the Navy,
the Navy has agreed to cleanup the Base to meet airport
requirements but not under CERCLA, their liability is limited
and are not required to clean the land to any greater level
than airport use, if it becomes park use it would be required
to be cleaned up at its own cost. Mr. Satchell claimed that
Measure W is a fraud, a developers dream, while masquerading
as a park initiative it is actually a development plan for
Marine Corp Air Station property, the Measure also subjects
all other unincorporated County land to the same provisions
as El Toro, examples are Bolsa Chica, Puente Hills, Anaheim
Hills, and others, the Measure will allow one hundred foot
office buildings, one hundred thirty employees per acre,
industrial parks, strip malls and dumps, it is a fake and
switch plan for a land grab and development. Mr. Satchell
encouraged all persons to read Measure W in full,
specifically sections three and four, and a vote against
Measure W. Ms. Laura Brecht, 6th St~eet, said she was the
person who filed a conflict of interest complaint against
Councilman Boyd. Ms. Brecht said at the October 23rd, 2000
meeting she put the councilman on notice that he was not
correctly completing his conflict of interest form, this
statement, required by law, is used to identify possible
conflicts of interest, at that time the response was that
advice would be sought and an amended form would be completed
if needed, an amended form was filed to include that his wife
is employed by Boeing yet it was not disclosed that over
$100,000 was received from Richard Hall who owned the Trailer
Park and had an action before the Council, at the same
meeting there was a vote on the Trailer Park bonds, the
councilman abstained from that vote yet stated there was no
conflict of interest. Although there were votes on previous
Trailer Park issues, the recent search warrant and stated
probable cause of January 31, 2002 charged a failure to
identify sources of income as required by law, at that
meeting all that would have been necessary was a statement
that the councilman could not vote because of working for
Richard Hall, the truth was concealed and now there is a
possibility of felony charges. Ms. Brecht stated this was a
violation of the public trust, it is more than bad judgment,
I
I
2-11-02
therefore the councilman should resign and withdraw from the
upcoming election. Ms. Marilyn Hastings, former Mayor and
member of the Council, requested that Councilman Boyd resign
from the Council and remove his name from the ballot, the
City of Seal Beach does not need this type of thing, and
since it is likely the ballots have already been printed, she
and a group of residents would be willing to go through those
ballots and cross his name out. Mr. victor Grgas, Seal
Beach, stated that his wife recently took the initiative to
research certain expenditures incurred by the Council,
including Councilman Boyd, for trips related presumably to
the conduct of City business, on October 5th, 2000 the City
issued a check for $3,100 to American Express Travel for
three first class airline tickets on TWA for passengers Boyd,
Lansdale, and Rhodes to Washington, D. C. with a portion of
the cost to be reimbursed to the City, the warrant signed by
Acting City Manager McIntyre. Mr. Grgas claimed that at
approximately the same time Mr. Lansdale submitted an
application to the Planning Department for a General Plan and
Zone Change from public land use/ recreation to light
industrial/residential for a large strip of land that Mr.
Lansdale owns the entire length of the south side of Pacific
Coast Highway between Seal Beach Boulevard and the harbor
entrance to Huntington Harbor, that land bordering along the
fence of the Naval Weapons Station, a former part of the old
Red Car right-of-way. He made reference to a letter to Mr.
Lansdale dated December 21, 2000 whereby the Director of
Development Services advised him of what would be required to
complete the application for processing through the City,
including a public hearing application, according to that
application the proposed use of the land by Mr. Lansdale was
residential condominiums. Mr. Grgas noted that three months
after the City issued the check on behalf of the councilman
to purchase the airline tickets Mr. Lansdale's company
reimbursed the City for the entire amount, to date the
application of Mr. Lansdale is incomplete, has not been
processed through the City, since Mr. Lansdale reimbursed the
entire cost of the three tickets should not the cost of the
ticket for the councilman have been reported on the financial
disclosure statements as either income or a gift, it was not,
that too would be suspect as a violation. Mr. Grgas stated
he was amazed that the City was fronting travel costs to
private citizens, the ta~payers should not expect the City to
be the bank for any private citizen, and he would doubt that
the other members of the Council were aware that City money
was being used in that way. Mr. Grgas requested to be
informed as to whom Councilman Boyd met with in Washington,
D. C., what was discussed, did he officially represent the
City on that trip, did he discuss City policy and was that
policy related to the potential development of the property
of Mr. Lansdale, there has been substantial gossip in the
community about the desire of Mr. Lansdale to swap that
portion of property for other Navy property located adjacent
to Surfside upon which he may want to build new housing or
condominiums, is that true, the public deserves to know. Mr.
Grgas stated that within hours of his wife obtaining the
documents to which he referred the councilman personally
called the employer of his wife and while using his
councilmanic title verbally complained to her supervisor
about obtaining the documents during regular work hours,
insinuating that this was done while she was to have been
working. Ms. Nancy Grgas, Seal Beach, stated she is only a
part time employee, that the time she spent ensuring that the
taxpayers and citizens of Seat Beach are protected and fully
appraised of Council activities was done exclusively on her
I
I
I
2-11-02
I
own time. Mr. Greg Miller, Seal Beach Boulevard, Sandpiper
Bike Shop, said the residents need to know that Councilman
Boyd is not involved in just the Trailer Park but other
things around the town and County. He mentioned the houses
that have been built on Seal Beach Boulevard, there was an
attempt to have the name of the Boulevard changed, who would
that have benefited, and now with grass on the Boulevard it
looks like a residential street, it is a residential street
because it is now so narrow yet that street takes nine to
twelve thousand vehicles a day with a OCTD bus route as well,
the street is smaller than Electric Avenue going one way, no
one in this town would rebut his comments that the Boulevard
is so small and so dangerous. It is known that the grass in
the median, on the south side, and on the north side in front
of the homes will be taken care of forever, yet the remaining
grass areas will only be taken care of for ninety days, the
Council allowed the project on the Boulevard without
investigating, who is benefiting from this. Ms. Seretta
Fielding, Seal Beach Boulevard, stated that she has worked on
improvements to the Boulevard for twenty years, she and Mr.
Grgas started the Boulevard project twenty years ago, Mr.
