HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2002-03-25
3-11-02 / 3-25-02
I
initial study of the coordination of signals some eight or
nine years ago, it fell flat because of the number of demand
signals that are in the chain, those are the signals that do
not activate unless a vehicle wants to access Seal Beach
Boulevard, does that not still throw the coordination off.
The Public Works Director noted that the coordination is
somewhat complicated with a lot of factors involved besides
the side streets that tie into Seal Beach Boulevard, there
has been a prior program where all of the signals and
controllers were replaced, that had been a major reason as to
why the signals could not be tied together, what is happening
is that the traffic engineers are going to an open
architecture system where all of the signals can talk to each
other, that is why it will be possible to coordinate the
signals together for the most part.
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 March 25th at 6:30 p.m. to
meeting in Closed Session if necessary.
By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
I
Approved:
Attest:
Seal Beach, California
March 25, 2002
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
adjourned session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Doane calling the
meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
I
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Doane
Councilmembers Boyd, Larson
Absent:
Councilmembers Campbell, Yost
Councilmember Campbell was awaiting the Council in the
conference room and Councilman Yost arrived at 6:31.
Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
3-25-02
The City Attorney noted that there were three agenda items
for Closed Session discussion, and this would be the
opportunity for any member of the public to comment on those
items. No one addressed the Council.
CLOSED SESSION
The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in
Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda,
a conference with legal counsel with regard to anticipated
litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b), a
conference with the City's real property negotiators, the
City Manager and Assistant to the City Manager, pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 relating to Ruby's
Restaurant, Rivers End Cafe, and the Old City Hall.
I
Councilman Yost arrived at 6:31 p.m.
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the
Councilmembers present, to adjourn to Closed Session at 6:31
p.m. The Council reconvened at 6:49 p.m. with Mayor Doane
calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported
that the Council had discussed the items identified on the
agenda with the exception of the real property item relating
to Ruby's Restaurant, gave direction to the real property
negotiators, no other reportable action was taken.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
I
clerk
Approved:
Attest:
I
Seal Beach, California
March 25, 2002
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
session at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Doane calling the meeting to
order with the Salute to the Flag.
I
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Doane
Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Larson, Yost
Absent:
None
I
I
I"
3-25-02
Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development
Services
Mr. Dancs, Director of Public Works, City
Engineer
Mr. Cummins, Associate Planner
Mr. Mark Vukojevic, Associate Engineer
Ms. Yotsuya, Assistant to the City Manager
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilman Yost requested that the presentation to the Los
Alamitos High School soccer team be held over until their
arrival. A member of the audience requested that Item "I" be
removed from the Consent Calendar. Boyd moved, second by
Larson, to approve the order of the agenda as revised.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Campbell announced the annual Bunny Bash at
Heather Park on Saturday starting at noon, the annual
springtime activity for the children with an, Easter egg hunt,
face painting, pinata, etc. Mayor Doane announced that the
City and Finance Director has received an award from the
California Society of Municipal Finance Officers for
outstanding financial reporting for year 2000/01.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Doane declared the period for Public Comments to be
open. Ms. Seretta Fielding, Seal Beach Boulevard, mentioned
that on this date an appeal was filed on a project that had
qualified under guidelines of the Planning Commission, and
stated again the Boulevard is being slowed down. Ms.
Fielding recalled that on July 6, 1983 the Planning
Commission recommended adoption of ZTA 4-83, a request to add
a residential overlay to Seal Beach Boulevard, a letter from
Victor Grgas in 1986 stated 'the study concluded that a
zoning which permitted light commercial and medium density
residential was desirable, the adoption of the study
therefore has placed into motion the action necessary for the
City to modify its present zoning for the area that reflects
the study.' Ms. Fielding recalled also that some time ago
the Council directed a study for a residential overlay on
Seal Beach Boulevard, the residents of the area continue to
wait for the study in order to come to some kind of meeting
process, the Boulevard has now turned into residential in the
300 block and on Electric leaving the 200 block in limbo, the
request is for a residential overlay so that people, as with
the former veterinary property who wanted to do something
with their property for four years, could do so, in
desperation the property owner did an LC plan which is now
being appealed. She said there is need to proceed with the
residential overlay on Seai Beach Boulevard, there is no LC
financing available, it is hoped the study will proceed
rapidly to ensure progress of the 200 block, especially in a
case where someone follows the guidelines for a LC design yet
is appealed, she again asked that the overlay study be
expedited. Ms. Mary Michaelian, College Park East, said she
wished to speak on the forty-eight trees located on Aster,
Basswood, and Candleberry, distributed photographs to the
Council, and mentioned a recent quote by the Cypress Director
3-25-02
of Public Works that nothing improves the appearance of a
City more than streets lined with mature trees. Upon
noticing that there has been some activity with perhaps
elimination of fifty percent of the trees, the desire is to
again address the fact that there are many people who would
not like to see that happen. It is understood there was a
meeting with the condominium owners board, that was with
thirteen people, yet understood as well that no vote was
taken among the total of condominium residents. Ms.
Michaelian asked again that each tree be reevaluated for root
rot or blight and that more people who live near or observe
these trees on entering the tract be allowed to voice their
opinion. Ms. Michaelian asked those in the audience in
support of not removing the trees to stand. Mr. Bill Ayres,
President of the 10K Run, displayed the tee shirt for the
upcoming race that will be held on April 6th, said what is
behind the race is really volunteerism, there are
approximately two hundred, the money raised comes back to the
City for recreational purposes, at present the effort is to
rehab the Marina Community Center which includes installation
of a room divider so that two activities can be conducted at
once, a sound system, drapes, and a kitchen rehab. Mr. Ayres
mentioned that the Race will be somewhat different this year,
as a result of the September 11th events the Race can no
longer take place on the Naval weapons Station, it will be
run on what is referred to as the original 10K course, the
10K run course will be Seal Beach Boulevard, stopping traffic
at Coast Highway, going to Westminster, the River, and back,
many of the 10K runners seem to like that course, the 5K
participants will stay within the limits of Seal Beach, turn
around at Landing and the Boulevard, travel Electric to
Marina, join the 10K runners coming off of the River and
finish at the pier, the kids race will start on First, about
1 kilometer, and finish at the pier as well, the walkers will
do the 5K course. Good participation is anticipated, as to
the major sponsors, to be listed on the back of the tee shirt
is a $1,000 donation, one company donated $5,000, two donated
$2,500, and named the major sponsors. Mr. Charles Antos,
Seal Beach, made reference to a local news article reporting
that the Mayor is endorsing Ms. Pearce for City Council. Mr.
Antos offered that Mr. Doane has the right as an individual
to endorse anyone he chooses, however, he was acting in the
capacity of Mayor when his comments were made. Mr. Antos
said the statement that he had been dismissed from the City
is not true, that he was running for Council to in some way
get back at the City, that is not true, he had stayed with
the City for a period to somehow stop the then City Manager
from changing the face of the downtown area of the City, to
those comments Mr. Antos suggested that if future comments
are made by the Mayor he should at least be factual. Mr.
Antos noted that there were four candidates in the Primary
Election race, there are now two, he is one of them, and for
those voters who supported the candidates that did not make
the run-off if they wish to endorse and/or vote for him he
will welcome them. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach, took
exception to the news article as well, spoke in support of
Mr. Antos, claiming that Main Street, the small shops, all of
Old Town may have been mowed down if it were not for him.
Ms. Olson mentioned too that a comment of the Mayor had been
that the opponent of Mr. Antos and her supporters had brought
forth the conflict of interest allegations against Boyd, the
question is was this information suppressed until election
time, could this have been presented before the trailer park
transaction, saving the City millions in taxpayer dollars,
did or should the City have known of the alleged conflict of
I
I
I
3-25-02
I
interest and lack of full disclosure, this type of politics
has been going on in Seal Beach for a long time, and this is
not the first time a member of the Council has tried to
discredit Mr. Antos, but he is for honest government. Ms.
Maria Cowles, Birchwood Avenue, stated she travels the area
where the trees exist that are proposed for removal for
purported problems, she walks the area as well, there is
nothing more pleasing than to see the green and the
blossoming trees, it they bring aesthetic ambiance to the
neighborhood. Ms. Cowles asked if there is a plan with
regard to the trees, they are City trees, concern that the
condominium association is making decisions and not listening
to the rest of the neighborhood, in the two cities in which
she has resided if there was something that could be an issue
or present a problem the residents were allowed to come to
the city and present their case. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach,
spoke of the former employment by the City of Mr. Antos,
another employee requested him to co-sign for a unit in the
Trailer Park, Mr. Antos informed his superior, thereafter it
was used against him by claiming he had a conflict of
interest. Ms. Corbin took exception to the Mayor attending
the Chamber meeting and taking a stance in support of
candidate, the Chamber can take no political position,
members of the Council representing other districts have no
right to get involved in District One politics, yet can
endorse someone as a private citizen can endorse someone, at
this point it is necessary that the City Attorney provide
guidance for the Council to do things properly. Ms. Corbin
complained that the new street sweeper starts at about 4:00
a.m., is much louder than the previous sweeper, it was said
the State required this type of sweeper yet they use sweepers
much older, this is only used in Old Town, the only people
who are being subjected to this. Ms. Corbin commended the
speakers desiring to save the trees from removal. Ms. Rita
Brenner, Trailer Park, made reference to the people of
Leisure World for being able to have a low price for their
cable service, yet there are many elderly and handicapped
people throughout the City, and not just in the Trailer Park,
many who have televisions would like to watch Channel 3 but
they can only do that if they have special rates, to that she
asked that an effort be made to do something to obtain
reduced rates for those that can not afford cable. Ms.