Miller was in meetings twenty years ago. Ms. Fielding said
what has occurred on the Boulevard is basically what the
residents wanted, the Boulevard could no longer be financed
commercially because there is no commercial value on Seal
Beach Boulevard any more, when the Bay Hotel left that also
jeopardized the commercial ability of the Boulevard, the
Boulevard has apartments and businesses that are dying, the
veterinarian property has been vacant for seven years, there
needs to be some reality and some future when talking about
Seal Beach Boulevard and she does not want it to be a
political ploy for anyone because if there is any street in
the community that really needs assistance it is still Seal
Beach Boulevard. Ms. Jane McCloud, Balboa Drive, asked that
the members of the Council not assume that they can represent
all of the residents on major issues that will impact the
cherished village atmosphere, an example of major issues
would be the Parks and Recreation Department, after last
meeting she thought there would be no more changes yet the
local paper reported some services may be shared with another
city. With regard to the Boeing development or major changes
that will affect the quality of life, Ms. McCloud stated she
did not want even her Council representative to make final
decisions without informing her, and typically what has
always been in the past is public discussion at commission
meetings, at other citizen groups, and selected chosen
committees at the time of possible change, there is also
public discussion at Council meetings prior to major changes
that may dramatically affect this small town, and any other
means where input from constituents can be involved. She
again urged that the Council not do things by themselves,
said it has not been done in the past, yet all of a sudden
there have been major changes, there is need to get back to
where all are a team. Ms. McCloud too announced the holding
of candidate's night in the Chambers sponsored by the
Homeowners Association tomorrow at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Walt Miller
made reference to the agenda item relating to the plans and
specifications for the Marina Drive trail project, requested
that it be delayed, his request concerns the Marina Drive
bridge over the San Gabriel River. Mr. Miller stated he has
looked at the bridge, its underneath structure, he also found
that it is listed on the federal list of bridges, rated
sixty-five, found that CalTrans District 7 obtained funding
for the bridge improvements, he then learned that this
project has been turned over to District 12, they seemed to
I
I
2-11-02
know about the bridge and why funded, it is being funded
because it is going to be widened, that because Marina Drive
is wider than the bridge as it exists, the federal government
likes wider roadways, however he has been informed by a
member of the Council that Marina Drive will be reduced to
two lanes in each direction over the bridge, yet CalTrans
said that was incorrect, that the bridge was being widened to
align with the roadway. There is confusion, the federal
government will fund the majority of cost through grants,
etc., the City will participate with ten or twenty percent,
it makes no sense if there is going to be one lane in each
direction to restrict traffic on Marina Drive and the federal
government is going to put in a wider bridge to expand the
roadway and increase traffic, there is a conflict, it would
seem reasonable to meet with himself and others that know
something about roadways before seeking bids, with people who
ride bicycles to determine where the trail should be, an
example is the Seal Beach Boulevard trail that is no longer
for cyclists or anyone, that trail goes no where, District 12
should also be included in the discussions, he did not know
about this project, nor do the bike clubs that ride through
Seal Beach every weekend, this project needs to be delayed
pending discussions. Ms. Beverly Pearce, Seal Beach,
expressed appreciation for having continued the contract for
Building Department services for additional public comment,
she personally received thirteen telephone calls relating to
this contract. She too would like to see more citizen input
on the Boeing project, she was aware that a committee was not
approved at the last meeting and anxiously awaits what will
be done in order to receive public input and a plan for
educating the public once Boeing decides on their proposal,
and that the public will become aware of the proposal prior
to Council voting on the issue, it seems that the problem is
that people do not pay attention until there is potential for
approval, that does not mean that it has not been published
and meetings held, it is often prudent to postpone an item
for possible a meeting to assure that the Council is doing
what the community wants done. Ms. Pearce mentioned having
received calls about the Fire Department possible
consideration of closing the station in the First District,
two members of the Council may want to follow up on that,
possibly some lobbying is necessary to assure that the area
gets the same response time at the beach. Ms. Dorothy Whyte,
College Park East, said changes in the way the Council
operates is a concern to her, made reference to previously
having public comments at the end of the meeting after the
Council had their opportunity to speak, it was then moved to
prior to the comments of the Council, then that was
eliminated, that does not seem to serve the public at all,
she would suggest that the Council also not be allowed to
walk around during meetings. Ms. Whyte noted that although
the Council is elected by district they vote on things
throughout the City, there are things in College Park East
that receive no media attention, at this point specifically
the widening of the 22 freeway and the use of eminent domain
to take homes, in fear of the widening the Rossmoor residents
formed committees and contacted their Assembly
representative, College Park gets no information, the Council
needs to start operating as serving the whole community. Ms.
Whyte voiced her opinion that the District One representative
should not vote on any item until his issues are resolved or
should resign. Mr. Glen Clark, member of the Trailer Park
Residents/Owners Association, mentioned that at the beginning
of negotiations by Linc Housing for the purchase of the
Trailer Park the District One Council representative attended
I
I
I
2-11-02
I
a March, 2000 meeting of the Board of Directors, however he
did not report having anything to do with Mr. Hall, that is a
disappointment, the Council representative offered to call
Mr. Hall with regard to developing some type of deal for
consideration within a short period of time, there was no
mention of acting as an agent of or connection with Mr. Hall,
initially the Board thought of considering the plan, however
the decision was then not to. Thereafter it was Linc Housing
who negotiated with Mr. Hall for the purchase, whether or not
the price was more than should have been paid for the Park
will likely never be known, the amount paid was $7.4 million
which was slightly below the appraised price of about $8
million, under other circumstances it could have been worth
more. Again, the representation was a disappointment to
those in the Park. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, mentioned
reading a book entitled 'The Candidate' which reflects what
was done to former Assemblyman Baugh, the same type of
situation as has been done to Councilman Boyd, it is election
politicking, and made comparisons of the two situations. Ms.
Corbin claimed that she could add up $50 million that has
been diverted here and there over the past twenty-five years,
claimed too that other monies have disappeared, and she knows
who the parties were. Ms. Corbin mentioned that her Council
representative made a mistake, has admitted that, there are
people that should not point fingers at him as that can in
turn point back to them to account for their fraud. Mr. Nate
Kranda, 5th Street, said he wished to speak against the
Orange County Fire Authority recommendation to change the
volunteer firefighter program in Seal Beach, at present there
is a fire truck and fire engine that responds in Old Town and
in fact allover Orange County, Sunday was a good example,
there was enough volunteer manpower to man the truck that
remained in the City and the engine that was sent to Yorba
Linda to help cover their fire area, the OCFA wants to take
those two units away, the volunteers are against that, in
fact there are seventeen engines that they want to take out
of the system to be replaced by other squad type vehicles
that can be used for basic medical aid situations, eighty
percent of the calls. Mr. Kranda said the volunteers feel
they are an insurance, the hope is that it is not necessary
to use them but if there is need they are here, Seal Beach is
somewhat isolated, there are a number of bridges, in the case
of necessity it is not certain units will be able to leave
their stations to come in aid of Seal Beach, there is a jaws
of life on the fire truck, the recommendation is to cover
with a truck yet from either Cypress or Westminster, it is
not certain that that is a good idea as it takes time to get
to Seal Beach. Mr. Kranda mentioned that there have been
volunteers in Seal Beach since about 1928, many of the
volunteers work for other departments as firefighters, they
are business owners, students, live in town, help to make a
difference in the community, they would like to retain that.
Mr. Joe Kalmick, Seal Way, said he would like to expand on
the comments of the prior speaker. He mentioned that he has
served as a volunteer firefighter for Seal Beach, Orange
County Fire Department and the Fire Authority for twenty-five
years, he has never before been put in the position of
speaking in opposition to the service that has been provided
to this community for the past twenty years. Mr. Kalmick
stated that for many reasons, some political, the Fire
Authority has decided to reduce the scope of the volunteer
reserve program in the County of Orange, some of their
reasons are that in some areas of the County the program has
suffered due to a high turnover rate and the lack of ability
to recruit and retain reserve firefighters, in some cases
I
I
2-11-02
that is true however in the last two years the Fire
Authority, because the program has been under review, has not
allowed any of the volunteer stations to recruit or hire new
people to replace those that have been lost by attrition,
most of which have obtained full time jobs with other
departments, however that has not been the case to any great
extent in Seal Beach where both pieces of equipment are
manned on a regular basis, many of those present as a matter
of fact have observed the volunteers at scenes of
emergencies. He noted that the plan of the Authority is to
train the volunteers to merely respond to first aid calls,
confirming that the bulk of calls are for medical aid, in a
perfect world there would be a full time paid crew with a
fire engine on every street corner in the County, obviously
that will not happen, however having fire apparatus is
however assurance, assurance against fire or major disaster
or a situation where considerable apparatus is needed, that
is the case at present, the goal of their fire company,
historically, currently, and in the future is not to take
jobs away from or replace full time firefighters, rather to
supplement the career firefighters in what they do. Mr.
Kalmick said it is interesting to note that as part of the
plan of the Fire Authority they do propose to leave volunteer
fire engines in certain communities, the reason is that they
are isolated communities and it would be difficult to provide
full time career fire services in those areas, Sunset Beach
is one such area, villa Park another, it is the opinion of
the volunteers that these are political decisions, not
necessarily logistical decisions. It is felt Seal Beach
should be looking at what it will be getting as a result of
this change, it is not felt that any statistical analysis or
powerpoint presentation is going to be able to make up for
the fact that the fire apparatus that supplements the career
firefighters will be gone and there will be nothing to
replace them, even though there is a move up and cover policy
that is utilized in the department on a daily basis those
units will be coming from a greater distance with a greater
response time, and assuming those engines are in those
stations at that time when they are needed to supplement the
resources in this community. Mr. Kalmick stated that this is
not felt to be a wise decision, if one were to look into the
recommendations it is certain that political ramifications
will be found as to why this decision is being made, all that
is needed is the support of the Fire Authority and the
community to continue to operate as it has for the past
several years. Councilman Boyd mentioned that he has
requested the Orange County Fire Authority to make a
presentation at the next meeting, the Council has been
provided the consultants report on the reserve restructuring
program, requested that the speakers return for that meeting,
at which time he, as the representative to the OCFA, would
ask the Council for direction. Councilman Yost noted that he
had also pulled a related matter from the Consent Calendar.
There being no further comments, Mayor Doane declared Public
Comments closed.
I
I
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to declare a recess at 8:06 p.m. The Council reconvened at
8:22 p.m. with Mayor Doane calling the meeting to order.
I
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "A thru "F"
Boyd moved, second by Larson, to approve the recommended
action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except
for Item "F", removed for separate consideration.
2-11-02
A.
Approved the waiver of 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.
I
B.
Approved regular demands numbered 36241
through 36363 in the amount of $388,937.91,
payroll demands numbered 14958 through 15098
in the amount of $169,940.31, and authorized
warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same.
C. Adopted Resolution Number 4980 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH SUPPORTING
CALIFORNIA SPACE ENTERPRISE VENTURES." By
unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution
Number 4980 was waived.
D. Approved the plans and specifications for the
construction of Marina Drive Regional Trail
from First Street to Electric Avenue, and
authorized staff to commence the bidding process.
E. Approved the minutes of the August 27, 2001
regular adjourned and regular meetings, and the
September 10, 2001 regular adjourned and regular
meetings.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
I
ITEM "F" - NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION - DEPLOYMENT
STANDARDS
Councilman Yost requested a brief staff report for
information of the public. The Director of Development
Services noted that this item is a separate issue from the
specific comments during the Public Comment period relating
to the Orange County Fire Authority. The Director stated
this item relates to two separate standards that the National
Fire Protection Association has adopted that establish
nationwide standards for volunteer and full service fire
department facilities, the standards were an issue of
controversy during their public hearing and implementation
process, the staff report describes those issues, however the
standards have been adopted, the City, when it adopts new
building codes, will routinely adopt by reference a number of
different standards that are promulgated by this agency, the
intent will be to not recommend adoption of these two
standards and then watch other agencies that may adopt them
that the City will be dealing with, an example would be the
State should they adopt these standards by reference when
adopting the State Fire Code. The concern of staff is with
the uniform minimum staffing requirement for fire and
emergency medical responders, the feeling is that that is not
an appropriate way to deal with fire services. Councilman
Yost acknowledged having a mistaken impression when reading
the staff report thinking this item dealt with the volunteer
firefighter situation. To that the Director explained that
standard 1720 is a nationwide standard for staffing for
volunteer fire responses, that is a separate issue from the
Orange County Fire Authority even though they may be
2-11-02
interrelated at some point in the future.
Yost moved, second by Boyd, to receive and file the status
report relating to the National Fire Protection Association
Deployment Standards (NFPA 1710 and NFPA 1720), (deployment
of fire department personnel and volunteer departments).