Brenner spoke in defense of Mr. Antos, it is well known that
in the past people have gotten away with money, things have
not been done right, the City is in great need of
infrastructure, without good infrastructure how can there be
decent housing and streets. Ms. Brenner said she hoped that
all realize that when misdeeds go on, and it has been
continual under the guise of low to moderate income people,
there are loans, there are bonds, but over and over again
nothing gets done, and it is money generated from the entire
community. She expressed her belief that Mayor Doane has
done a good job, however some things just need to be pointed
out. She offered that in order to help the Council run
better, have truer voices and more fairness, one should watch
what they do on the outside, those representing one district
should not involve themselves in the district of another, and
directed criticisms towards certain members of the Council.
There being no further comments, Mayor Doane declared Public
Comments to be closed.
I
I
COUNCIL ITEMS
No Council Items were presented.
3-25-02
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "B" thru "N"
Yost moved, second by Boyd, to approve the recommended action
for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except Item
"I", removed for separate consideration.
B.
Approved the waiver of reading in full
of all ordinances and resolutions and
that consent to the waiver of reading
shall be given by all members of the
Council after reading of the title
unless specific request is made at that
time for the reading of such ordinance
or resolution.
I
C. Approved regular demands numbered 36672
through 36824 in the amount of $444,433.84,
payroll demands numbered 15377 through
15514 in the amount of $170,574.55, and
authorized warrants to be drawn on the
Treasury for same.
D. Received and filed the Monthly Investment
Report for December, 2001.
E.
Approved the Agreement for payroll services
between Automatic Data Processing (ADP)
and the City of Seal Beach for the term
commencing July 1, 2002 on a payroll by
payroll basis at an annual rate for the
period of two years of $23,740, authorized
the City Manager to execute said Agreement
on behalf of the City, and
I
Adopted Resolution Number 4989 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A
BUDGET AMENDMENT" ($4,525 startup fees).
By unanimous consent, full reading of
Resolution Number 4989 was waived.
F. Approved two thirty-six month leases for
digital printer/copiers with Advanced
Office Services for the Police Department
and Public Works Yard, and authorized the
City Manager to execute said leases on
behalf of the City.
G.
I
Adopted Resolution Number 4990 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR MAINTENANCE ON THE
NEWLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY AT 201- 8th STREET."
By unanimous consent, full reading of
Resolution Number 4990 was waived.
I
H.
Approved the minutes of the regular meeting
of October 22nd, 2001 and the regular
adjourned and regular meetings of November
13th, 2001.
J. Bids were received until March 19th, 2002
at 11:00 a.m. for Project 49675,
Annual Concrete Rehabilitation for fiscal
year 2001/2002, at which time they were
publicly opened by the City Clerk as
I
K.
I
L.
M.
I
3-25-02
follows:
J. Cardenas Construction
West Coast Concrete Cutting
EBS, Inc.
All American Asphalt
JDC, Inc.
Damon Construction
$27,448.00
27,650.00
28,720.00
29,360.00
40,360.00
41,400.00
Awarded the bid for project Number 49675
to J. Cardenas Construction, as the
lowest responsible bidder, in the amount
of $27,448.00, and authorized the City
Manager to execute the Contract on
behalf of the City.
Bids were received until March 19, 2002
at 10:00 a.m. for Annual Pavement
Rehabilitation, fiscal year 2001/2002,
project Number 49673, at which time they
were publicly opened by the City Clerk
as follows:
EBS, Inc.
Silvia Construction, Inc.
All American Asphalt
Sully Miller Construction
Palp, Inc. dba Excel Paving
R. J. Noble co.
Laird Construction Co.
Pacific Hydrotech Corp.
$ 97,545.30
99,848.00
115,909.10
116,420.00
118,370.00
124,933.00
132,400.00
136,429.48
Awarded the bid for Project Number 49673
to EBS, Inc., the lowest responsible
bidder, in the amount of $97,545.30, and
authorized the City Manager to execute
the Agreement on behalf of the City.
Adopted Resolution Number 4992 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES
FROM THE RIVERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA FOR THE RENOVATION OF AN APARTMENT
COMPLEX LOCATED AT 1119 OCEAN AVENUE AND
THE PROVISION OF LOW- AND MODERATE- INCOME
HOUSING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
RIVERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WILL
BE OF BENEFIT TO THE RIVERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolution Number 4992 was waived.
Accepted the resignation of Mr. Richard D'sa
as the District Four representative to the
the Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation
and declared the position to be vacant for the
unexpired term ending July, 2002.
N. Approved an office lease agreement between
the City of Seal Beach and the Seal Beach
Chamber of Commerce for a five year term
commencing April 1, 2002 through March 31,
2007, renewable for an additional period
of years as may be mutually agreed upon
between the City and the Chamber of Commerce.
3-25-02
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM "I" - RESOLUTION NUNMBER 4991 - MEASURE W - LAWSUIT
CHALLENGING LEGALITY
Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, said before taking an action on
this item she would request information as to the percentage
of voters in Seal Beach that voted yes or no on Measure W.
Councilmember Campbell responded that the majority of voters
in Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, and Cypress voted as a whole
against Measure W, the precise percentages she did not have.
Ms. Corbin asked who is going to indemnify this proposed
action, the response of Councilmember Campbell was that it is
the Airport Working Group, the City will be indemnified, will
not be liable. Ms. Corbin stated that if they do not have
adequate finances or insurance the group may come back to the
City for costs, the City needs absolute protection. Mayor
Doane made reference to a letter received from one Jarod
Cohen, PhD., a Leisure World resident, expressing his
opposition to the Seal Beach City Council taking any action
in opposition to Measure W. Ms. Corbin stated that Roberts
Rules requires that all communications be read, if one person
is allowed to speak to an item all persons must be allowed to
speak. The City Attorney explained that for all items on the
agenda that are not a public hearing the public has a right
to speak to the item prior to a Council action, the public
was afforded five minutes earlier in the meeting prior to any
action being taken, that meets the requirement of the law.
Ms. Corbin said if there are communications they need to be
produced.
I
I
Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to adopt Resolution Number
4991 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
ENTERING INTO AN INDEMNITY AGREEMENT FOR CIVIL ACTION
CHALLENGING MEASURE W." By unanimous consent, full reading
of Resolution Number 4991 was waived.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane
Yost
Larson
Motion carried
The City Attorney offered that it is common for cities to
enter into agreement whereby they are named as plaintiffs yet
do not need to incur any legal costs, such as this item.
With regard to the Bolsa Chic a matter recollection is that
the City entered into a contract with a law firm to share the
costs, that is the difference between the Bolsa Chica lawsuit
and this proposal. As an explanation of his abstention,
Councilman Larson recalled being upset when Los Alamitos sued
Seal Beach for the Bixby project, the defendant in this case
is the Board of Supervisors and his preference is not to
anger them. Councilman Yost said he has a difficult time
taking a position on something that was voted upon by the
general public in Orange County, difficult because it is
understood that the majority of the Seal Beach citizens voted
against Measure W, that the reasoning for his no vote.