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
I
BUILDING DEPARTMENT - CONTRACT SERVICES
The Director of Development Services presented the staff
report, noted that this item was on the last Council agenda
at which time there were concerns expressed to which this
staff report attempts to address some of the issues that came
forth, and he proceeded to review the more specific concerns.
with regard to why the City determined to look at contracting
services initially, it was explained that what was a three
person, full time City department, with the retirement of the
previous permit technician and building inspector it is now a
one person, full time City employee department. The
department was looked at in terms of how services would be
provided in the next three to five year period, whether it
was realistic, given the projected Building Department
activity, to hire a full time City employee for those job
functions or whether to contract for those services, in
looking at future Bixby development, anticipated construction
of Hellman, Rossmoor Center, and Boeing the question arose as
to whether two full time building inspectors were necessary,
the contract services method was seen as a way to have
flexibility in staffing, particularly for building inspectors
in that when there is increased demand the City could bring
in contract people rather than having to hire a third full
time person and alternatively if there is less demand for
inspection services the inspection load can be reduced much
easier through a contract rather than have the full time
staff person without enough workload in the future. Another
issue brought forth was how this type of service relates to
the caring of those individuals in dealing with the concerns
of their customers, those being persons seeking permits
primarily for additions and remodels, except for some of the
major projects as previously stated, the staff report
attempts to explain that when hiring employees, whether it be
by contract or a full time person, the individuals will go
through an interview process, and as department managers and
persons responsible for on-going training and job performance
of the individuals they will make certain that they perform
their functions at a level that is demanded of them in the
department, and it is felt that can be done in either case.
The Director noted that the staff recommendation is approval
of the contract for the reasons set forth in the staff
report. He mentioned that this issue was raised to the City
Manager and Council about October, a Request For Proposal was
prepared, there were responses from four firms, provided as
an attachment to the staff report is a summary of the
proposals prior to the interviews which summarized the
different types of persons with which they proposed to fill
the positions, the experience of the persons, whether or not
they proposed to fill all of the positions identified in the
RFP, their rates for the specific services, and what
additional services they would provide to the department.
The Director noted that the proposal before the Council
increases the level of service that the City would be able to
provide not only in the Building Department but the Code
enforcement function as well in that the City presently has
I
I
2-11-02
I
no designated person to do Code enforcement, a shared
responsibility among a number of personnel, at present that
is a responsibility of the Assistant Planner yet with his
many duties it is not a primary job function, Code
enforcement has always been an issue and it is felt this
would be a way of addressing it, the contract would provide a
person on a twenty hour per week basis with enforcement as
the primary function, it is felt this will be beneficial to
the community in the future.
I
Councilman Yost inquired as to the methodology used when
interviewing the applicants, were they scored in various
areas, and what were the areas. The Director responded that
all four firms were interviewed in one day, the interview
panel consisted of the City Manager, Public Works Director,
and himself, two of the firms were called back for a second
interview, it is believed the primary decision points were
the ability to respond to the RFP and provide all of the
personnel proposed in the RFP, some of the firms indicated
they could not provide the personnel immediately or they
would have shared job functions, one proposed Code
enforcement in conjunction with building inspection
activities, two of the firms could not provide the internet
capabilities desired for the purpose of being able to put
information on the City web page, information relating to
types of forms, permits, an application tracking program,
cost was another factor, and the firm being recommended
offered their services at less cost than the next in line
firm. Councilman Yost noted the statement that the Senior
Building Official would remain a City position to which he
asked about the future, would that hold true should that
person retire or if the person retires would that person not
be replaced. The Director responded that a decision would be
made at the time that person decides to 'retire, his
impression is that the City will always need one full time
inspector and he would likely recommend that that position be
maintained as a full time City employee, for the services
that can fluctuate as far as a second inspector it is likely
more appropriate as a contract service. Councilman Yost
mentioned his concern that if this service is contracted out
and there is a thirty day cancellation clause, that firm
leaves, then what is the City left with in terms of building
inspectors, there would be no history or time in town, yet if
there is a Senior Building Inspector who is beholden to the
community, thinks of it as home but does not necessarily live
in the community, it is known there would be more customer
service, responsibility, and ownership from that person. He
reported having met with Charles Abbott Associates, expressed
his belief that they are a good firm, his primary concern has
been that the Senior Building Inspector be maintained and
given the comment of the Development Services Director that
he will remain he would be more comfortable with the
proposal. Councilmember Campbell noted the need for
continuous review of a permanent City employee versus a
contract employee situation, it could be a more frequent
change, from time to time it may be more prudent to have
permanent employees, another time it may be more prudent to
go to contact, staff is looking ahead to see what kind of
future demands there will be in terms of building inspectors,
this was seen as an opportunity to obtain more services for
less cost, and inquired how often the demands on the City
will be reviewed. The City Manager explained that it will be
necessary to review the services annually with the
contractor, as was stated it is the building demand that will
make services fluctuate, at some point he could foresee the
I
2-11-02
community becoming static in that there are only a few
parcels remaining that are developable. Councilmember
Campbell offered that at that point it will likely just
become remodels which is somewhat where the residential areas
are right now. The Council is aware that the City provides
services to its residents, the problem now is providing all
of the services that people have enjoyed and have come to
expect within the reduced revenue situation inasmuch as many
things that were thought would materialize this year have
not, if revenue can not be increased then costs need to be
reduced, there will likely be further challenges to have
expenses match more closely to the revenues. In response to
a comment relating to contract costs, the Director explained
that the costs of the contract as opposed to replacing the
positions with full time City personnel are a wash until a
point of about a $500,000 revenue year from the different
fees to the Building Department however that does not include
the cost of providing a twenty hour per week Code enforcement
person, therefore there are more services for the money up to
about $500,000 per year by contracting as opposed to hiring
full time City personnel, one could add about $30,000 per
year for the Code enforcement person, plan check is about a
wash already. Councilman Boyd noted the statement by a prior
speaker that during his ten years as a City employee he had
worked with nine different building inspectors, that would
fly in the face of the argument that there would be
continuity with City employees as opposed to going to an
outside source. Councilman Boyd said he too had some
concerns with going to a contract just because of the change,
there have been some criticism of changes that have been made
in a relatively short period, however there is some benefit
with contracting out, some members of the Council met with
the Abbott firm and have had their concerns addressed.