I
ZOETER FIELD - CONSIDERATION OF RESTRICTED USE - DOG PLAY
The Assistant to the City Manager presented the staff report,
explained that the City recently denied a facility use
application from the Seal Beach Spoiled Dogs Society to have
off-leash activity at Zoeter Field, the Society subsequently
appealed the denial and at the last meeting the City Council
3-25-02
I
upheld the denial of the request and referred the request to
the Parks and Recreation Commission for their input. At the
February 27th meeting the Commission recommended that the
Council consider a six month trial period for use of Zoeter
Field that would permit dog play activity during the
requested hours of 6:30 to 8:30 a.m. on weekends only with
conditional restrictions addressing noise, condition of
field, neighborhood concerns and supervision, they did not
include holiday use in their recommendation, at that meeting
individual commissioners expressed comments regarding
limiting dog play activity to grass areas only, limiting the
maximum number of dogs to fifteen, establishing fees, and
potential conflict of interest between 'no dogs' signs in the
parks, canine activity, public interest, and compliance with
City laws. The Commission did not make recommendations with
regard to specific Seal Beach Municipal Code language, permit
conditions, fees, or liability. with regard to the various
issues surrounding off-leash dog activity it is important to
consider that although the facility request was not
specifically for a dog park it moves in the direction of
creating space for dog activity and encompasses many of the
same concerns addressed in other communities with the
creation of a dog park facility. To better understand the
concerns and options regarding off-leash dog activity in
public places staff contacted a number of cities regarding
ordinance language, conditional uses, neighborhood and city
concerns, and operational maintenance issues, in addition
information was drawn from a paper on off-leash dogs in city
parks provided by the California Parks and Recreation
Society, some of those issues regarding off-leash use include
health, maintenance, user, conflicts, and safety, concerns
also with mixed use incompatibility, loss of open space with
the creation of separate areas and impacts to other
recreational uses, turf degradation and restoration expenses
were also cited. The City of Long Beach found that turf and
dogs are not compatible from a facility maintenance point of
view and currently use a granulated crushed rock material
that seems to provide a better maintenance service for the
City, other cities cited that a non-turf, separately fenced
area is a more desirable way of addressing this permitted
use. Noise impacts to surrounding residents are another
concern, cities found it more optimal to have a location that
was not directly adjacent to neighborhoods. In Huntington
Beach they have a dog park located in Huntington Central Park
that is adjacent to several neighborhoods and since its
inception they have had repeated neighborhood complaints
regarding the noise from barking dogs that necessitated
several modifications to their operation, that City will be
revisiting the issue this next month to discuss further
mitigation issues, other cities expressed risk liability
concerns, it would be important to assure that the users
provide all appropriate insurance coverage and indemnify the
City from claims and liability. With regard to issuing a
permit for restricted dog use activity at Zoeter Field
concerns have been expressed regarding setting a precedent
for similar type activity at other times and in other parks,
the early morning hours requested for dog play falls outside
the time frame that recreation staff generally permit for
park and athletic use, a question to consider is how the City
would address similar requests from other groups and
individuals. The Assistant stated that in order to
accommodate the recommendation to provide a six month trial
period for dog play at Zoeter Field, certain sections of the
Seal Beach Municipal Code would need to be amended, to that
staff provided proposed language changes that would give
I
I
3-25-02
general flexibility to allow for such use. She referred that
should the City issue a permit for dog play at Zoeter Field
staff would recommend that certain conditions be attached to
the permit, as set forth in Attachment B which was compiled
from requirements imposed by other cities on their dog park
users, yet it is not all-inclusive, other restrictions may be
added during the permit process. In order to establish
appropriate fees for the proposed six month trial period,
staff based fee calculations on rates provided in the current
City Fee Resolution, the Resolution provides a fee structure
for use of Zoeter Field, staff would recommend the fee based
upon adult use, the owners/ handlers are to be eighteen years
or older and must be with their dog on the Field, there is
also an established fee of $25 per day for maintenance of the
Field, the fees established to mitigate administrative
overhead and administrative costs.
I
The staff report provided three recommendations to consider
and provide direction, the Recreation and Parks Commission
recommendation to permit a six month trial period to the Seal
Beach Spoiled Dogs Society for dog play at Zoeter Field, this
would come to the Council in the form of,a resolution after
Municipal Code changes are adopted, staff would propose
language changes to the Municipal Code, and Council would be
requested to provide direction regarding fees and conditions
of the facility use permit.
Councilman Yost noted a prior concern with legality in the
case where someone was desirous of becoming a member of the
Spoiled Dog Society and they would need to be recommended by
an existing member, the question being whether that was
exclusionary given the use of a publicly owned facility, the
indication of staff that that had not been researched. The
Assistant explained that if the permit is authorized for a
trial period it will be for a maximum of fifteen dogs, the
determination of which fifteen dogs will be is up to the
Society, they will bring that information to the City as it
processes the application, it would be at the discretion of
the Council to tie additional restrictions to the permit, yet
in discussions with other cities there was caution that it is
a public facility therefore care must be taken as to how its
use is restricted, however in Seal Beach a priority user list
has been established and exists, but it does not exclude any
one of the priority users from making application for a
permit.
I
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to interrupt the discussion briefly for a Council
presentation.
PRESENTATION
RESOLUTION NUMBER 4988 - LOS ALAMITOS HIGH SCHOOL - BOYS
VARSITY SOCCER TEAM
Councilman Yost reported that the Los Alamitos High School
Boys varsity Soccer Team commenced the season unranked and
finished the season ranked number one in the County polls,
number one in the CIF Division II polls, and number three in
the Nation by Student Sports. Mayor Doane read Resolution
Number 4988 in full entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, HONORING AND RECOGNIZING
LOS ALAMITOS HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY BOYS' SOCCER TEAM" which he
presented to Coach Scharlin with congratulations. Councilman
Yost in turn presented City pins to each member of the team
and assistant coaches. Yost moved, second by Boyd, to adopt
I
3-25-02
Resolution Number 4988 as presented.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
I
CONTINUED DISCUSSION - ZOETER FIELD USE - DOG PLAY
Councilman Boyd said he favors this request, however would
amend the recommendations proposed, the conditions seem to be
favorable to the applicants, he would propose fees somewhat
different, the applicant feels that the fees are high given
the marginal use of the facilities, his suggestion would be
to charge a full maintenance fee of $1200.00 or based on the
number of days used then waive the rental cost of the
facility, and charge a one time registration fee for each
user of $25 or $30, that in turn would show who is using the
facility and recoup the cost for maintenance, that plus the
conditions proposed by staff. Councilman Yost questioned the
use of the facility, condition of the infield given the fact
that it is softball season, the potential for injuries should
uneven surfaces appear, as well as animal excrement left
behind.
I
Mr. Stevenson, speaking on behalf of the Spoiled Dogs
Society, stated that the group is dedicated with respect to
the Field, cleaning up after dogs, they watch out for each
other to make certain the Field is clean to the point that it
is cleaner after they have been on the Field, he has
personally walked the Field and observed deposits from dogs
that have been on the facility without permit. Mr. Stevenson
said he had brought up the issue of the fees to Councilman
Boyd, they also wished to present a couple incidental issues
as an addendum to the presentation by staff. He stated it is
important that all of the team members be represented, one
comment in the staff report required one handler per dog, in
the case of a single resident having two dogs that would
eliminate the possibility of allowing both dogs to run at the
same time, that is seen more as a team issue, not necessarily
a legal issue, and to the comment relating to exclusivity,
teams actually have the opportunity these days to choose who
will or will not be on their team, there are tryouts, the
group views this in a parallel manner in the sense that they
do not want a dog park, in a dog park there is an intermix of
many different breeds so the dogs are not compatible which
creates dog park problem issues which he believes were
addressed in the earlier presentation. The idea the group is
presenting is coming forward with a team, for administration
purposes it is felt there should be a minimum and maximum
number of dogs in order to facilitate this permit, the
compatibility of the dogs and ball players is at hand. Mayor
Doane noted that there were twelve conditions and
restrictions presented, only condition nine raises an
objection, that regarding the owner/handler provision. Mr.
Stevenson said that to be correct for the most part, and a
point that they have recognized since making the initial
proposal is that many residents believe this is a proposal
for a dog park since there has been considerable discussion,
they are awaiting it to open to use it, that is why the group
is trying to emphasize that this is limited use, there is a
fee to be paid, if there is continued reference to dog parks
there will be the same expectation as in other cities of free
and open use without the team play that the group is
proposing which represents something quite different from a
dog park. with regard to condition nine, Mayor Doane
inquired if there are not members of the group that could
fill in for an extra dog in a two dog family, he would not
I
3-25-02
want that condition removed, it is felt important that each
dog have someone responsible for it. Mr. Stevenson stated an
example would be a member of their group that can not join in
on Saturday mornings because of a work related obligation, in
that case he would volunteer his time to run his dog and be
responsible for both permitted dogs, at times there will be
two persons attending with just one dog, the numbers average
out, but they did not want to make some of the conditions a
law in that they want to be respectful for all of the issues.