Councilman Yost stated that his concerns were basically with
contracting in general, however he is more comfortable having
been informed that the Senior Inspector will remain.
I
I
Campbell moved, second by Boyd, to approve the contract for
building inspection and plan check services with Charles
Abbott Associates, Inc., and authorize the City Manager to
execute the contract on behalf of the City.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson
Yost Motion carried
Councilman Yost said his vote reflected his desire to see the
level of service so that the population is well served.
APPEAL - DENIAL OF FACILITY USE PERMIT - ZOETER FIELD
Councilman Yost inquired if this item came through the Parks
and Recreation Commission. The City Manager responded that
it did not, in checking with the Recreation Supervisors he
was informed that was not the practice for facility use
permits, they are handled in-house, and pursuant to
Resolution 4313 which governs facility use it is subject to
City Manager approval or denial, there is no reference to
Parks and Recreation Commission consideration, this is an
administrative appeal pursuant to Section 5. Councilman Yost
asked if the appellant group wishes to speak at this meeting
or would they rather go before the Parks and Recreation
Commission. Councilman Boyd said he was not certain that the
Parks and Recreation Commission has the power to overturn a
decision of the City Manager, that lies with the City
Council, yet he would not mind hearing from the Commission
regarding this proposal. Councilman Yost noted that a reason
I
2-11-02
I
for the Parks and Recreation Commission is that the public
likes to be involved, a decision would be easier if the
proposal had the support of the Commission. The City Manager
suggested that the proposal to appear before the Commission
or the Council be posed to a representative of the group. A
representative of the group requested that the option to be
heard by the Commission be available after there is an
opportunity for his group to make a decision amongst
themselves, maybe a format as to what their thoughts are.
The Manager stated that would be a delay for two weeks to
allow scheduling before the Parks and Recreation Commission,
there is no quorum of the Commission present at this meeting.
Councilman Larson moved to continue this item, forward the
request to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review,
analyze all facts, then the group will be allowed fifteen
minutes to speak when they return to the Council. Councilman
Yost offered a second to the motion dependent upon the
decision of the group to either go before the Commission or
present their request to the Council now. Councilman Larson
withdrew the motion. The appellant group determined to be
heard by the Council.
I
The City Manager explained that this item is an appeal of the
denial of a facility use permit for Zoeter Field. When this
item came to staff there was review to determine if this
proposal could be allowed under the Municipal Code, the staff
report outlines sections thereof where there are concerns,
Section 4-8.1 states that 'dogs are not allowed in or on any
City park or beach except Gum Grove and the Electric Avenue
greenbelt where animals must be leashed at all times', that
is not what is being proposed, Section 3-10.16 states that
'running at large is prohibited and that a leash not
exceeding six feet is secure and continuously held at all
times', Section 3-10.26 provides for the maintenance of
sanitary conditions in public places by prohibiting an owner
to allow its pet to defecate, and Section 3-10.29 addresses
noise and the interference of comfortable enjoyment of life
of surrounding residents. The Manager mentioned that Mr.
Stevenson has filed a letter of appeal, attached to the staff
report, which outlines a rebuttal to staff concerns, it
requests that staff install a placard that states that dogs
are allowed in the park while running, the concern of staff
is that while this is occurring someone will misconstrue that
dogs are naturally allowed in Zoeter Field, that will create
an enforcement problem that will then need to be addressed
the result of which will be a warning and potential for
enforcement action, another concern is the precedent setting
issue, if allowed at Zoeter what grounds would the City
Manager have to deny a similar request for another park,
another consideration will be dependent upon a ruling by the
City Attorney as to how the facility use permit will be dealt
with in terms of the Municipal Code provisions, on the 'other
hand he understands the position of the appellant in that
there is no dog park or play area for animals in the City.
I
Mr. Ron Stevenson, 17th Street, property owner for twenty
plus years, expressed appreciation to Council for hearing the
appeal, their group had no idea of the City process,
testimony will debate the process, apologized to Park and
Recreation Commission members present for not first going
before that body, stated the initial application submitted to
the City was simple, thought to be similar to an application
that a baseball team would submit, which their group
considers themselves of sort. He stated that the application
2-11-02
was submitted to the Recreation Director who, at the time,
had no objection except for the posted sign that states 'no
dogs allowed', with his non-objection Mr. Stevenson said he
then went to Animal Control, described the proposal, and
presented the certificate. As to the purpose of the appeal
for a Zoeter Field permit, Mr. Stevenson stated that a group
of residents requested back in early November, 2001 for a
facility rental permit to play ball with family pets at
Zoeter Field, the activity of ball play is consistent with
current use and consistent with other contracts for dogs off-
leash with the City. He offered that after the initial non-
objection from the Recreation and Animal Control departments
he then approached the City Manager for an exception to
Section 4-8.1 which prohibits dogs in City parks, approval
was requested and twice denied between December, 2001 and
January, 2002 for eleven applicants, the appeal was requested
in mid-December to'hear their proposal, the City Manager then
confirmed that the appeal would be heard February 11th, upon
seeing on the website that the recommendation was denial of
the appeal that was a concern to their group and brought
forth a question as to what is the citizens right to appeal.
He mentioned that in speaking with a member of the Council
it was mentioned that possibly this proposal should be given
some further discussion and possibly a trial period,
therefore be heard by the Council. Mr. Stevenson made
reference to the Recreation Guide section relating to
'facility rent and information' which reads that the beach,
parks and ballfield are available also....that for any
special event of twenty participants a permit is required to
reserve a site, to which Mr. Stevenson pointed out that their
group is under twenty participants therefore questioned if a
permit is required, their feeling is that it would be useful
in the administration and to express the concerns of the City
Manager as to why they would be on the field with dogs, in
addition there is a dog obedience class at Marina Park that
includes off-leash techniques and long distance work, it is
believed there is at least one person present that has gone
through that training, the area is not fenced, the animals
are off-leash, so there is a precedent already. Mr.
Stevenson noted that the City Manager also mentioned
liability issues, it clearly states under the release of all
claims and liabilities some drastic information with regards
to what liabilities, serious personal injury, and private
property damage issues are set forth to hold Seal Beach non-
liable, that is more than met by the proposal of the group.