Mayor Doane said he would only vote for this under the
consideration that all twelve conditions are adhered to by
the group and will be reviewed in a six-month period, and if
they are not adhered to that would be the end. Mr. Stevenson
said they did not want a law that would be, exclusionary to
one individual. Councilmember Campbell noted again that she
is a dog owner, always has been, she has a large dog that
thinks it is a person, he is a member of the family and
companion, but other persons do not necessarily feel the same
way towards another person's dog. She said her concern is
that this is creating a dog park, a place for dogs to run, if
this request is granted then the City needs to allow anyone
else that comes forward the same opportunity because
precedent has been set, in this instance it is creating a
place for just the dogs of this group. Of concern too is
that the Field is an active recreation area which raises a
lot of issues, in her area people walk their dogs off-leash
in the parks, the dogs jump on people, she then gets the
phone calls, there was a request for dogs on-leash in Gum
Grove Park but the people are not adhering to that, what is
frustrating is that requests are made of the Council, it is
granted and then the conditions are not followed and when a
citation is issued the people then get upset. Councilmember
Campbell expressed concern that this is unlocking a
disturbing issue, over and above the precedent setting and
safety issues is the health issue because no one wants to
play on a field where dogs have been running, in her area
people ask that her newsletters request that people not allow
their dogs on any private property or lawn, that primarily
because of the residue that is left behind, this is a big
issue, she would not want her children playing on a field
where dogs run, in a city such as this you have to walk your
dog often. Councilmember Campbell concluded that she could
not support the request, it sets a precedent, creates a dog
park, is a health and safety issue in a recreation area, she
will support the rights of children first. Mr. Stevenson
asked if the Council was aware that urine is cleaner than
water, there are web sites that actually deal with urine
therapy. He noted a comment that the Councilmember walks her
dog, is careful to not create a problem for neighbors,
therefore the dog uses her backyard, to that he asked if
there are signs to not allow people to go into that backyard,
to not barbecue, where is not the similarity then between the
resident's yard and playing on a ball field, further, the
similarity and difference between the standards for Gum Grove
and Electric versus the standard that is being applied to
Zoeter Field, people play ball, picnic, and sun themselves on
Electric, how is that different as to sanitary conditions,
what is believed is being said is that there is a group of
responsible residents that can not be responsible, these
people are willing to pay for the use, restrict the hours,
and inspect the Field before and after its use, from his
experience in working with this group of people he could
assure that the Field will be better after use than before.
Councilman Larson said his comments related to policy rather
than individual dogs, his philosophy is the same on this as
I
I
I
3-25-02
I
it will be on the park where the tennis courts are located,
that they are public parks, it is hard to start making a
decision that a specific group can use a facility for a
certain purpose albeit a certain time of day, he recognizes
that there are reasons as to how it can be done but there
will be other persons who have dogs that will see this group
and want the same privilege, however if they are not in this
group that would not be allowed. In his District there is
just one park, Edison Park, it can only be accessed by going
into Long Beach and back, the people in College Park West are
protective of that Park, they too have dogs, what would be
said if they wanted to run their dogs under the same
conditions. Councilman Larson said he will vote in favor of
this request when it comes back, yet his concern is that
there will be more requests than just this group. He
mentioned that what he was looking for in the staff report
was the flavor of how the City got to the point of the
ordinance as it presently exists, from what he has heard it
was not easily arrived at, not an easy decision, this could
be an undoing of something that took considerable thought to
develop. Councilmember Campbell noted that rules come about
because people have abused prior privileges, Leisure World
did not allow dogs because the people did not cleanup after
them, that is too bad, dogs bring great companionship,
possibly this group would abide by the conditions yet the
next group may not, that is when problems arise. She
acknowledged having voted in favor of dogs in Gum Grove Park
because that is what the residents wanted but now the people
are not following the rules as dogs are running everywhere
off-leash, citations are being issued, and the Coastal
Commission, while making a decision on Hellman, decided they
were going to disallow dogs in Gum Grove, yet when that was
questioned it was determined that that was a City decision.
Councilmember Campbell stated that the real problem is that
people do not take care of their dogs and the problems that
are associated. Councilman Yost described dogs and pets as
being a highly emotional issue, at the time of walking his
District the opinions relating to dogs in Gum Grove Park were
split about fifty-fifty, very little middle ground, one half
loved having dogs in the Park, the other half would not go
into the Park because there were dogs and they were running
loose, but it is obvious that people consider their pets as
part of their family. In this case from a pro standpoint it
is a novel use, making good use of a precious resource in
terms of park space in the community, extra funds to the
City, fills a need that the residents have, yet on the con
side that site is a human play field, there is contact with
the grass areas, he looks at it in the sense of how would it
be treated if someone requested fifteen non-toilet trained
humans to play on the field, use it as a bathroom, but say
not to worry because it would be cleaned up, yet with
children and adults playing games on the same field on the
same day, he would have a difficult time with that therefore
will likely vote against this request. Councilman Yost noted
that the other areas mentioned, such as the greenbelt, are
not actively used for human sports, pointing out that there
are a number of diseases that are transmitted by the oral
fecal route, it is not believed that one can completely clean
up dog residue to the degree that someone could roll on the
grass, in this case unless the dogs are toilet trained or
wearing diapers his feeling is that the site is a,human play
field and used by many children. He concluded that he
understands the issue but can not vote to approve the
request. Mayor Doane said his concern is that this is an
organization that is making the request, other dog owners are
I
I
3-25-02
going to demand the right to join this group or form their
own group, the City could then be held liable if the second
group is not given the same recognition as given this group,
other groups will approach the City thereafter, and agreed
with others that once this door is opened a problem will have
been created. He mentioned that Mr. Stevenson and others
that have sent letters have been reassuring in their
responsible attitude towards their pets, again, his concern
is with the legal right that the City would have to limit
this use to just one group. The City Attorney advised that
the problem with these types of issues is that it is
speculative as to what would happen in the future, a
definitive answer can not really be given until presented
with an issue such as a permit issued to one group and
another group then comes forth and what can be done,
explaining that if a permit is issued to one group there may
not be a rational basis to deny a second group. The City
Attorney noted that they have given advice in the past on
land use matters and quasi-judicial decisions but there is
really no such thing as precedence when dealing with a unique
piece of property, similarly with conditional use permits and
variances, noting that if a variance is granted to one person
the concern has been with the need to grant a same type of
variance to another, their opinion has consistently been no
in that each piece of property is unique, this case is much
different, it is a permit, more of a ministerial decision
whereby the group qualifies by the criteria established by
the Council, they either qualify or they do not.
I
Councilman Boyd pointed out that the applicant is requesting
use of the Field twice per week, that would be about forty-
eight times in a six month period, primarily on the weekends,
early morning hours, the staff has provided conditions that
are felt to be reasonable and will ensure the use is
consistent with what the Code changes would be as well as in
the best interest of public safety, his feeling is that the
conditions should be adopted, the group has agreed to abide
by those conditions, direct staff to initiate a fee, and at
the end of the six months a report should be forthcoming to
Council evaluating this activity in terms of joint use and
whether it was beneficial to the public and has not created a
hazard, his feeling too is that there be a one time
registration fee of $25 for each dog, waive the rental fee,
and impose a $25 maintenance fee per use. Councilman Boyd
suggested also that there be no additional permits issued
until there is evidence to support continuing the use or not.
Councilman Boyd moved his comments as a motion. Mayor Doane
inquired if the objections set forth in late correspondence
had been read, to that Councilman Boyd stated they had, his
feeling is that most of the comments can be dealt with
administratively through the conditions proposed by staff.
Councilman Doane seconded the motion.
I
Councilmember Campbell suggested that a first vote be taken
as to whether or not the use will be allowed before
addressing the specifics. The City Attorney confirmed that a
substitute motion or amendment to the motion could be made.
I
Councilman Boyd withdrew his motion and moved to adopt option
two of the staff report, that staff be directed to propose
language changes to the Seal Beach City Code as set forth in
Attachment A of the staff report relating to Section 3-l0.l6
and 4.8-1. Councilman Larson seconded the motion for
discussion, however noted his concern with the draftsmanship
of the amendments, pointing out that until now an ordinance
3-25-02
I
has existed that is law which states no dogs in any park
except with leashes on the Electric Avenue right-of-way and
in Gum Grove Park, if an ordinance were adopted with the
amendments proposed it would no longer be a law it would be
no dogs unless the Council decides by a mere three votes,
that removes security for many people who live in the area of
the other parks. Councilman Yost concurred with Councilman
Larson.
Vote on the motion to adopt Option Two:
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Doane
Campbell, Larson, Yost
Motion failed
I
In response to Council, staff offered the option of directing
that this issue be visited issue once again otherwise the
issue dies. Councilman Larson expressed his observation that
there are three votes to not allow this activity at all,
however should it be allowed his feeling is that the specific
park should be identified in the ordinance as has Electric
Avenue and Gum Grove Park. Councilmember Campbell mentioned
that if the Code is left as it now exists it would not be
necessary to specify anything. Councilman Yost offered that
"he did not want to disenfranchise those who put the effort
into this request therefore he would like to find some other
location, people with animals are not going to go away, they
still want a place to run and plal. Councilman Larson said
had there not been a September II h a request could have been
made to the Navy for some land. Mention was made of the DWP
property, noted too that the City of Long Beach has similar
dog related issues as well. The City Manager suggested that
staff do additional research as to another location or
options or different method, and noted that the Code would
need to be changed even for a six-month trial period. No
further action was taken. "
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to declare a recess at 8:31 p.m. The Council reconvened at
8:46 p.m. with Mayor Doane calling the meeting to order.