Mr. Jeff Larson, Seabreeze Drive, spoke to the Code sections
identified by the City Manager, stated that Section 4-8.1, no
dogs allowed on any City park or beach seems to be a
generalized prohibition without explanation, the Council has
already recognized some exceptions, Marina Park, Gum Grove
and the Electric greenbelt which requires dogs on a leash,
Section 3-10.16, running at large prohibited, the exception
is where the dog is confined on the premises with the consent
of the owner, it is felt that the City Council and the
residents here and the owners of Zoeter can grant permission
for that usage, it is fenced, safe, and can be a controlled
environment for only a few hours per week, Section 3-10.26,
maintaining sanitary conditions, that can be maintained
probably better than it is now because the group would pick
up other debris as well as the waste left behind by their
animals, that can even be expanded to have some water for a
washdown if necessary, water can be transported in and out,
and Section 3-10.29, noisy animals, if they were requesting
to use the Park in early morning hours no one wants to be
awakened with a noisy dog, unruly dogs can be removed, those
I
I
I
2-11-02
I
are not thought to be big issues given the location of
Zoeter. The legislation and statutes are understood to
protect the safety of the general public however Zoeter is
contained within a twelve foot high fence, it is protected
with a permanent sign that says 'no dogs allowed', it is
believed that sign would remain yet if their group has
permission it is not certain whether that sign would be a
conflict, there are three entryways where persons could be
warned if they enter, it is not an unruly crowd. With regard
to protection of the public, the use can be limited in scope,
the request is three hours per week for a place to run with
the dogs, waste will be removed immediately, it will be
cleaner and better than when they arrive, with regard to
protection of property, it is a rental contract that they are
seeking, the agreement can provide for remedies and for any
associated damages with the canine activity group, the group
would be held responsible, this would be limited usage as
opposed to Gum Grove which is sunrise to sunset and the
greenbelt, the insurance provisions of the application would
hopefully be a protection to the City, the group would sign
liability waivers, they also believe in the statutory
protection afforded under California recreational use in the
Governmental Tort Immunity Act, protecting the animals from
inherent dangers from running at large, this is a fenced
area. Mr. Stevenson requested that their notes be submitted
for the record, and read their proposal for ball play at
Zoeter Field for candidate athletes, stating that the Seal
Beach Spoiled Dogs Society respectfully requests the City
Council approve individual facility use permits for the
Society licensed dogs to play ball at Zoeter Field during the
hours of 6:30 a.m until 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and
National holidays. He stated that this is not a proposal for
a dog park, the request is for a maximum of fifteen canine
athletes on the field at one time covered under the same
contractual agreement as other ball playing athletes, all
Seal Beach governing ordinances for dogs apply, stated also
that off-leash ball play will be permitted in accordance with
Section 3-10.16, running at large, which states in part 'or
unless such dogs be confined within a motor vehicle within or
on other premises with the consent of the owner, occupant or
person in possession of such premises', the group believes
that they qualify under the 'occupant' provision with the
permission of the City Council. Mr. Stevenson stated further
that more than thirteen Society families regard Zoeter field
as a neighborhood recreational facility and feel their family
should be allowed to use the field the same as any other
family, in this case their team member is a canine, they need
a place to run off-leash in a safe and protected area, Zoeter
field qualified under current ordinances, this ball play with
canines has forged friendships and bonds of neighbors who
find great enjoyment through weekly gathering which otherwise
they can not meet together to play ball in this manner. He
continued that ball play is consistent with current use of
Zoeter field, denying use is prejudicial against Society
residents and tax payers who have used the field for over two
years without incident or problem, the field is for Seal
Beach residents use and is currently under utilized, those
that use it do so under restriction of minimum percentage of
team members must be Seal Beach residents, such requirements
to make the Society team is not necessary, and there is no
conflict with other use of the field. Mr. Stevenson offered
that, when asked, Animal Control requested that dogs be
licensed and the proposed certificate be posted at the gates
permanently, and read a sample of the proposed Seal Beach
Spoiled Dogs Society certificate.
I
I
2-11-02
Councilman Boyd recalled having been provided a copy of the
letter of request from Mr. stevenson, the Manager denied the
request, subsequently he felt that it might be reasonable to
at least reconsider the request, the Manager is saying this
is an administrative appeal to the Council, there is a
limited amount of park and open space throughout the City but
particularly in Old Town, that puts the City in somewhat of
an imperative position to consider joint use of facilities,
he would have no apprehension of granting this use for a
trial period, that that period be limited to a certain number
of days and that it be forwarded to the Parks and Recreation
Commission for review and recommendations to the Council as
to modification or revocation of the permit, yet require such
permit be in accordance with other Code requirements for
indemnification, facility maintenance, licensed canine
athletes, etc. Councilmember Campbell mentioned being an
owner of a sixty-five pound Siberian Husky. In her area
there are people on both sides of the animal issue, some are
adamant for the rights of pets, others want the residents to
be reminded to not let their pets use the yards of others and
that they pick up after their pet, some do not want dogs on
their lawn at all as they leave a residue, urine can not be
cleaned up, then children in particular are exposed to this.
Councilmember Campbell stated that her concern is that this
proposal is exclusionary in the sense that the Society feels
they will be the only group that does this and it will not be
a bark park, the fact is it will, if this is allowed the City
would need to allow every other group of fifteen people who
want to let their dogs run because this will have set a
precedent. She said she also has concern with dogs running
on what is an active play area, she had voted to allow dogs
in Gum Grove and the greenbelt because the people there
wanted it, at the same time it was proposed to allow dogs to
run in Arbor Park, her response was no, Gum Grove is not an
active play area nor is the greenbelt, Arbor Park is active
and hosts soccer practices and games nearly every day of the
week, another issue is that AYSO maintains Arbor Park and the
grass, they have put more than $40,000 into that Park over
the past four years, they do that because there was an
agreement between AYSO and the former Recreation Director
that they could use the Park facilities in return for
maintaining the field, it is now a beautiful soccer field,
also, AYSO prohibits dogs from their games. She mentioned
however that there are people who use the Park to walk their
dogs on off hours, to that the AYSO group sends a crew before
a game to clean any dog droppings from the Park, that because
it is unsanitary. Councilmember Campbell stated she could
not support the request because it is exclusionary and
precedent setting, as well as being an active recreation
area. She mentioned that because of the area in which we
live with houses in close proximity, less than large sized
lots, there are no areas for dogs to run and exercise so dogs
get walked for their exercise, nonetheless the top priority
is the health, safety and welfare of the residents.