I
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - SITE PLAN REVIEW 02-1 12282
BRIDGEWATER WAY
Mayor Doane declared the public hearing open to consider an
appeal to the Planning Commission approval of Site Plan
Review 02-1. The City Clerk certified that notice of the
public hearing was advertised and mailed as required by law,
reported one communication receiv~d from a resident of Los
Alamitos residing in the vicinity of the subject property,
objecting to the recent development in the general area. The
Director of Development Services presented the staff report
relating to the appeal to the Planning Commission decision to
approve a 324 square foot, single story family room addition
at the rear of the property located at 12282 Bridgewater Way,
this is within the Centex Homes residential development as
part of the Bixby Old Ranch development. The Director
explained that under the terms of the Development Agreement
entered into between the City and the master landowner at
that time, Bixby Ranch Company, all development within the
entire project was required to have a Site Plan Review
approved by the Planning Commission, that occurred at the
time of the original tract map review which approved the
building footprints for all homes within the tract as well as
the architectural designs for the exterior of those homes.
The Director mentioned that this is the first proposal for an
addition to those homes, it was considered by the Commission
3-25-02
in January, the hearing was continued until February due to a
number of concerns brought forth by residents of adjacent
properties as well as the absence of the Commission Chairman
from the January meeting. He noted that copies of the staff
reports and minutes of the Commission meetings were included
in the report to Council, as well as the Commission
Resolution approving the project subject to conditions, an
appeal was filed within the appropriate period of time and
the matter is now before the Council for a public hearing.
The Director reported that the issue is that the neighbors
feel the project should not be approved, claiming that it is
not in conformance with the general development scheme of
that particular tract of homes, a number of concerns also
with the approval given by the Homeowners Association Design
Review Committee. He mentioned that on February 6th the
Commission tried to address a number of the issues, basically
indicated that anything relating to the Association approval
of the project was nothing that the City should be concerned
with, those would be between the Association and the property
owners of the area, the concern of the City would be whether
the project complies with the standard development
requirements, which it does, the project now before Council
for consideration. The Director stated the basic development
standards applicable to this project is a ten foot rear yard
setback from any residential structure to the rear property
line, a five foot sideyard setback, provision that no more
than fifty percent of the lot can be covered by building
area, in this case just less than forty-eight percent of the
lot is covered including the proposed addition, the structure
is also in conformance with the height restrictions. The
Director reported.that a resolution has been prepared that
would sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
the Council has the option to take that action, or sustain
the appeal and deny the decision, or to approve the project
with different conditions.
I
I
Councilman Yost inquired if the Council has the legal
authority to make this decision or to change the design
review. The City'Attorney advised that the Council does
pursuant to the Development Agreement which established a
design review process for projects within the boundaries of
the entire property which includes Centex Homes, there is no
authority to change the design review however any additions
to the approved design review must come before the City, and
as mentioned previously, at the time the Development
Agreement was drafted homes were not a part of this project,
it was to have been an institutional use, possibly a church,
therefore the Development Agreement was drafted with an
understanding of larger projects, not single family homes,
and recalled that just before the Council took action on the
Towne Center project homes were substituted for the church
use, the language of the Development Agreement still applied,
at the time it was felt to be important to the Commission and
Council to have review of the architecture of the homes, and
although he could not speak for the decision makers, it is
uncertain whether it was contemplated that minor additions or
modifications to the homes would be required to come back.
The Attorney confirmed that this item is properly before the
City Council.
I
Mayor Doane invited members of the audience wishing to speak
on this item to come to the microphone and state their name
for the record. Ms. Tanya Demeter, said she was co-owner of
the property most impacted by this addition, her husband is
Peter Demeter, and daughter Alina Demeter, an attorney, has
I
I
I
. .
3-25-02
excused herself from this hearing, all co-owners. Ms.
Demeter stated she is against the proposed addition. She
said they have been through a lot of pain and suffering since
purchasing their new property on which escrow closed December
14th, they do not deserve that, they feel the merchandise was
switched on them, they were sold the property with certain
amenities, they are located in a cul-de-sac, the property is
pushed back, not aligned with other properties. She said she
presented additional information to the Director which he
presented, it is true there is a ten foot setback from Mr.
Brody's property yet it is only one foot from the rear line
of her property, they are not a side property to Mr. Brody,
he is on a parallel street, and inquired of the Director as
to why there is a ten foot setback from the rear line, why
not five or six feet, and why five from the sides. The
Director responded that the setbacks were established by the
City when they adopted the zoning ordinance which has been in
effect since 1968, since he was not with the City at that
time he could not address the reasoning, however those are
generally the normal setback requirements for most single
family residential areas in cities in Southern California,
the five foot side setback too is a standard requirement,
that is to provide emergency access to the rear of a property
for Fire Code situations and to allow adequate light and air
ventilation into the windows that are normally along the side
property line, the ten foot setback on the rear yard is
provided for those same general purposes, some cities have
greater than ten foot requirements and some may have a less,
this City has a ten foot requirement and that is what the
ordinance mandates the City to enforce.
Ms. Demeter said the ten feet is actually needed for exit to
the back yard, on the side there can be five feet, that is
not the main exit in case of fire, that gives ten feet and
ten feet from the property behind, twenty feet minimum
between the buildings. She said she would prove that they do
not have the twenty foot minimum as required by the city
Code, directed attention to the general plot plan, showed the
Demeter residence on the cul-de-sac, Brody residence on the
parallel street, the developer was smart to have a solution
to make the distance somewhat bigger between buildings, which
is a little porch, a family room, on the left side is a
breakfast room for Mr. Brody and as it happens her property
is a mirror image of Mr. Brody's property, exactly the same
house so the breakfast room is on the left corner, the
distance from his breakfast room to the similar property in
diagonal is fantastic comparing to what is already there, the
breakfast room is where everyone congregates every day, has a
huge sliding door, therefore there is not twenty feet. She
said if the Cooper property were to add to the legal setback
of ten feet and Mr. Brody would add his addition there would
be the twenty feet legally required, yet claimed there is
only fourteen feet, so to have the ten feet Mr. Brody's
addition needs to back up nine feet, he can have an eight
foot addition then there would be the minimum required by
Code and twenty feet between the buildings if another three
feet is added to the legal setback of ten feet, also shown
was a potential addition to her breakfast room. Showing the
addition that Mr. Brody will have, Ms. Demeter showed the
house as it is currently without the fireplace, then the view
after the addition looking south, a new chimney for a
fireplace and a window which will be sixteen feet from her
property, claimed that it does not respect the architectural
standard of Centex Homes, existing chimneys are between
houses, hidden, it looks like a homeowner addition to a new
3-25-02
architectural development, she thinks it is substandard,
invades their privacy, the window is on a nine foot inside
elevation ceiling, all window, the fence will be only four
and a half feet after the cement is poured, the window
overlooks their backyard at a distance of one foot from the
rear property line, it is five feet on the side. Ms. Demeter
showed a visual from an angle of the view that the Brody's
will enjoy from their new windows to her breakfast room, a
similar distance to the diagonal as compared to her distance.
Ms. Demeter stated her opinion that the proposed addition is
detrimental to her property, they joined the Community
Association for their planned community, signed CC&R's
according to which they understood that all property values
were supposed to be respected in the case of any alteration
or modification, the proposed addition was approved in haste,
is actually not three hundred twenty-four square feet rather
is three hundred twenty-six as they calculated it, the
Committee had forty-five days to approve the addition, they
approved it in two weeks, they did not wait for the most
impacted owners to know about it, this went on behind her
family's backs many months before the Brody's even purchased
the property, therefore they are fighting for their
investment and their retirement money, it is obvious that the
Brody's will benefit, they will add a lot of square footage
in detriment to her property, this is not supposed to happen
in this planned architectural community with a Homeowner
Association. To the question as to how the Association
approved this, it is simple, there were no homeowners on the
Association, they were all Centex employees, how did the
Architectural Committee approve this addition, they only look
at matching paint and matching tiles, there are no architects
on the Architectural Committee, the qualifications of those
people are not known, only known that they approved the
addition quickly and when she called property management they
told her that this is the chance one takes when you buy in a
new community, yet to her there are rules, regulations, a
process that is supposed to be respected, the CC&R's are
clear on that, all of the property values have to be
respected, but she and family were disregarded like they were
not there. For the Brody's the addition is an improvement
because the window that comes close to their breakfast room
is actually a back window of their family room, they will
also have a sliding door so their backyard will be on the
side yard, their property will look good from the inside but
outside will look terrible for the neighbors. Ms. Demeter
referred to information she obtained from the internet as to
ordinances in other cities and homeowners associations, that
it is desirable to make the best possible use of land by
increasing housing density however residents are entitled to
enjoy a reasonable degree of space, privacy and daylight
around their homes, usually termed residential amenities,
cities set out guidelines to assure that new development
protects eventual amenities, new houses should benefit from a
satisfactory degree of privacy, houses should not be unduly
affected by the development, with regard to the main room, to
achieve the minimal separation distances should be maintained
between houses and in particular between windows, lighting,
and habitable rooms which includes living rooms, bedrooms,
dining rooms and kitchens but do not include halls, stair
landings, utility rooms, etc. Ms. Demeter claimed that their
breakfast room is the most habitable. She spoke of setbacks
in another city where it states that if there is a strong
pattern of setbacks in the neighborhood that is greater than
the minimum setback as established in the zoning ordinance
then the established setbacks should be followed in order to
I
I
I
3-25-02
I
preserve the distinct neighborhood pattern, to that she
claimed that their setbacks will be totally different for
every house on the street, how would they ever be able to
sell their house if they chose to do so, people are visual,
are they luxury homes, the houses are so close, they are not
going to look at or measure the five and ten feet and look
for City regulations, it is clear that their property will go
down in value, that is not supposed to happen in their
community. She said each property is to give a Latin name to
their landscape plans and provide it to the Architectural
Review Committee for approval, Mr. Brody had his plans
approved easily without the plot plan showing the neighbors
fence, it was a rubber stamp approval based on ten feet and
five feet and without the twenty foot corridor between
buildings which is the minimum required by the City Code and
Building Code for fire safety.