Councilman Yost cited this as a tough issue, he personally
uses the field to play softball, his children use the field
to practice, yet this is a group of residents who want to use
the resource, creatively, and responsibility. He inquired
however if the Society requirement for membership is
sponsorship by a current member can that be done by an
organization that will be using a City facility. The
response of the City Attorney was that it was a good
question, private organizations can do as they choose for the
most part, in terms of using City property it basically
depends on the nature of the use, which in turn if there are
I
I
I
2-11-02
I
three votes to support this concept that would require a Code
change in that the Code is clear that dogs are not permitted
in City parks except in two areas and on leashes, therefore
if that is the direction staff will research, in conjunction
with the Code changes, what type of organization would be
receiving the permit. Councilman Yost offered that it could
be deemed to be discriminatory for a public entity to rent
the facility to such organization. The City Attorney
explained that if it were a community center it could clearly
not be rented to a discriminatory group, this could be
different depending on the nature of the Council decision and
if only Code amendments versus the issuance of a permit.
Councilman Yost said he would not be adverse to the request
on a trial basis although he has reservations, and if there
is a problem he will definitely hear about it. Councilmember
Campbell asked about the precedent setting nature of this
request. Councilman Larson pointed out that the Council has
no jurisdiction to approve this request at this meeting, the
law says no dogs except in two parks, it is with certainty
that law was adopted with a lot of trauma, noise, and
activity with the Parks and Recreation Commission, Coastal
Commission telling the City dogs could not run free in Gum
Grove Park, the issue is does the Council want to change the
law, the decision of the City Manager must be upheld because
he can not change the law, if the decision is to change the
law then send it to the Parks and Recreation Commission as he
requested initially, let the Commission be creative to
determine how this can be done, direction could be given to
the City Manager and City Attorney to bring back an ordinance
but not until this matter has gone before the Commission.
I
Councilman Larson moved a substitute motion to forward this
request to the Parks and Recreation Commission, and that the
decision of the City Manager be approved. Councilman Yost
seconded the motion.
I
As a point of clarification, Councilman Boyd noted that the
decision of the City Manager is being upheld for the time
being until the Commission can make a recommendation to
Council as to whether or not change the law. Councilman Yost
concurred that the Commission needs to give this some
consideration. Councilmember Campbell again inquired about
the precedent setting nature of an organization such as this,
if approved would not other groups be eligible for approval.
The response of the City Attorney was that it would depend on
the nature of the ordinance, at this point it would be
speculation to look into those issues, if the Parks and
Recreation Commission feels this is a good idea after
receiving public input and that the Code should be changed,
the ordinance could be refined in such a way to allow this to
happen. Councilman Larson noted that the Council and
Recreation give permission to organizations for use of City
facilities for specific dates and times, another group can
not use it at the same time. Councilman Boyd used the Girl
Scout House as an example, a specific use at a specific
location and that is understood, in this case there is a
facility that could offer joint use that should be looked at,
and in his opinion this is not a precedent setting issue, any
decision should be based on what is reasonable and prudent.
Mayor Doane recalled his past of raising, training, and
showing German Shepherd dogs, he understands the exercise
issue as he used riverbeds to run them, showing of the dogs
or obedience trials were always held in parks, one of the
requirements was that a janitor be provided to keep the
facility clean. Mayor Doane said he could equate to the
2-11-02
problem yet he also understands the law that would not allow
the request to take place therefore will support the
substitute motion.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
RESOLUTION NUMBER 4981 - SAN GABRIEL AND LOWER LOS ANGELES
RIVERS PARKWAY AND OPEN SPACE PLAN
Yost moved, second by Boyd, to adopt Resolution Number 4981
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH APPROVING 'COMMON GROUND - FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO
THE SEA - SAN GABRIEL AND LOS ANGELES RIVERS WATERSHED AND
OPEN SPACE PLAN." By unanimous consent, full reading of
Resolution Number 4981 was waived.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
HELLMAN PROPERTIES - SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT / FINAL TRACT MAP
#15402
Larson moved, second by Boyd, to find that the Subdivision
Agreement for Tract 15402 meets City requirements, approve
the Subdivision Agreement, find that Tract Map 15402 is in
substantial compliance with the previously approved Tentative
Tract Map, approve Tract Map 15402 as presented, instruct the
City Engineer and City Clerk to execute said Tract Map as
required, and authorize the Mayor to execute said Agreement
on behalf of the City.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
I
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
The City Attorney announced for the benefit of the public
that the City has begun the process of reviewing the City
Code to determine if it is consistent with the Charter,
whether it needs to be updated to be consistent with State
law, and importantly to make it user friendly, to receive the
maximum of input the City has begun a series of workshops and
there will be a number of public hearings with regard to any
proposed changes, the date of the next workshop is not
presently known and any future public hearings will be
noticed in the local paper even though not required.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
At the request of the City Manager, the Director of Public
Works presented a status report relating to the Marina Drive
bridge, with regard to a comment made as to the width of the
bridge it has been confirmed that it is about 20.1 meters,
about one foot wider than the existing bridge and stays
within the existing right-of-way, one lane each direction, a
median in the center, one sidewalk will be ten feet wide, the
other five feet wide with an average lane width of 13.7 feet,
it splits the two lanes when it gets into Long Beach and
accommodates a turnpocket in that section.
I
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Campbell reminded that Candidates Night will be
held the following evening in Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
and cablecast live. She made reference to a letter in the
newspaper relating to her vote against a citizens advisory
committee for Boeing and explained that that is somewhat of a
mute point in that they have the zoning to do whatever they
choose to do and need no input from the community even though
2-11-02
I
it is felt that Boeing will make presentations to keep the
community informed. With regard to the freeway widening,
Councilmember Campbell mentioned that her next newsletter
will be distributed in about two weeks and she will include
information that is available at that time, if individuals
want information on a weekly or daily basis they can call
her. She noted having reported at the last meeting however
that OCTA and CalTrans have decided against the two flyovers,
the seventy foot flyover by Rossmoor and the thirty to
thirty-five foot flyover at the end of College Park East
where the 22 Freeway transitions to the 405, they do not have
the funding for those and are not going to look for funding.