I
Mr. Peter Demeter stated he was one of the appellants, they
received the agenda prepared by staff, have reviewed it many
times, found some corrections as well as good ideas. He said
it is obvious these are opposing parties, each is entitled to
their opinion no matter how biased they are, and requested
the Council to take a neutral position. Mr. Demeter said he
is an engineer, he studied the plans, he deals with plans
daily, submits them to plan check, he knows what they are
looking for, he showed his sketch of the elevations however
claimed that it was missing from the plans, it is believed
that the Review Committee did not see the elevations, it was
not presented to them, neither did City Hall or the City plan
check, elevations were left to imagination, the plans were
incomplete, no detail. When he saw the plans he tried to
understand what exactly the Brody's were doing, are they
trying to eliminate the old chimney, leave it in place, there
is a note in one corner that says fireplace to be removed,
another note says new fireplace and new chimney, there is no
place that shows the old chimney, whether it will stay or be
removed, proper detail would have shown if they wanted to
remove the old chimney, it is expensive and a lot of work,
the chimney is resting on a foundation, will the foundation
be removed or not, if removed it will affect the structure of
the house, if the chimney remains why is it not shown on the
plans. Mr. Demeter asked how someone from the Architectural
Review Committee, which is so committed to see the general
maintenance of the planned community, can judge such
drawings, the plan checker at City Hall can only judge from
what is seen, there is not enough manpower to survey each
addition in the City, therefor there is concealed information
in the plans, who would want to see this information, it is
the neighbor directly behind, that is he and his family. He
claimed to not have seen the plans until attending his first
meeting, the rest he must guess, the CC&R's provide that
plans like this be circulated for view and comments of
neighbors, they did not have that chance nor did the other
neighbors, whether the concealment of the details are
intentional or unintentional is beside the point, they are
just missing. Mr. Demeter showed the same elevation but with
the chimney removed, a drastic change from the architectural
configuration, different from what the Centex Homes architect
concept was, to him it is a monster, and he will see it every
day from his backyard and his windows. Mr. Demeter posed the
question as to whether he is affected, showed a drawing of
the two structures, the Brody addition with a window that he
claimed is above the fence and his home with a potential
addition that the City will allow, straight line house to
house is eleven feet, roof to roof is nine feet, diagonally
I
3-25-02
ten and twelve feet, too close, which he will see every day.
What if this addition happens, the Brody house will come
within one foot six inches from the Demeter house back
property line instead of ten feet, the roof will be six
inches from the Demeter property line, these are projections,
if he were to stand in the corner of his backyard he would be
able to stretch his hand and touch their roof, the Brody
family would be able to look into the Demeter yard from the
side window at only a six foot distance. The chimney they
are proposing will be eleven feet six inches from the Demeter
yard, twenty-five feet six inches from the house, the chimney
will be twenty-seven feet high, hypothetically should that
chimney fall it would fall into his yard and onto his house,
from his second floor window at only fifteen feet distance he
will see three hundred thirty-four feet of roof, no one else
at this time would see so much roof, and from the second
floor he would see the same chimney of a little more than
twenty-five feet. Mr. Demeter said this is why they are so
impacted by this addition, he too claimed that the plans were
rubber stamped, there was no attachment or similar thing done
for solutions although they were prepared, three solutions
were presented. He noted that the Brody's filed their
application on December 17th, what is not said is that that
application was preceded by their application of late
November, 2001 prior to close of their escrow which was
December 6th, the CC&R's would invalidate the application
since the applicant must be a member of the Association, the
City is not so remote from this as it mandated the
development, the CC&R's were part of the agreement and
obligations to respect the new homeowners, therefore when the
CC&R's are not respected the City must step in. Mr. Demeter
referred to attachment 8 which provides that the Planning
Commission has the right to revoke or modify the site plan
review if any violations of the approved conditions occur, to
that he said he would urge the Planning Commission to
exercise that right to avoid the detriment created by the
construction to adjoining and other affected neighbors, the
question is then should they revoke, perhaps that is too
harsh to the applicant, he would suggest that modification
would be more appropriate, there are modifications that could
be done, there is room for modifications, in fact the agenda
clearly identifies a third option. Mr. Demeter clarified
that the appeal is to oppose the three hundFed twenty-four
square foot construction if it is built in the exact shape
and form as presented, they are not totally against any
addition, it is understood that the Brody's need to add
something to their room, they would even support the addition
if it were done more reasonably and not so intrusive, in an
attachment to the agenda report there are some ideas
presented, one is to eliminate a chimney, which he believes
would be wise, a modification that would be desired by his
side, yet demolition of the existing chimney is a major
modification to the developer's architectural concept, their
belief is that technically the'chimney could stay even if
they remove the fireplace, besides saving considerable money
for the owner, it would save the neighbors from the dust and
pollution as a result of the demolition, the extension could
be reduced anywhere from nine to ten feet at the back and
maintain the safety corridor, there could be a fire generated
by an earthquake or other causes, the backyard is an area of
escape. In looking at the three alternatives, the first
would deny the appeal and make himself and others very
unhappy and perhaps angry, the second was to sustain the
appeal, that would make the Brody's unhappy, it would also be
precedent setting just like the addition, the real precedent
I
I
I
3-25-02
I
is that this addition should have had more community
homeowners review and not by clerks or staff people in an
office elsewhere. Mr. Demeter expressed his preference for
alternative three, it could be a win/win situation, that can
be accomplished with the help of the City. He reported
having conversations with the Brody's on several occasions,
however avoids the subject now as it is understood that his
attorney will get upset, he respects that, he also expressed
appreciation to the Director of Development Services for the
manner in which the agenda report was prepared, it opens a
positive door to a friendly solution, offered his personal
help in any capacity given his technical experience, would be
willing to work with Mr. Brody to find a technical scenario
that will work for all, his addition would require certain
arrangements inside as well that can be worked out, he would
be willing to suggest several cost saving,measures that may
not have been looked into, urged that approval not be made in
haste, randomly, or capriciously, in favor of one homeowner
and cause damage to another, avoid concealment of information
from the plans, concealment that is assumed was not
intentional, again suggested focus on alternative three where
it seems there could be things that would lead to an
acceptable conclusion, let the Council, staff, neighbors, and
the Brody's work in harmony.
I
Ms. Rebecca Cooper, the neighbor directly behind the Brody
home, agreed with the presentation, her family is also
concerned with setting a precedent and life style, and
implored that options be looked at. Mr. Stan Nathanson,
adjacent neighbor and newly elected member of the Old Ranch
Community Association, clarified however that he was speaking
as a homeowner, not as a member of the Board. Mr. Nathanson
stated the Council is being asked to make a very difficult
decision, as was said there is a possibility that someone is
going to be made happy and unhappy, that is not wanted, they
are present because of possible loopholes in the CC&R's that
allowed Mr. Brody to present his application for an addition
prior to becoming a homeowner, they should have been advised
of that from the beginning, and the Architectural Review
Committee, as the Board of Directors at that time was made up
solely of members of Centex Homes, the CC&R's also were
written so that there was no appeal, the Planning Commission
notice was the first time this was known, ten of the twenty-
three homeowners that had moved in at that time attended a
meeting at his house and formed an AD HOC Committee, that was
almost half of the homeowners, they signed a petition to the
Homeowners Association requesting that they review their
action and not allow the planned expansion to be built the
way it was submitted, the Homeowners Association chose not to
take action, stood by their original vote and again there was
no appeal. Mr. Nathanson stated that they are the
homeowners, and they are being lead by a benevolent
dictatorship, finally that is changing, there are now two
homeowners on the Board of Directors and within a few months
there will be more homeowners on the Board, thereafter it
will be all homeowners. There needs to be a way to resolve
this situation so that Mr. Brody is not upset, as well as Mr.
Demeter and Mrs. Cooper, so that they can all live together,
even this evening Mr. Brody would not speak to him as he is
part of the opposition, this is a new community, not a good
way to start a relationship, thus he is looking to the
Council to find a way so that all parties can walk away from
this meeting possibly with heads held high, he does not know
the answer other than possibly put these people together to
develop a plan that all can live with. He acknowledged that
I
3-25-02
Mr. Brody has the right to expand, a right to build, Mr.
Demeter and the Cooper's have a right to live in a house that
is not affected by the expansion. These new residents have
nowhere else to go, they are simply appealing to the Council
to find a way to somehow allow people to live together
without someone imposing their will on someone else without
the benefit of ,their voice being heard, no one's voice was
heard on this. When Mr. Brody submitted his application,
properly submitted, most of the homes were vacant yet sold,
the owners had not yet moved in, however he is required to
have the signature of all of the people adjacent to and
affected by his construction, he has two neighbors on each
side, two neighbors behind that are directly affected, as
well as two other adjacent neighbors, one signature was from
his neighbor who would not even see the addition and 'another
person adjacent to that, that person has since rescinded her
approval, no one else, saw the plans, the residents are
trapped, unable to do anything about this, there needs to be
a way where Mr. Brody will not be upset and where the
property of Mr. Demeter will not be impacted. Ms. Sapiro
Vandee stated that she lives two houses away from the Demeter
family, she is not directly affected by this project but one
needs to go to the Demeter home and see how their property
would be affected by this addition, you can not feel the
impact on their house from the drawings. Ms. Vandee said she
wants to change the sliding door to her backyard but she was
not allowed to do that, she needs the signature of seven
neighbors even if they can not see it, she may have to wait
four to six weeks and then they may deny the request, yet in
the case of Brody the addition was approved, that is not
right, there needs to be a compromise for everyone to be
happy.
I
I
The City Attorney requested that the Council afford the owner
of the subject home the same privilege as the appellant for
due process reasons, the same amount of time as the appellant
received.
Ms. Nicole Milan stated she too resides in the new community,
will not be affected by the construction of the Brody
extended house, she has a neighbor on each side, no one
behind except the existing community of Rossmoor and a park.
The fact that the Brody'S want to add on should not be an
issue, everyone else is so that, her neighbor next door is
adding a fountain, she goes to bed early and she will hear
the water, each house can see everyone's backyard, it matters
not if it is one or another or on the second story, that is
the way the community is built, another resident is doing a
built-in barbecue, it is not for her to tell them what to
build, she will see it regardless, people are beginning to
put in landscaping which also needs approval, at the home
that already has landscaping one can not see into his
backyard because the trees are already up, that will be the
same case when others do their landscaping, most everyone
will put in trees, yet the second level floors will be seen,
in her opinion everyone should be able to do what they want
with their yards. Mr. Barry Ross, attorney for Mr. and Mrs.
Brody, stated that this project meets all of the City
requirements for approval, the report from staff states also
that this project meets all setback, height, and lot coverage
requirements, they only need to comply with all City
requirements to have approval as does this room addition,
that is why the Planning Director recommended approval to the
Planning Commission who in turn approved the project. The
Demeter family have concerns with a variety of issues many of
I
3-25-02
I
which are of no concern to the City Council, they feel that
the process by which this project was approved by their
Homeowners Association was not fair and hastily done, those
issues are between the Demeter's and the Association, they
were unhappy also that the Board of the Homeowners
Association consisted of all developer representatives yet
this is standard procedure in the industry for community
associations, commonly referred to as developer transition,
that is also contained in the CC&R's that everyone signed.
Mr. Ross noted that the Demeter's mentioned issues of concern
with regard to safety, fire, earthquakes, to which he said
all of those issues, to the extent they exist, will be
addressed when the Brody's comply with all of the
requirements of the City Building Department, at that point
all requirements relating to safety will be ,addressed, many
of the comments by the Demeter's related to aesthetics as
well, aesthetics is an issue of the Homeowners Association
that does not lie with the City Council, rather it is whether
this project complies with all requirements for site plan
review, and as stated by himself and the Director, it does.
I
Mr. Cary Brody, owner of 12282 Bridgewater Way, noted that
they made a deposit on this property last April, nearly a
year to date, they then checked with Centex Homes, the
CC&R'S, the City, communicated with so many people that he is
offended by someone saying that they had not, they visited
the site weekly, spoke with the builders, let them know of
their plans, checked with the Homeowners Association to make
sure things were going correctly, hired an architect/
contractor, then submitted the plans. Mr. Brody said the
chronology is important, claimed that the Demeter's have
misrepresented on almost every statement the facts, fuzzy
math, his own drawings, not the actual drawings, they are not
the site plan, what is before the Council is basically the
site plan, the estimate as to how far out the addition goes
is quite close. Mr. Brody stated that they are asking for
nothing more than any other homeowner in this City is
entitled to, they found out that there was a maximum buildout
of their home, a footprint of fifty percent of the lot, what
is being requested is less than forty-eight percent, they do
not want a second story yet they could have added over eight
hundred square feet to their house, in deference to the
community they wanted to keep it low rise, their goal is just
to add onto the family room that is smaller than the bathroom
and closet area of the master bedroom, it is a little
disproportionate, the existing family room is tiny, the
fireplace is in a corner, when they bought the home, looked
at the CC&R'S, they knew what they were getting into, they
did not hide anything, the Architectural Committee could have
said at any time that the addition did not look right, that
was not the case, it will be beautiful when finished using
the same stucco color, the same tile, the same looking
chimney, using the same windows and adding one that looks
like the others, it will have french doors and will improve
the value of the entire community. Mr. Brody posed the
question as to why he had an attorney present, they found
that the Demeter's daughter is an attorney, one speaker said
he had looked him in the eye and did not say hello, Mr.
Demeter said he too wants to add on to his property, wants to
add a wall, he came by this past Sunday with a flier which
asked that it be returned with a response by March 26th, lack
of response would be considered as an agreement to go ahead
and replace the shared wooden fence with a block wall, the
question, is that true, how would he find out, check with the
Planning Department, does this mean that he has to respond by
I
3-25-02
tomorrow, is this a demand, Alina Demeter is an attorney so
he had to hire one, he would not have done that, he would
have dealt with the homeowners, but once they had an attorney
he and his wife were getting demands similar to this. He
claimed the Homeowner meetings are unbelievable, there was a
Homeowner meeting where the management company had to have
two attorneys present, that was the result of Alina Demeter,
they have used the threat of attorney on his family
consistently, twice Mr. Demeter has made this comment, once
he came with architectural plans that he asked to have
initialed, they are only initialed to show that notice has
been received, then one can go to the Homeowners Association
to look at the plan in depth, anyone suggesting that they did
not do that is incorrect, they presented a statement that
told of the interest in adding on, they only needed to
initial that they had been noticed, some think that approval
from them is necessary, it is not. Mr. Brody offered that
during the conversation with Mr. Demeter they spoke about
plans of another neighb9r that is intending to spend about
$60,000 on landscaping, Mr. Demeter made the statement that
he was not planning to spend that kind of money on
landscaping, to which Mr. Brody said he agreed, the Demeter
come back comment was that Brody would need his money for
other things, that comment was made twice, therefore the need
to retain an attorney, what next, what will transpire in the
future, his project met all requirements, it was approved,
the project should have been completed by now. Mr. Brody
invited the Council to view pictures that he presented of his
home, a front view, right side view, a picture of the model,
and asked if anyone could tell by viewing the pictures what
is in the backyard, there is something in the backyard of
that model that needs architectural approval, the home blocks
the view and there is landscaping, he plans to do landscaping
as well, including trees, he too wants some privacy, the
landscaping will be presented for approval by the
Architectural Committee. The plan for his home is indented
at the rear, the top of the home is cantilevered, his
addition would go seventeen feet from there yet only fourteen
feet from the end of his house, he directed attention to the
homes across the street from the models, still under
construction, the backyards are thirteen to fifteen feet at
the most, the yard is tiny. He made reference to the home
plans where some jet out, three can not see to the north if .
standing in the backyard because of the Demeter home which is
one that jets out, that is a two story home, his request is
merely a single story addition, everyone on his side, with
the exception of those on the north side, will have ten feet
to look at the garden center of Target but everyone will be
able to look the opposite direction and see north, from the
end of his addition it is ten feet to the rear, the math from
corner to corner is fuzzy math, it is in excess of twenty
feet. The chimneys are those that exist in the community
today, there will be seventy-eight homes, one home is yellow,
all of the rest are earth tones, that is of interest because
it is somewhat different but is part of the color pallet, it
is the color of the Cape Cod model, the homes will be
different and as the area evolves they will continue to be
different. Mr. Brody passed out photographs of the homes,
area, and views, as well as a set of trees that are
approximately ten feet, noted that Mr. Demeter wants a six
foot wall, suggesting that they build a higher wall by one
foot, he would agree with that, is it felt that everyone is
going to add trees and landscaping to their backyards, he is
not suggesting that he will plant trees to hide his addition,
quite the contrary because it will be a great addition,
I
I
I
3-25-02
I
therefore in six months no one will see the addition but they
will see the yellow house, one out of seventy-eight that is
yellow, whenever someone puts something in their front yard
everyone will see it, no one will see his addition. Mr.