A comment was made also that College Park East does not get
as organized as Rossmoor, to that she responded that it needs
to be kept in mind that Rossmoor is a separate entity, they
are organized, they had meetings at their park facilities, it
is believed that CalTrans had eleven hundred responses to the
freeway expansion EIR, about three hundred from Rossmoor,
even though she had urged responses in her newsletter in
which she inserted a sheet setting forth all of the bullets
to be used in letters, announced here at Council meetings,
the result was twenty-three letters from Seal Beach, that is
a disappointment. She mentioned too that she is the only
councilmember in Orange County that does a newsletter, why,
Seal Beach is elected by district, Newport Beach has seven
districts yet elected citywide, consequently because this is
a small City District Four has one thousand seven hundred
thirty homes and with the help of the residents can deliver a
newsletter to everyone in CPE, for someone to say it is not
done often enough she can not do otherwise because you can
not ask any more from those that are helping. Councilmember
Campbell again made reference to Measure W, said it is wrong
for Seal Beach, this City may be the most impacted if El Toro
is not approved for an airport because other sites are being
looked at in this area of the County as the alternative,
combining the Air Station with the Weapons Station, that will
mean that the three hundred plus acres of College Park East
will become part of the new airport in about ten years. She
for one does not want to lose her home but will be
compensated, for the remainder of the City the quality of
life will be gone because of having to deal with the terrible
things that come about by being next to an airport, Seal
Beach Boulevard will become the freeway connection from the
405 to the airport, water quality will not be an issue as
there will likely no longer be a beach. Councilmember
Campbell urged that the people vote no on Measure W, the
people in South County do not care if they inconvenience
those in Seal Beach, think about the future of Seal Beach, if
Measure W passes it will be difficult to fight for this City,
they will also want to widen the 405 again to get the traffic
from South County to Los Angeles International, South County
will lose not one home, the runways at El Toro can be
redesigned so that they do not fly over one house. With
regard to Boeing, Councilman Yost stated that they do not
want to do just what is allow by existing zoning, they want
to do a commercial overlay which requires a General Plan
change, traditionally when there is a General Plan change
there is a citizens advisory committee for input, a City to
the north is inviting its residents to become involved in the
General Plan change, this City does not seem to want to do
that, to him that is a problem. He mentioned having a nice
telephone call from someone in Bridgeport, extended
appreciation for that, it made him feel good. Councilman
Boyd noted that there have been comments relating to changes
to the agenda for some time, to that he would like to explain
I
I
2-11-02
that a member of the public can pull an item from the Consent
Calendar and speak to that item, that is at least his
interpretation, his intent is to place on the next agenda an
item to review the agenda procedures and how members of the
public are allowed to participate on items, it seems to have
become an issue, his feeling is that a member of the public
should be allowed to speak on an item at the time it is
heard, by doing that they generally feel more connected to
the item, it is not felt that the public is well served by no
interaction, hopefully the Council will look at the
suggestions as a means of increasing public participation.
To a comment made by a member of the public, former member of
this body, relating to a travel expense that occurred for a
trip to Washington, D. C., the Council was asked by Mr.
Lansdale, a property owner in the City, to have a
representative of the City attend a meeting with the Deputy
Secretary of the Navy, he was directed and authorized by the
Council to attend, the City paid for the airline ticket, then
as in all cases when an expense is incurred as part of a
proposed project the City asks that the expense be reimbursed
by the person requesting the service, the Interim City
Manager made the arrangements, he was personally not a party
to that, he then briefed the Council that a meeting had been
held with the Navy and the City concern with the project that
Mr. Lansdale was proposing, that the bike trail project, that
he in fact worked hard to obtain grant money for, it would be
on his property and would require an easement from him or
from the Navy if he should acquire the property, his
representation for the City was:to indicate that the City
would be using as much property there as possible for the
City bike trail as a regional project. with regard to the
reserve volunteer firefighter program changes that was
mentioned at this meeting, he would ask staff to contact the
Fire Authority, which he believed has been done, Councilman
Larson as the alternate representative will be briefed as
well by Fire Authority staff, however he would like staff to
provide Council with proposed changes to that program, a
consultant was retained by the Fire Authority who in turn
made recommendations for changes to the Board of Directors, a
meeting was held last week for the purpose of reviewing those
changes, that information should be provided to Council, then
he will await the decision of the Council as to their desire
as to how they want him to vote as a member of the Board.
Councilman Larson expressed his desire that somehow some of
the rhetoric of individuals can be calmed down, as an example
his preference was to send the Zoeter Field issue to the
Parks and Recreation Commission. As a point of
clarification, Councilman Larson noted the public comment
that the Marina bridge project was done in secret, if there
was ever anything that was not done in secret it was the
bridge, it has been discussed for a couple of years, the
Coastal Commission has moved it back and forth, there were
reports of bats in the bridge which held up the project,
there was a geologist looking at it, the State said there
needed to be a certain type of handrail then the Coastal
Commission said that blocked the view and the handrail had to
be placed so that everyone could see the water, that project
was totally public and it becomes hurtful when someone makes
a comment as such, the only thing is that the Coastal
Commission got involved, what was not mentioned is that the
City of Long Beach is paying a large part of the cost as
well. Councilman Larson said many years ago he learned to
talk in feet and inches, yet noted that the Public Works
Director is beginning to talk in meters and kilometers which
he can not verify to be true unless he reads the chart.
I
I
I
2-11-02 / 2-25-02
Mayor Doane mentioned that there was a beautiful tribute to
the late Paul Snow printed in the Leisure World News by
reporter Ruth Osborne, at the end of the article there was a
poem by Edgar Guest entitled 'When Life Is Done' which Mayor
Doane read, and offered that the author must have known Mr.
Snow.
I
CLOSED SESSION
No Closed Session was held.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to adjourn the meeting until Monday, February 25th at 5:30
p.m. to meet in Closed Session. By unanimous consent, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
~;m
lerk and ex-off1c
e City of Seal Beach
Approved:
(j1f~
Attest:
I
Seal Beach, California
February 25, 2002
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
adjourned session at 5:30 p.m. with Mayor Doane calling the
meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Doane
Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Larson, Yost
Absent:
None
Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
I
The City Attorney noted that this is the opportunity for any
member of the public to comment on the items on the agenda.
No comments were presented.
CLOSED SESSION
The City Attorney announced that the City Council would meet
in Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the
agenda, a public employee performance evaluation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54957, to confer with legal Council
relating to a liability claim pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.95, and a matter of anticipated litigation