Brody stated again that they followed all of the rules, did
everything the City wanted done, what the CC&R's wanted, they
planned an addition that will look great, and no one will see
it when it is finished, even the Demeters, this process was
started with a set of rules, now the Demeters want to change
the rules, even used an example of the City of Alameda as to
how they look rear lot lines, this is Seal Beach. Mr. Brody
asked, on behalf of his family and the other residents, those
that have supported his plan, that the Council approve what
any other homeowner in the City of Seal Beach is entitled to,
nothing different.
I
Mr. Lee McMullin said he is the property directly behind the
Demeter property and just to the north of the Brody property,
which is proposed for the improvement. Mr. McMullin said
their improvement will block their view of the Target Center,
notwithstanding that issue, he looks at this from a slightly
different viewpoint, not with the same emotional charge that
he has heard, his concerns are that he has to presume the
construction plans submitted met the City Codes and
requirements, this would not have reached this level if it
had not gone through this process, he also has to presume in
good faith that the contractual issues of the CC&R's for the
Old Ranch Community Association were also followed otherwise
the Board, whether they are liked or not and at that time was
comprised of Centex people, would not have approved it, if
they had not approved it then they would not have been able
to submit the plans to the City for subsequent approval, it
is believed that this is before the Council because the
process allows for an appeal to be filed, his feeling is that
this is a homeowners issue within the confines of the
Community Association contract which sets forth everything
that has to be done and if the appellant has an issue with
whether or not those rules were properly followed it then
becomes a breach of contract of issue, the City is not the
source to have that issue resolved, this issue is on the
doorstep of the Council because the system has allowed it to
reach the Council, and since the Planning Commission and the
Community Association have both approved this, whether the
decision is liked or not it is binding under contract as he
and everyone else is bound as a member of the Association, if
what that Board did is not liked his option would be to vote
them out and put someone else in through the electorate
process, doing an end run defeats the spirit of the CC&R's
and the entire process, he also believes there are others in
development who share that opinion.
I
Ms. Carol Brody stated that her husband has been in this
community for a long time with the school district, they
moved to be closer to the school, their children attend the
High School. Ms. Brody said they had talked to the Demeters
countless times before they both closed escrow, the Demeters
knew of their plans, there was no idea of their opposition
until they came to the Planning Commission meeting in
January, this process has been going on since November, it
has been taxing to think that they have done everything to
the letter throughout, they have only requested three hundred
twenty-four square feet, where it is believed that eight
hundred fifty-one could have been requested, this is a small
addition compared to what they could have done within lot
coverage. Ms. Brody said she would hope this will be
3-25-02
resolved this evening in their favor, there were several
neighbors that were not able to be present however signed in
favor of additions provided they meet the guidelines of the
CC&R's and the City Code, to which she said they have done
that well in excess of the Code, their coverage is forty-
eight percent where there is a fifty percent maximum, there
are many hearings where people exceed Code with their
requests. Ms. Brody requested approval.
I
Mr. Demeter made reference to the fuzzy pictures comment,
stated they are exact, his profession is a licensed engineer,
he has a masters degree in electrical engineering, his wife
has a masters in physics, they deal with exact matters, they
do not lie, they look at things the way they are, the
pictures are drawn through computer design down to a
sixteenth of an inch. They do not like people to twist
matters in a different direction, they understood the CC&R's
very well, it was clear to them that they live in a community
and have to share with their neighbors everything being done
to their property that would affect them, that is the spirit
of the CC&R's. The addition to his home was hypothetical, he
mayor may not do that, he reserves the right to have that
addition and that will reduce the distance between the
structures by the exact amount indicated on his pictures,
that will be seen after this addition is built' and no one
will tear it down like it or not, that is why he is present
to propose the common ground, his appeal is not only to the
City Council but also to Mr. Brody to come to his senses and
start working with the rest of the members of the community.
Mr. Demeter stated there was a twist with the way it was
interpreted how he had walked around with his plans, said he
has drawn his own landscaping plans and understood that
everyone around his property should see them, that was the
spirit of the CC&R'S, the Architectural Review Committee as
presently appointed by Centex Homes is reviewing the plans,
they requested that he show the plans to the neighbors, the
proof that they have been shown is the signature, of course
Mr. Brody could have not signed the plans but he could not
deny that he has seen them. It was stated by Mr. Brody
stated that he had seen the Brody plans before, he would say
no, he had not seen the plans until coming to City Hall, even
after seeing the plans he could not understand what he was
doing because of the missing elements, elevations, and
dimensions, for him as an engineer it is an insult to his
intelligence. Mr. Demeter stated that he still wants to
cooperate with Mr. Brody, still call for Mr. Brody to come to
his senses and work on this together.
I
Mayor Doane declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Boyd moved to deny the appeal and sustain the
decision of the Planning Commission as set forth in
Resolution Number 4987 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING AN APPEAL,
SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND
APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 02-1, PERMITTING A 324 SQUARE
FOOT FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AT THE REAR OF 12282
BRIDGWATER WAY." Councilman Larson seconded the motion. By
unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4987 was
waived.
I
Councilmember Campbell expressed her opinion that this is a
matter that should not be before the Council, it should be
before the homeowners, it is the Homeowners Association that
has let the residents down, these are very nice people,
3-25-02
I
neighbors, but this is something that should have first been
decided by a true homeowners board, of which there is none at
present, her feeling is that Centex should not have promised
even before escrow. closed that this addition could be done.
It was stated that they did not. Councilmember Campbell said
inconsistencies are seen with the homeowners, this past March
two residents were placed on the Homeowners Board and
inquired when the other three will be on the Board. The
Director of Development Services responded that there are two
different groups being discussed, a Board for the Homeowners
Association and an Architectural Review Committee, the
provisions of the CC&R's indicate that the Architectural
Review Committee will be members of the builder until
September 21st, 2002, there may be members of the Board that
are residents prior to that point, there has been an
election, that has occurred, all of which is a provision of
the CC&R's.
An individual in the audience identified himself as a member
of the Board of Directors elected by the community, said the
Homeowners Association have three members that are members of
Centex, if they resign they are replaced by the existing
Board, it is a five member Board, three are Centex, two are
homeowners at this time, those that plan to resign by August
will be replaced by homeowners.
I
The City Attorney stated for the purpose of the record, that
the public hearing was reopened for this last limited
purpose, no one left the room at the time the public hearing
was closed, the hearing was reopened, and is going to be
closed once again. He mentioned also that the Council does
have to keep in mind that questions about the Architectural
Committee is not part of this appeal, the appeal is solely
whether the additional three hundred twenty-four square feet
complies with the City Code ~nd is compatible with the
neighborhood.
I
Once again Councilmember Campbell stated that these are nice
people however their Homeowners Association failed them, it
appears there was not proper notifications, there is not
adequate representation, and is a division in the community.
She mentioned that the Brody's have not exceeded the lot
coverage, would they be amenable to making some type of
modifications in the plans so that both property owners could
go away with something, possibly the Demeter's and Brody's
could meet and determine if there is some way to soften the
project since it was the Association that failed them.
Councilman Yost stated he continues to be amazed at how two
groups of people can see the same situation so differently, a
completely different perception of reality. In this case if
the project meets all of the rules and regulations he could
not see where there are grounds to not approve the project,
however it sounds as if the homeowners will shortly take
control of the Homeowners Association and Architectural
Committee, then things will go forward in a different way.
Councilman Larson agreed with Councilmember Campbell, many
things went into this issue, many years ago he learned to
never buy an odd shaped lot, part of this problem is its
design, this subdivision has gone through a number of legal
actions, etc., it was said no one would buy a home there, he
can not imagine what the Brody's could have done other than
to inquire as to the law, be told what the law is, they were
not told that the law is wrong, they are within the setback
requirement and that is it, and this Council can not settle a
dispute with a property owners association, this matter would
3-25-02
never have been before the Council except for the fact that
this area was put in the planned development agreement so
that the City could see what was being done with the
commercial properties. Councilmember Campbell stated she
would vote as did her Planning Commissioner, her preference
would be that this be held over until September yet that is
not reasonable either.
Vote on the motion to deny the appeal and sustain the
decision of the Planning Commission:
I
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Boyd, Doane, Larson, Yost
None
Campbell
Motion carried
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
No report was presented.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
No report was presented.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
With reference to an earlier comment relating to cable
television rates in Leisure World, Councilmember Campbell
explained that the criteria is not qualifying as a senior
citizen, in Leisure World it is the way the billing is
,structured, the Golden Rain Foundation receives only one bill
and in turn bills the residents, through that method Leisure
World has a lower cable rate. She noted however that there
are occasions when seniors do receive exemptions, the utility
users tax is a good example. Councilmember Campbell
mentioned too the comment as to why she and Councilman Yost
are involved in the Trailer Park, that is because when the
residents proposed the purchase of the Park Councilman Yost
was the Agency Chairman and she was the Vice Chair.
I
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to adjourn the meeting until April 8th at 6:00 p.m. to meet
in the Conference Room. By unanimous consent, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:53 p.m.
clerk
Approved:
I
Attest: