HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2000-03-13
2-28-00 / 3-13-00
Approved:
It::
Attest:
I
Seal Beach, California
March 13, 2000
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
session at 7:02 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to
order. The Salute to the Flag was led by Girl Scout Troop
2234. Each Scout was introduced by the Troop Leader, the
Scouts in turn presented each member of the Council with a
box of Girl Scout cookies.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Yost
Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow
Absent:
None
Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development
Services
Mr. Badum, Director of Public Works/City
Engineer
Chief Sellers, Police Department
Chief Cushman, Lifeguard Department
Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation and Parks
Mr. Dorsey, Assistant to the City Manager
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
I
WAIVER OF FULL READING
By unanimous consent, the reading in full of all ordinances
and resolutions was waived and the consent to the waiver of
reading was deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after
reading of the title unless specific request is made at that
time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution.
PRESENTATION
The proclamation designating the week of March 11th, 2000 as
"Girl Scout Week" was read in full by Councilmember Campbell
and in turn presented to Troop 2234.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilman Boyd requested that Item "N", the report relating
to a Historic Preservation Program, be continued until the
last meeting in April. A member of the audience requested
that Items "c, J, and K" be removed from the Consent
Calendar, and the audience was informed that public comments
would be accepted with regard to Item "A-l", meeting
procedural rules. Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to approve
the order of the agenda as amended.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
3-13-00
I
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Yost declared the Public Comment period to be open and
advised that each speaker would be allowed five minutes. Ms.
Kim Shearer, an owner of John's Market for the past five
years, addressed her comments to the proposed newsrack
ordinance, explaining that for four years she has requested
that something be done with regard to the newsracks on the
side of their building, and it is hoped this concern will now
be addressed. Ms. Shearer stated there are eighty-three
newspaper and periodical racks on Main Street, nine are
Orange County job publications, there are eighteen racks
along John's Market, seven more than at any other Main Street
location, five appear to have been abandoned since November
of 1999, four are free newspapers which brings forth the
question if the City receives any revenue from those. She
noted that Pavilions has four racks in front of their store,
Sav-On has six, there seems to be an imbalance of the
placement of the racks. Besides the obvious unattractive
look that this number of racks gives to Old Town Main Street
there are also a number of other issues such as colors,
various sizes, some old, some new, for John's there is also a
problem with the area being a dumping ground for cups,
bottles, cigarettes, food, trash underneath the racks, etc.,
for which the store hires people to clean, also, it becomes a
seating area for youths who in turn often harass people as
they walk by, they are a hazard by reducing the walking space
of the sidewalks, not to mention wheelchair access. Ms.
Shearer explained that the Market has been told they can not
control the space yet it is their responsibility to maintain
it, deal with the problems the racks cause, only to look at
fifty feet of unsightliness on a daily basis. She said the
need for the racks is understood yet the Market would like to
see an effective approval process, standardization,
maintenance, and the issues addressed. Mr. Jim Caviola,
Ocean Avenue, referred to the overlay zone item, claimed
there to be a serious issue with regard to the noticing,
apparently notices were sent to properties within three
hundred feet of 7th Street yet the overlay zone is from Seal
Beach Boulevard to First Street, Code Section 65094 requires
general information to be considered and a general
description in text or by diagram of the location, the notice
provides no description of the location and there is no
question that the affected area is three hundred feet of the
entire overlay zone, Pacific Coast Highway, not just from 8th
Street, it would be an injustice to go forward without giving
notice to those people. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, claimed
he was not recognized by the Chair at the time of approval of
the agenda, stated that the wording on the agenda has been
changed where in the past a member of the public could object
to the approval of the agenda, that has been omitted and
needs to be corrected. Mr. Clewley stated his objection to
amendments to Resolution 4679, it is a Council Item to be
adopted by the Council without public comment, his specific
objection would be with eliminating the second Public Comment
period, which he deemed to be important and made reference to
an October 22nd, 1997 news article that published a quote of
his comments, the discussion had been in regard to the
Hellman Ranch project, thereafter there were a number of
groups that brought legal action against the Coastal
Commission as a result. Mr. Clewley stated he wished to
speak to Item A-l, to which he was advised that the public
had been informed that they could speak to that item. Mr.
Clewley said he wished to speak to Item "R" as well. Mr.
Barry Hartwick, Crestview Avenue, thanked the Council for
their efforts towards the defeat of Measure M which will
I
I
3-13-00
provide a quality retail center, noting that the citizens did
speak in favor of the project, he also congratulated
Councilmember Campbell on her re-election. He reminded the
Council that the Old Ranch Tennis Club is for all of the
residents of Seal Beach, and although he lives on the Hill he
has used the facility to play tennis twice a week for twelve
years, he and his family will continue to use the facility.
Mr. Hartwick stated this is a wonderful community, that
primarily because of the hard work of the current and former
City Council members and City officials, progressive while
maintaining a community minded small town atmosphere that has
attracted all of the residents to Seal Beach. His first
contact was with the Director of Development Services who was
very friendly and helpful and suggested avenues that
eventually led to he and his wife buying their current home,
in fact every official he has had contact with have been
wonderful ambassadors for the City. Mr. Hartwick expressed
his objection to those who speak from the podium at each
meeting to tear down the City, the employees, and
Councilmembers, he and a vast majority of residents are tired
of that, these persons never do anything to improve the
quality of life of the community, this type of behavior is
destructive to morale and esteem of the City officials and
Councilmembers. He urged that the Mayor gavel down the
people who attack the City officials personally and continue
to repeat unsubstantiated objections to matters before the
Council. Mr. Hartwick noted accomplishments of the City
Manager, whom he claimed is worth more than the $75,000 loan
for his home, during his tenure the City has gone from no
reserve to an $800,000 surplus, the City received a $1
million grant from the State to enhance ocean quality, beach
maintenance, and a regional bike trail, the Police Department
has undergone restructuring which has resulted in substantial
productivity gains, there has been a $250,000 grant to
convert Police and Public Works vehicles to natural gas, the
City successfully competed for a $248,000 grant for trees,
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks for Seal Beach Boulevard and
westminster Avenue, Hellman Ranch has been limited to seventy
homes which was originally slated for a major development
project, a grant was received for $813,000 to replenish the
beaches and recouped $180,000 from FEMA for the 1993 storm
damage. Mr. Hartwick said when people only consider costs
they are shortsighted, in this case the City got a good deal.
Ms. Mitzi Morton, Seal Beach, apologized that she may be one
of those persons to which there was reference even though she
has never before come before a Council to criticize the
Manager, staff, or employees. Ms. Morton noted that it
continues to be stated that the City has no money yet tonight
the Council will be voting for another salary increase for
the City Manager, the Manager has done a good job on a number
of things but her feeling is that the Manager should not be
rewarded for the manner in which the dismissal of the Finance
Director was handled, also given the settlement that is
taking place for some $140,000 plus attorney fees, this would
not have occurred if the Manager had used discretion and
taken some time, there is also another lawsuit pending the
cost of which is unknown. Ms. Morton objected to the
proposed two percent increase. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach,
agreed with the prior speaker, adding that lawsuits go on for
many years, the costs to the City as a result of the actions
of the Manager are immeasurable, risk management by contract
will not pay for any of this because it is willful. She said
for many months the activities of the Manager have been known
yet nothing has been done to curtail them, it was agreed at
that last meeting to provide the Manager with a raise however
without an evaluation, the increase was not announced because
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-13-00
it might have an affect on the election, and the Trailer Park
was urged to vote against Measure M as a reward for the
$20,000 to cover costs associated with purchase of the Park.
Ms. Corbin claimed there is a lien against the Trailer Park
property so direct financing will never be obtained. She
made reference to the supportive comments relating to the
Bixby Tennis Facility by one speaker, yet said most of the
courts will be leased, and it needs to be realized that the
citizens will have to pay the bills created by the actions of
the Manager. According to comments, she questioned how it is
known that the second Public Comment period will be deleted,
no one wants to hear how certain animals were left at the
Animal Care Center, how consulting work was done for the
Bixby project, at a recent meeting a report was given as to
how the Hellman property development was moving along, to
which Ms. Corbin claimed that was untrue, the Attorney
General pulled the settlement, that because Hellman was
proposing to build down into the wetlands. There being no
further comments, Mayor Yost declared Public Comments to be
closed.
",
COUNCIL ITEMS
Councilman Boyd mentioned that periodically the Council
revises its procedural rules for the conduct of meetings, the
order of business, time limits, changes in law, taking a look
at how the meetings are run, be open to public participation
as much as possible, and noted that certain changes are being
proposed to existing Resolution 4679.
Councilman Boyd commenced a review of the changes, to Section
3 relating to Special Meetings, additional language that
would allow notice to members of the Council, news media,
etc. by facsimile or other electronic transmission, however
the requirement to publish or post notices would continue.
Mr. Clewley asked how the public would then be noticed of
special meetings, the public has a right to know, to that
Councilman Boyd restated that this would only be for
notification to the members of the Council and the press.
Mr. Gordon Shanks, Seal Beach, said if an issue relating to
special meetings were to arise a list of people could be kept
to be noticed by phone. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to
approve the amendment to Section 3.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
with regard to Section 5, Councilman Boyd suggested the
addition of a new category of business identified as
subsection "e", Announcements, to allow the Mayor or members
of the Council to make announcements of interest to the
public early in the meeting where at present they are
typically not made until near the end of a meeting when
people have left or have turned off their television sets.
Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve the addition of
"Announcements" to the Order of Business.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
Again with regard to Section 5, Order of Business, Councilman
Boyd noted that according to recent case law in California
there can no longer be a limitation of time for public
comments therefore he suggested that the thirty minute time
frame for the first Public Comment period be deleted. Boyd
moved, second by Yost, to delete the thirty minute period for
3-13-00
the first Public Comments, as set forth in Section 5.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
Given that action, Councilman Boyd suggested that the second
Public Comment period then be deleted from Section 5, the
Order of Business. To a question relating to limitation of
public speaking time, Councilman Boyd stated that although
this had been considered, he would not propose that the time
be reduced from five to three minutes, that five minutes
remain in effect.
I
Mr. Jim Caviola, Seal Beach, said the Council could not do
this, it is wrong. Dr. David Rosenman, Seal Beach, stated
that one of the reasons he lives in a small town is to have
the ability to let the City know what the concerns are, given
actions by the Council during the course of a meeting
sometimes the second Public Comment period is the only time
people have the opportunity to direct comments to the
Council, it should not be removed. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal
Beach, stated that. the Brown Act allows the public to speak
before and during, Long Beach and other cities allow the
public to speak to each item, Seal Beach does not allow
speaking to each item, this would require all comments to be
at the beginning of a meeting, it is not often that people
remain at a meeting until the end unless they wish to present
a concern or refute statements by the Council. Ms. Marilyn
Hastings, Seal Beach, said her preference would be that the
second Public Comment period not be deleted, many people work
late or are delayed in traffic and are unable to be here at
the beginning of the meetings, the reason why the Council
determined to extend public comments to the end of the
meeting some years ago is to afford an opportunity for those
people to speak. Ms. Fran Johnson, Coastline Drive,
expressed her belief that sometimes the second Public Comment
period is more important because by then there has been the
opportunity to see the actions of the Council. Mr. Gordon
Shanks, Surf Place, said there was a time not too long ago
when Oral Communications allowed people to.speak to 'new
business, all items, and remove items from the Consent
Calendar, that is no longer the case, that was basically the
reason for the second Oral Communications, to eliminate the
second is felt to be cutting back unnecessarily, the three or
four recent meetings where there were election discussions is
not the norm and will not continue, also, a number of times
there have been people watChing the proceedings from home who
then get in their cars and come to the Council meeting to
speak at the second Oral Communications, if deleted, that
eliminates their input. Mr. Shanks noted that there is a
newly elected member of the Council, it may be better to wait
on this issue until that person is seated. Mr. Reg Clewley,
Seal Beach, claimed to delete the second Public Comment
period would be wrong, many people can not be at the meeting
by 7:00 p.m., this just another way to eliminate public
comments. Councilman Doane said his understanding is that
Seal Beach is one of only a few cities that has more than one
public comment period. Mr. Bruce Bennett, 4th Street, spoke
in favor of the second Public Comment period, also, in the
past there have been entire sessions held on specific topics
at a larger site, this is a City where the public should have
the ability to present their input. In response to the
comment of Councilman Doane, the City Attorney stated that
cities have a wide range of practices, in general there are
very few cities that have two sessions yet some do, and in
I
I
3-13-00
I
that case typically the first is limited to items on the
agenda, the second is on any topic including items that have
already been dealt with or still being considered by the
Council, some cities have thirty to sixty minutes at the
beginning, some allow opportunity for public comments on any
item on the agenda with no specific period set aside for
public comments. Councilmember Campbell made reference to a
paragraph in a letter she received, which could be a reason
for this suggestion, the letter stating that although they do
not always agree with the Council on issues they do agree on
civility, often wondering how the members of the Council can
sit there through such abuse by the usual naysayers week
after week, if they were supporters of Measure M, which they
were not, they would have changed their vote simply in light
of the negative forces that desperately need a life, thanks
to the Council for what they go through each week, it is
known that this is participatory democracy but it does not
get much more counter-productive. Councilmember Campbell
said what is often difficult is dealing with the lack of
civility and decorum by some, that turns people off,
therefore she can see how this point has been reached, the
situation during the election was that the same people
criticized the Council on several occasions during a meeting,
if a comment is made once why should it be allowed a second
time. Councilman Boyd said he believed this to be a
misnomer, the Council, staff, and the public are allowed to
pull any item from the Consent Calendar, that has always been
the case, also, to any item that is pulled by the pUblic then
any member of the public has been allowed to speak to it as
well, that is not proposed to be changed. To the comment
with regard to people coming from their homes to speak after
the fact at the end of a meeting to an action that has been
taken, Councilman Boyd suggested that that may be an
opportunity for the person to use civility, calm down, and
present their views at the next meeting, the Council would
still have time to reconsider their prior action, the
suggested revisions to the procedures do not prevent
reverting back to present procedures if deemed necessary, the
public is not being limited, reminded that meetings of the
Council are in fact business meetings of the City.
Councilman Snow indicated his concurrence with Councilman
Boyd. Mayor Yost disagreed with the concept, in his opinion
the more time the public has to participate the better, his
feeling is that when one allows criticism of oneself they
make themselves stronger, criticism does not bother him, he
feels comfortable with the decisions he makes or he would not
be making them nor would he be sitting where he is, stated he
would be opposed to deleting the second oral communications
as he goes out of his way to let people speak. Councilman
Boyd agreed that public participation is important and it
should not be limited, however it is the responsibility of
the Council to conduct an orderly business meeting, and
during his membership on the Council over the past two years
the second oral communications has not lent itself to doing
that. He indicated his intent to make a motion to delete the
second oral communication period and if that does not work it
can be changed back. Mayor Yost countered that there is a
difference between an orderly meeting and public comments,
politics and government are messy but it is better than any
other. Councilman Doane inquired as to opinions relating to
the comments of the City Attorney should the second public
comment period be kept, the first for items on the agenda
only, the second on any subject. The Mayor stated his
agreement with that concept, Councilman Boyd objected, his
preference would be allowing public comments for five minutes
I
I
3-13-00
per speaker at the beginning of the meeting and then comments
on any item listed on the agenda. Councilmember Campbell
recalled that a few years ago there was a designated thirty
minutes at the beginning of the meeting for public comments,
the Mayor had the discretion of continuing public input or
advise the public that they could continue their comments at
the end of the meeting, or,. anyone speaking at the first
should not speak to the same topic during the second. There
may be several ways to look at this, inquired as to the
intent, to deter critical people will not be accomplished, if
the intent is to give people the opportunity to speak, making
mention of those who come rushing from home in their slippers
to speak, that is something that makes this town unique, she
would support the second oral communication period provided
the speakers do not repeat the same topic they spoke to
during the first period.
I
Boyd moved, second by Snow, to delete the second Public
Comment period from the Order of Business.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Doane, Snow
Campbell, Yost
Motion carried
It was clarified that this change will not take effect at
this meeting, and should it not work the second public
comment period could be considered to be reinstated.
Councilman Boyd noted a change to Section 6 to once again
place the Waiver of Reading on the Consent Calendar. Boyd
moved, second by Campbell, to approve this change to Section
6.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
I
with regard to Section 10, Councilman Boyd noted that the
change is merely a clarification of current practice whereby
items on the Consent Calendar are approved by one motion
unless 'prior to approval of the agenda' a member of the
Council, staff or public requests a specific item removed.
Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve the language added to
Section 10 as presented.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
The proposal to reduce the public speaking time of members of
the audience from five to three minutes, as reflected in
Section ll(a), was withdrawn.
As to Section 12, Councilman Boyd suggested the deletion of
the sentence 'Members of the Council shall not leave their
seats during a meeting without first obtaining the permission
of the presiding officer', and so moved. Councilmember
Campbell seconded the motion.
Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, said that language is in Roberts
Rules of Order, Roberts Rules are in the Charter, current
practice is unprofessional, the meeting needs to be run
inside the Council Chambers, follow Roberts Rules. Ms.
Francis Johnson, Seal Beach, said when speaking the public is
required to give their name, then should not the author of a
letter also be required to be identified. Councilmember
Campbell responded that she read an excerpt from a letter
however had not received permission of the author to be
I
3-13-00
I
identified. The City Attorney clarified that the language of
the existing Resolution provides that it is only members of
the Council that needed permission to leave the meeting,
staff may leave at any time without permission of the Chair,
and the section of the Charter relating to Roberts Rules will
be researched. It was the consensus to delay action on
amending Section 12 pending further report.
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "B" thru "L"
Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve the recommended
action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except
Items "C, J, and K", removed for separate consideration.
B. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting
of February 28th, 2000.
D. Received and filed the Monthly Investment
Report for December, 1999.
E. Adopted Resolution Number 4787 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED
AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT
#673, STANFORD, CAMELIA, BANYAN & COLUMBINE
OVERLAY, CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN SULLY
MILLER CONTRACTING COMPANY AND THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolution Number 4787 was waived.
F.
Adopted Resolution Number 4788 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED
AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT
#673, HARVARD LANE OVERLAY, CONTRACT ENTERED
INTO BETWEEN RJ NOBLE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolution Number 4788 was waived.
I
G. Adopted Resolution Number 4789 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED
AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT
#735, CONSTRUCTION OF THE PIER WATERLINE,
CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ATLAS-ALLIED,
INC. AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By
unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution
Number 4789 was waived.
H. Received and filed the Building Department
Activity Summary, December 1999.
I.
Adopted ReSOlution Number 4790 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
PARTICIPATION IN THE 2000 MORTGAGE CREDIT
CERTIFICATE PROGRAM IN COOPERATION WITH THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolution Number 4790 was waived.
I
L. Approved the License Agreement between the
City of Seal Beach, acting on behalf of the
Seal Beach Lifeguard Division, and the United
States Government, through the United States
Coast Guard, granting a License to position a
VHF-FM radio direction finding antenna on
3-13-00
Tower Zero at the Seal Beach Pier, said
Agreement in effect for the period of April 1,
2000 through March 31, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
I
ITEM "c" - DEMANDS
Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, claimed that the Council is not
checking the warrants, also inquired as to the nature of the
payment to Pacific Tek. The Director of Public Works
explained that that is for the recently approved portable
water vacuum.
Boyd moved, second by Yost, to approve regular demands
numbered 26690 through 26892 in the amount of $346,981.28,
payroll demands numbered 6932 through 7075 in the amount of
$230,628.93, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the
Treasury for same.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
ITEMS "J" and "K" - CLAIMS DENIAL - MUSZYNSKI/HELLEOTES and
BALLEW
Mayor Yost read the staff memorandums that set forth the
nature of the claims. MS. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, stated
that the Council could not vote on these claims without first
reviewing the claim form itself, it isa public document, a
memorandum is not sufficient. Councilman Boyd explained to
Ms. Corbin that each claim is reviewed by a Claims Review
Committee consisting of persons of department head level and
the City Clerk, their recommendation then forwarded to the
Council for action, the claims receive indepth scrutiny, this
process actually protects the taxpayers.
I
Boyd moved, second by Doane, to deny the claims of Mary
Muszynski, John Helleotes, Merissa Muszynski, Clarissa
Muszynski, and referred same to the City's claims adjuster
and liability counsel, and
to deny the claim of Robert Ballew and referred same to the
City's claims adjuster and liability counsel.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council,
to declare a recess at 8:13 p.m. The Council reconvened at
8:21 p.m. with'Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order.
CONTINUED ITEM - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4792 - PROCEDURAL RULES -
COUNCIL MEETINGS
At the request of the Council, the City Attorney, in response
a comment from the public, reported he has been unable to
locate the reference to Roberts Rules of Order in the City
Charter, however noted that the Redevelopment Agency By-Laws
are included in the same booklet containing the Charter,
although not part thereof, which does make reference to
Roberts Rules yet basically states that if not otherwise
provided herein, all procedural rules shall be governed by
Roberts Rules of Order, and in turn, the Charter states that
the Council may establish rules of conduct for its
I
3-13-00
proceedings, the Charter prevails over Roberts Rules.
I
Councilman Boyd restated his previous motion to delete the
sentence 'Members of the Council shall not leave their seats
during a meeting without first obtaining the permission of
the presiding officer' from Section l2(a) of the Resolution.
Councilman Doane seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
The revised Procedural Rules for Conduct of City Council
meetings was adopted by Resolution Number 4792.
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 00-1 - RESIDENTIAL
CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE - BED and BREAKFAST FACILITIES
The City Attorney noted a comment during public comments
relating to the notice of this hearing, that it was not
properly noticed, the belief is that the City has complied
with all legal requirements, typically with zone text
amendments that are citywide or affect a large portion of the
City, the only requirement is publication of the notice, in
this case it was published and in addition the notice had
been sent to nine hundred forty persons, therefore it is
believed there has been substantial compliance with notice
requirements.
I
Mayor Yost declared the public hearing open to consider Zone
Text Amendment 99-1, a Residential Conservation Overlay Zone
for a bed and breakfast facility. The City Clerk certified
that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as
required by law, notices mailed to properties within three
hundred feet of the eligible area, reported receipt of six
written communications in support of ZTA 00-1 to accommodate
a bed and breakfast facility, and a six page petition
containing approximately forty-nine signatures in opposition.
The Director of Development Services presented the staff
report, explained that the Zone Text Amendment under
consideration would establish what is called the Residential
Conservation Overlay Zone where, within the zoning provisions
of the City, the proposed standards would not apply to any
particular property at this time. The Director noted that
this matter was scheduled for the Planning Commission on
January 5th, the Commission continued the item until their
February 9th meeting, a tentative hearing was scheduled for
the Council on January 10th as at that time it was felt there
was some immediacy to the issue with a potential demolition
of the Proctor House, that the reason those hearings were
scheduled close to one another, when the Planning Commission
took the action to continue the matter it was then not
possible for the Council to hear the matter on the 10th of
January, however the Council did instruct City staff to hold
a town hall meeting to discuss the issue, the first was held
on January 20th, those present requested a second meeting
which was held on February 1st, the notes from those sessions
included in the staff report packet. He noted the Commission
conducted their second hearing on February 9th, the staff
report and minutes provided the Council as well, at that time
there were a number of significant changes to the initial
proposal considered on January 5th. The Director recalled
that at the meeting of January 24th the Council requested the
City Attorney's office and staff to look at a number of other
issues primarily dealing with ways of dealing with historic
preservation issues in the City, to that there was an agenda
item scheduled for this meeting in response thereto to which
I
3-13-00
the Council has taken action to continue until the last
meeting in April, the issue before the Council is a Zone Text
Amendment that relates specifically to bed and breakfast
facilities in the City that would only apply to structures
within a certain area and only if they were constructed
before 1930. At the meeting of February 9th the Planning
commission recommended denial of the ZTA, subsequently staff
returned to the Commission with a resolution to formally make
recommendation to the Council, to that he clarified that the
Planning Commission serves as an advisory body to the Council
on zone changes, zone text amendments, and General Plan
amendments, under California law those three actions are
considered to be 'legislative matters and the City Council is
the final decision making body, the Planning Commission is
the recommending body thus when there is a determination to
either approve or deny those types of changes the issue
automatically comes to the Council for another public hearing.
and final decision, that is the process at this meeting. The
Director mentioned also that at the Commission meeting of
February 23rd, where the Commission had made a previous
decision to continue the zone change and conditional use
permit request for the proposal that effects a property
located on 7th Street, and given the decision on February 9th
to deny the Zone Text Amendment, resolutions were presented
to the Commission to likewise deny the zone change and
conditional use permit in that without the Zone Text
Amendment the zone change and conditional use permit could
not approved, the ZTA must be in place first, however the
Commission took an action to continue to a future date the
zone change and CUP pending a final action by the Council on
the ZTA. The issue before the Council is only the Zone Text
Amendment, staff continues to recommend approval as it did to
the Planning Commission, that is because the City would need
to have some mechanism in place if there is any desire by the
Council to deal with the issue of demolition of potentially
historical structures in some form or manner, this is one of
the few means that would allow some type of action to occur
where it is not practical or economically feasible to rehab
an older structure and continue to use it as a single family
home given the underlying value of the land in a number of
cases. Should the ZTA be approved that would allow for a
future consideration of the Krenwinkle and Proctor houses to
proceed. In the opinion of staff it is felt that the zoning
overlay has been conditioned sufficiently to preclude any
additional applications for a bed and breakfast facility
outside the specific area that this ZTA would apply. The
Director explained that the ZTA establishes a definition of a
bed and breakfast facility, a residential conservation zone
within the City that would permit bed and breakfast
facilities only within that zone, to that he explained that
base zoning is the existing zoning on a property, the
property in question is Residential High Density, that zone
has a number of uses permitted either by right or conditional
use permit at this time, again, if the ZTA is approved it
would allow a Residential Conservation Overlay Zone to be
applied to properties that have been suggested, the only
additional use would be a bed and breakfast facility in
addition to the underlying base zoning. The ordinance
proposes a number of standards that would apply to
considerations at the zone change and conditional use permit
level for the conversion of what staff has defined as local
historically significant structures from a residential use to
a bed and breakfast use, and proposes procedural standards as
to how this proposed Overlay Zone could specifically be
applied to other properties in the City, which is through a
I
I
I
3-13-00
I
zone change request that requires public hearings before the
Planning Commission and City Council, also application for a
conditional use permit to approve a specific site development
plan, and establish standards and operating criteria for a
bed and breakfast facility. The Director stated that the
City has been contacted to save what is felt to be two
significantly historic structures and relocate them to a
vacant property on 7th Street, it is felt that as property
values continue to increase in the Old Town area and there is
pressure to allow for the demolition of some of the older
structures in the City, that it is important to bring this
issue forth to the Commission and Council to determine if
there is a desire of the City to develop some mechanism to
deter the potential demolition of some of the older
structures and find a way to retain them where it is not
economically feasible to maintain them as a single family
residence. He noted that comments as a result of the two
community meetings was that bed and breakfasts should not be
allowed to locate next to existing single family residential
uses on the same side of the street, that the property of the
location of such facility have fifty feet of street frontage,
five hundred feet from the center line of Pacific Coast
Highway, and within three hundred feet of an existing hotel
or motel that would also need to be within the same five
hundred foot distance from PCH. The Director provided a
graphic showing the five hundred foot radius from PCH, the
Radisson Inn the only hotel in the City located within that
five hundred foot radius, those properties that meet all of
the location criteria is a portion of the shopping center, a
few homes on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway,
properties on the west side of 8th Street, on the east side
of 7th Street, that is the limit of the area, the homes south
of Electric Avenue are outside the five hundred foot distance
from the Highway therefore not subject to the proposed ZTA.
He reported that notice of this hearing had been published,
was mailed to all properties within a three hundred foot
distance of the subject area, approximately nine hundred
forty notices. To question if there are any older structures
in this specific area, the response was no, the ZTA would
basically be setting an area aside where, if a person' desired
to save an older home, it would need to be relocated to this
area, approved by the Planning Commission and Council through
the zone change and conditional use permit process to allow a
specific use of that home other than a single family
residence. The recommendation is that such use only be
located close to a major highway and to existing visitor
serving commercial uses, that is the type of area most
applicable to this use. Some of the criteria incorporated as
a result of the citizen meetings was to retain a focus on
preservation and conservation of structures, require the
conditional use permit instead of the minor plan review for
the actual site development plan approval process, reduce the
maximum stay from thirteen to ten days, clarify the use of
the 1997 Code for building conservation, and clarify that the
exemptions for the height, bulk and setback requirements only
apply to the relocation and rehabilitation of these
structures, these provisions are primarily because some of
the height limits within the existing Code for the structures
under consideration would require lowering the roofline or
cutting off portions of the structure, in the opinion of
staff that would be detrimental to the overall appearance of
those structures. He mentioned that additional specific
criteria as set forth in the Zone Text Amendment is also
described in the staff report, and offered to respond to any
questions related thereto. The Director stated that the
I
I
3-13-00
basic issue is does the City want to place in the zoning
ordinance a mechanism that would allow consideration on a
case by case ,basis of future applications to move existing
older structures to an identified area, basically 7th and 8th
Streets between Electric Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway,
and allow those structures to be converted to bed and
breakfast facilities. If the Council agrees with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission to not change the
zoning ordinance, then there is no authority under the Code
at this time to establish a bed and breakfast facility in the
City, if the Council agrees with the recommendation of staff
that would allow future consideration of such requests on a
per case basis, and given the fact that each would require
consideration of a zone change, the Planning Commission and
City Council has the discretion as to whether or not the
request would be approved, a zone change is a legislative
matter, does not require specific findings, only whether it
is or is not appropriate for the community.
I
In making reference to the map of the area, Councilmember
Campbell asked if there is any other lots available for such
use, on 7th or 8th Streets could someone demolish an existing
building and move an older structure onto the property, the
Director of Development Services responded that there are no
other lots available other than those of Mr. verhulst, to the
second question the Director said theoretically it could
happen but not likely because most of those properties are a
greater density than the City currently allows, most have
four to eight unit apartments where zoning today would
basically allow one single family home. The Manager added
that the City would retain control because a conditional use
permit and zone change would be required. With regard to the
density issue, Councilman Boyd asked if the density for the
proposed project is not greater than what is currently
allowed for an apartment building given the six guest rooms
and the owners unit, what is the maximum density allowed on a
these lots, what is the parking requirements for the owners
unit. The Director responded there could be two single
family homes, there is no limit on the number of bedrooms,
with regard to parking, a minimum of one space for the owners
unit, one space each for the guest rooms, or seven parking
spaces, however, under the CUP process being proposed the
Planning Commission could require additional parking spaces
for either the guest rooms or the owners unit if in their
deliberations it was felt necessary in dealing with parking
issues in that area. To an inquiry as to whether in-lieu
parking is being allow, the Director responded that there is
no in-lieu parking other than a provision that allows for the
counting of any new on-street parking spaces that occur as a
result of the closing of driveway entrances from the street
in that the City no longer allows street driveway entrances,
rather from the alley, therefore the applicant would receive
a credit for any newly created on-street parking space, and
confirmed that that is not done for single family homes. The
Mayor sought clarification that for a lot of fifty feet
frontage and one hundred seventeen feet deep the maximum
coverage would be two units, the staff confirming that to be
true, there would need to be about six thousand two hundred
square feet of lot area for three units. Mayor Yost
mentioned that there seems to be question as to whether the
bed and breakfast issue should be discussed versus just the
Zone Text Overlay, and given the small area this encompasses,
and the fact that the ZTA is the result of the desire to deal
with the issue of the Krenwinkle and Proctor houses, that
comments should be allowed on that issue as well. The City
I
I
3-13-00
I
Attorney offered that it is the duty of staff to present only
what is on the agenda, that being the Zone Text Amendment,
yet the public can speak to anything relating to the item.
The City Manager stated that absent the proposal to move the
Proctor and Krenwinkle houses onto the 7th Street site, the
staff recommendation would change from approval of the zoning
overlay to denial, staff is not prepared to discuss all of
the specifics yet in concept if there is disagreement with
the location and leaving the details up to the Planning
Commission, then this issue should be dropped in fairness to
the applicant so that person can move on with something else.
Councilman Boyd requested clarification of that statement, in
other words if the applicant can not secure the Krenwinkle
and Proctor houses then the Zone Text Amendment should be
denied. The response of the City Manager was essentially
yes, however it is possible that another house of equal
historic significance could be found, the Planning Commission
would need to consider that too. Councilman Boyd said that
seems somewhat strange in that in reading the reports it
appears that the City would be establishing a number of homes
of historical significance if constructed prior to the
1930's, that seems to be at odds, how does one rationalize
that to say, trying to be objective, if they could find
another house built prior to 1930 it is okay yet if the
applicant can not obtain the Krenwinkle or Proctor house this
issue would be dead, only to start allover again. The
Manager clarified that his comments were that the reason this
matter is before the Council is because of the specific
proposal relating to two particular houses, if not feasible
it can come up before the Planning Commission for them to
determine to not approve a CUP if it is for some other house,
yet if another house were found to have equal significance
the Commission could allow it. To Mayor Yost's inquiry as to
why this is not considered spot zoning, the City Attorney
explained that is a term that has been used for a very long
time, as an example if a group of properties are zoned
residential and one is zoned commercial, the person who owns
that property could use the argument in some cases that the
commercial property should be zoned residential as well, that
is not the case here however, spot zoning is only the right
of the person who owns the property yet it has been used for
the last twenty years as just the opposite, people who do not
own the property claim that the lone piece of property can
not be zoned commercial with every other parcel zoned
residential, that is not spot zoning. He noted again the
period of time that the concept of spot zoning has been used
however he has not seen one case where a person has been
successful in establishing that their property has been spot
zoned, it is the property owner who feels his property is
being discriminated against because it is zoned different
from other properties, it is not the converse, the spot
zoning concept has been used incorrectly for years.
Councilmember Campbell noted that the properties are already
zoned residential so the proponent of this issue could move
the Krenwinkle house onto the property without approval of
the City. The Development Services Director agreed provided
that they are maintained as single family homes, that would
not require any discretionary approvals by the City, the
issue in this case is converting the structures to a use that
is currently not allowed. Councilmember Campbell again noted
that the Krenwinkle house could be moved and utilized as the
proponent's residence, the problem is the proposed use for
the Proctor house. The Director clarified that pursuant to
the applications before the Planning Commission it proposes
conversion of both structures for bed and breakfast purposes,
I
I
3-13-00
the Proctor house for six guest rooms, the Krenwinkle house
two guest rooms on the second floor. The Mayor asked if any
variances are being requested. The Director stated that
under the Zone Text Amendment as proposed there are some
exceptions being suggested that would apply to relocating an
existing structure, there are no variances necessary, an
example of exceptions that would apply to properties of the
1930's and prior age would be the height of the structures,
current Code for a lot of more than thirty-seven and a half
feet wide has a height limit on the front half of the lot of
twenty-five feet and thirty-five on the rear half, as
proposed the two lots would be combined for a fifty foot lot,
the Proctor house exceeds the current height limits by about
a foot and a half to two feet, the Krenwinkle house proposed
for the rear of the property does not exceed the height
limit. He noted that the additional height for the Proctor
house is twofold, first, the house is not on a foundation,
needs to be placed on stemwalls, raised above grade level, in
that the plumbing and electrical systems are underneath the
house, that as well as the fact that the existing height of
the roof would need to be cut off to meet the height limit,
but the thinking of staff is to not change the roof line so
as to not change the architectural uniqueness of the
structure. With regard to the Krenwinkle house at the rear
of the property the proposal at this point is grade level
parking underneath the house, the overall height of the two-
story structure would be about thirty or thirty-one feet
high, less than ,the thirty-five foot permitted height, the
proposal is for a four foot sideyard setback on the north and
south sides of the structure in order to not require the
shortening the front porch of the Krenwinkle house from what
currently exists, within the ZTA there is a modification of
the five foot setback requirements that would be required in
this case up to certain limits, those modifications would
normally go through some sort of a variance request but
because of the nature of the structures it was felt
appropriate to put that type of exception into the ZTA
itself. Should this proposal be approved, Councilman Boyd
asked if the structures would be required to be ADA
compliant, the response was yes.
I
I
Mr. Dave Bartlett, Ladero Ranch, representing the proponent
of the bed and breakfast facilities, made reference to a news
article this date as to how older homes are being razed
rather than restored. Mr. Bartlett stated that these houses
are trying to be preserved to the greatest extent possible so
that the public can use them and they will become an
appropriate use with the surrounding properties. with regard
to the comments made for and against, he noted that the
opponents are suggesting that the renovation for these homes
is too substantial, that is not so in that they meet State,
federal, even local requirements, and the staff report
explains that any alteration to bed and breakfast facilities
shall be in compliance with the 1997 Code for Building
Conservation, the staff report also making reference to
preservation, complimentary new development, stabilizing
neighborhoods, encouraging rehabilitation, preserving,
protecting, and enhancing streetscapes, these are the things
that make this a unique community, things the Council should
embrace. The opponents claim this is spot zoning which has
been explained it is not, the opponents also say that if this
business fails the structures will be converted to a halfway
house, to that it should be known that there is no need for
this zoning for a halfway house, it can exist anywhere in the
City in any residential zone, that is a federal law. With
I
3-13-00
I
regard to parking staff researched this extensively, the
industry standards for bed and breakfast facilities, the
answer is set forth in the zoning Text Amendment, one space
per unit plus one for the owner's unit. As to the petitions,
there has been direct feedback from people who have been
approached, being told that if they did not sign a liquor
store would end up next to their home also that the height
limitation was being exceeded by twelve feet, those are not
the facts. Mr. Bartlett noted the mention of density and
asked how one measures density, the easiest is the number of
dwelling units per acre, the apartment units immediately
adjacent to the proposed project is the equivalent of sixty
dwelling units per acre, as a comparison the Hill and College
Park East are about four to six dwelling units per acre,
Hellman Ranch will be about the same, when one talks about
density you also take lot coverage into consideration, so,
what kind of lot coverage would be allowed if the proponent
of the bed and breakfast facility wanted to build a standard
apartment unit or two single family homes, which is unlikely,
the Code provides that could be up to seventy-five percent
lot coverage, the proposal for the bed and breakfast is forty
percent, a decrease of the lot coverage allowed, less dense,
it is also exempt from CEQA because it does not increase
traffic, impact land use, air quality, aesthetics, etc., as a
result the project has been determined to be in conformance
with the General Plan. Mr. Bartlett stated that the location
of the B & B has always been of paramount importance, across
from the site is the Radisson, a commercial use, there is
automobile repair, multi-family dwelling units, an office,
the entire area basically high density residential zoning,
the standard has been set, look at 5th Street and Central,
the Seal Beach Inn, new homes have been developed in and
around the Inn, it is felt that will be the same kind of
rehabilitation that will be seen on 7th and 8th Streets. Mr.
Bartlett said the opponents have claimed this will be a
decrease of property values to which he stated it will not,
look at the cities up and down the coast, anywhere in
Southern California to see how the bed and breakfast
facilities fit into the community and actually raise the
standard of property. He noted that the homebuilders have
passed on these lots, not felt to be suitable for single
family dwellings because of the location, therefore
recognizing that it is transitional zoning the City has
proposed the Zone Text Amendment of which they are in
support, it is consistent with the General Plan, no impacts
to the environment, it is a preservation project, supported
by the Historical Society, and supported by the people who
own the Yellow House, they too would like to see this happen.
Mr. Bartlett requested Council approval with the thought of
preserving the two older homes. Mr. Jim Cook, 8th Street,
within three hundred feet of this project, stated that the
street under discussion has a plumbing shop, boat building
yard, auto repair, an eight unit apartment complex, an
attorney's office, and the Radisson Inn, the proposed bed and
breakfast facility would only cover forty percent of the
property, it would be an improvement to this neighborhood, it
is his neighborhood, his is the largest and nicest home on
the block, he supports the proposal, and it will increase
rather than decrease property values. The positives of this
proposal, there are two historically significant houses that
will be restored, it is not economically feasible to try to
restore these houses to live in, the alternative is two
single family homes on these properties, they can cover
seventy-five percent of the lot, the bed and breakfast
facility would be forty percent, thirty-five feet in height
I
I
3-13-00
on the back half of the lot, twenty-five feet on the front
half, thus the positives of less coverage, seven parking
spaces are proposed as opposed to two single family
residences that would only be required to have four parking
spaces, six rooms in the B & B facility but nothing can stop
a single family home from having six bedrooms, in that case
there could be six cars on one single family lot and times
two there could be twelve cars, also, the Band B guest rooms
will not be full every day therefore there is even less
parking impact. In terms of economics for the City the bed
and breakfast would mean $20,000 to $30,000 per year in bed
and property taxes, not to mention that every'person who
visits this facility will be spending money in the community
resulting in increased sales tax. Mr. Cook again expressed
his support for this proposal, an improvement to his
neighborhood, in fact his preference would be to have two
more vintage homes as bed and breakfast facilities located
where there is now an eight unit apartment complex, a much
lesser impact than what is now there. Mr. Victor Grgas, 15th
Street, twenty year resident, expressed his support for
favorable consideration of proposed Zone Text Amendment 00-1
and the proposed ordinance to establish the Residential
Conservation Overlay, that would permit bed and breakfast
facilities through the conversion and relocation of existing
residential structures built prior to 1930. He stated that
adoption will provide a viable and perhaps the only means for
preserving the few remaining architecturally significant and
locally historic residences located in the City from
demolition. Mr. Grgas said for years the city has been
searching for ways to preserve its residential heritage, but
without great success, both the lack of financial and land
resources have prevented the City from intervening in what
has been the gradual but inevitable elimination of some of
the very homes that have given the community the charm and
ambience that the community has so ardently proscribed to
protect for future generations, one need only think back to
the lovely craftsman style home once referred to as the
Stanton House located at 1st Street and Ocean Avenue as an
example of both an architecturally and historically
significant residence that has forever been lost. While many
communities in California have suffered similar loses, some
have been able to save and preserve these structures by
promoting their use in other ways, including bed and
breakfast facilities, the City of Seal Beach should not
forego the opportunity to do the same due to the trivial and
insignificant impacts such a facility might produce. While
the ZTA provides numerous definitions, standards and criteria
for the establishment of a bed and breakfast facility, it
should not be the aim of the Council to over-regulate the
operation of the facility to the point where its economic
viability is threatened, doing so would serve no purpose
whatsoever and only further ensure that the very structures
that are desired to be saved and preserved are further
hastened to their demise and demolition. Mr. Grgas stated
that the standards of ZTA 00-1 concerning the 9:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. check-in and check-out time, and limiting the
maximum permitted stay to only ten days are examples of the
City virtually strangling the operation and its ability to
economically succeed, not to mention the incomprehensible
inconvenience this will cause its prospective patrons, many
of whom traveling great distances to get here. He mentioned
too that the parking requirements contained in the ZTA,
especially given the proposed site of the relocation of the
Krenwinkle House, should be relaxed, it is highly unlikely
and improbable that parking impact would result in that
I
I
I
3-13-00
I
location, bed and breakfast facilities are rarely one hundred
percent occupied throughout the year, during times when it is
there is adequate on-street parking available along Marina
Drive to accommodate the additional few cars, in fact some
existing residents park their vehicles there now rather than
in their garages. Mr. Grgas offered that to succeed in the
City's desire to preserve and save these buildings, the
variances needed must be allowed to accommodate them and
their long-term use. He concluded that the City and its
residents have long spoken of the need to preserve the small
town environment and history, this is an opportunity to put
words into action. Mr. Grgas urged support of proposed ZTA
00-1 with the amendments noted. Ms. Sally Breiton, General
Manager of the Radisson Inn, said in the beginning she too
was opposed to this proposal, primarily the parking, yet did
welcome the thought that having these two homes restored as
bed and breakfasts would add to the immediate community. She
noted that every room of the Radisson has a balcony, a number
of the rooms overlook 7th Street, there is really nothing
pleasant to look at, she understands the lodging industry,
has been the General Manager for five years in the Seal Beach
area, there is room for these bed and breakfasts, she would
prefer that some of the parking issues be moved onto Marina
Drive where big rigs currently park over night and take up
the important parking spaces. Ms. Breiton said she supports
and would welcome the bed and breakfasts. Mr. Gordon Shanks,
Surf Place, noted that the proponent has reduced the number
of rooms, increased the parking, and that he is finding it
hard to understanding the opposition, this seems to be a
win/win situation, it is a revenue producer, it needs to be
kept in mind that the Glider Inn is going to be lost, if this
is not approved it seems that there is no possibility of
saving those two old houses, many people have worked to save
the history of this community; the place they came to live
in. Mr. Tom Blackman, Seal Beach, said after many years as a
Social Science and History teacher and viewing the History
and Discovery channels, he looks to the different buildings
that have been destroyed over time, some photographs the only
remembrance, what is before the Council is an opportunity to
preserve a little bit of history for Seal Beqch. Mr.
Blackman mentioned that his daughter has a bed and breakfast
in another state, converted a building that was condemned,
the foundation had crumbled, the house was not liveable, the
electrical, heating, and plumbing was inadequate, no one
would restore this house to live in because it would cost too
much, so, the house was jacked up, placed on a new
foundation, the only thing that saved that house was the
conversion to a bed and breakfast, it is now listed on the
National Register, there are now two more houses converted to
a bed and breakfast next to the original, all of which has
improved and rejuvenated the neighborhood. Mr. Blackman
expressed his belief that the proposal before the Council is
a worthwhile project, bed and breakfast guests are nice,
middle class people, this would be of benefit to the City
from a financial and historical standpoint, and improvement
to the area where they are located. Ms. Stephanie Cook, 8th
Street, stated her opinion that the bed and breakfast
facility would be an improvement to the area and for the
merchants. She encouraged a vote for this project. Mr. Norm
Schutzberger, 15th Street, said in this nation innovation is
generally rewarded, that is the mainstay of progress, at the
same time the ability to maintain the past is looked on
fondly, the proponent of this project has found an innovative
way to save a part of Seal Beach past while making a living
at the same time, the community will benefit from this
I
I
3-13-00
project. Mr. Schutzberger stated of interest is that in the
years he has lived in the City there have been discussions of
trying to preserve the character and buildings, but none have
been preserved rather have been demolished one by one, this
is an opportunity to prevent that happening again, suggesting
that this be given serious consideration. Mr. Ken Hook,
Beryl Cove Way, agreed with the prior comments, while
following this issue he has not heard any good reasons to
oppose this proposal, it seems as if people are against this
project because the proponent had a good idea, is that a good
reason to deny the project, this project should be approved.
Mr. John Baker, nearly forty year resident and Main Street
business owner, said this project seems to be a natural for
Seal Beach, the area proposed already houses apartments and a
hotel, this seems to be an appropriate use for the two old
homes. Ms. Connie Verhulst said when her husband first
proposed the moving of these historically significant homes
to the vacant lots her reaction was that it was a great idea,
her feeling was that it would be a win/win for everyone. She
stated they are able to save these homes, this opportunity
should not be belittled as those who want to negate this
project want, the public will be able to again enjoy them,
family and guests will be able to be housed in Seal Beach
rather than elsewhere. Ms. Verhulst explained that the
craftman homes were built primarily at the turn of the
century, it was the middle and upper middle class that
created this architecture, somewhat of a backlash from the
elaborate victorian period, a great period when the growth of
the United States and free enterprise could be seen. She
mentioned as well that there will be bed tax generated to the
City, guests will spend money in the Main Street area, also,
lot coverage will only be forty percent, considerably
different from the homes that are seen being built today.
Ms. Verhulst expressed pride in her husband and his talents,
having a gift of envisioning what others can not, he will
bring a piece of history back to Seal Beach that could have
been lost forever. Mr. Chris Verhulst stated he and his wife
are the owners of the property at 308 ~ 7th Street, the
attributes have been heard, yet it has been brought to his
attention that there is a question amongst the Council as to
their ability to run a business such as proposed, to that he
explained that they have owned rental property in Seal Beach
for. fifteen years, as well as their home, also a vacation
rental in Mexico on the Baja Peninsula which involves maid
service, a manager on-site, a very successful operation for
the past ten years. When considering this project there was
encouragement from the Seal Beach Inn and the Radisson Inn
given the fact that they are most often full and on those
occasions would refer guests to the bed and breakfast inn.
He explained that there is a business plan, a construction
plan, he is personally a general contractor, it is known what
moving the houses entails, that was done with another house
some ten years ago, the business plan projects a thirty
percent occupancy yet felt that sixty percent would easily be
reached, at thirty percent with the six rooms and seven
parking spaces there is a cash flow, offsets all operating
expenses, provides for two full time maids, with regard to
those who say the bed and breakfast would set a precedent, it
has already been set with the Seal Beach Inn, one of the
nicest bed and breakfasts in the United States and most
likely within the top hundred in the world, it is successful,
it is on residentially zoned property in a neighborhood
surrounded by single family dwellings. Mr. Verhulst said
where this project is proposed to be located is a much higher
density mix, this would save these two houses and he would
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-13-00
put the work into them to bring them back to what they once
were and do the necessary renovations to convert them to a
bed and breakfast,.this felt to be a perfect fit for Old Town
in Seal Beach. Mr. Verhulst encouraged approval of the Zone
Text Amendment.
Mr. Roger West, Electric Avenue, acknowledged several
familiar speakers, people who supported duplexes on the
Pacific Electric right-of-way rather than park, claimed the
last project the proponent supported was Mola, now he. wants
to take residential property and convert it to a commercial
business, the old houses are merely a scheme to save money.
Mr. West noted that the Planning Commission voted against
this proposal yet the staff made a lengthy presentation in
favor, if the proposal were to build a bed and breakfast in
Leisure World it is doubtful that those Council
representatives would favor it, nor would College Park East
or the Hill, and claimed that this is spot zoning. He said
his name is not on the petition against this project but had
he known he could have likely obtained a hundred more
signatures, he supported his family for years without having
to rezone his property, his property has been downzoned
twice, parking restricted further, on the property he owned
at 1201 he could have had seven units, now only two or three
are allowed, the people have made sacrifices to make Old Town
a better place in which to live, but people come here and
want to pillage it for their profit, this proposal is merely
to make money at the expense of those who live here. Ms.
Paula Shears, Electric Avenue, stated her opposition to the
bed and breakfast proposal, one reason is that the area was
down zoned to be rid of illegal units, this proposal is for
six units, she questioned who is going to police this use,
who can say it will not become a rooming house, she too has
units and would like the City to do something similar for
her, also, she had no idea that the City was in favor of this
proposal. With regard to the Yellow House, Seal Beach was
not an affluent town, when these houses were built there were
not particularly architecturally desirable, just built and
they have not improved with age. Ms. Shears claimed that
approval would be a step backwards, she would. not want a bed
and breakfast next to her nor would her tenants, and if these
houses are so desirable then they are worth preserving to be
lived in, not turned into bed and breakfasts, this would be a
bad precedent to set, and it is her understanding that
historical structures receive a tax break, plus getting six
units, this would be a giveaway. Dr. David Rosenman, Seal
Beach, said the question is what is good for the City, when a
former speaker stated that the restrictions proposed are too
great, that is a worry. To the question as to whether this
project could be built new without the variance
considerations, the answer is it could not, then why is it
being proposed, also, it has been said that the interior and
underneath of these houses would need to be gutted, in his
terms that is called facading not historical preservation,
there is uncertainty as to how much historical significance
there is with these houses, this probably the strangest Zone
Text Amendment that has been seen, this is bad public policy.
Mr. Jim Caviola, Ocean Avenue, requested that the overlay map
be reshown, stated he is a twenty year resident, he has seen
the zoning change from R-4 to R-3 to R-2 to R-1, that took a
lot of time, there is a legislative history of past Council's
getting to and keeping this town R-1, for the Council to
unravel that for this project is wrong. He made reference to
the overlay map, noted the area circled and distinct lines on
either side of Pacific Coast Highway, that is a zone change,
3-13-00
the legal notice for the Zone Text Amendment was sent to no
one within those lines, just within the circle, this is a
zone change, it is inappropriate to rule on this item tonight
after twenty years of zone changes to R-1. With regard to
the subject project Mr. Caviola asked how much integrity does
it have, the Proctor house is a one and a half bath house,
the proponent intends to cut the roof off, lift it up, add
eleven feet to the back, and add seven bathrooms, then what
is being preserved, a few pieces of wood on the outside, if
the intent is to have motels and change the zoning, fine, but
build new, there are old motels, one on Seal Beach Boulevard,
one at 4th and Marina, they are unacceptable. This is not
restoring old homes it is putting two houses on a lot, adding
to them, making them look historic, putting them above a
garage, there is no integrity, again, the notice, it does not
give the location address or a general description of what is
being proposed, no map, under the Government Code relating to
public hearings that is required, thus the people in the area
have not been told what is being proposed, which is changing
the zoning to all commercial property. Mr. Caviola stated
that the area is R-1, people want it to stay that way, his
position is that this matter was not properly noticed. Ms.
Fanny Bolen said she is a twenty-eight year Seal Beach
resident, have moved four times within Seal Beach during that
period, they purchased the apartment building on 7th Street
next to the property in question, that with the belief that
there would always be homes on each side, the one home was
taken down by the proponent of this project, it is likely the
house on the other side could also be taken down to bring in
another older home, that might be nice for those people but
for her apartments that would only be four feet on either
side in that the setback is reduced from five feet to four,
the apartment residents would have noise and traffic coming
and going, people are saying this is a bad location in that
the properties face a garage, a motel, a lawyers office, and
apartment buildings, that is where they want to put the bed
and breakfast. Ms. Bolen suggested that the bed and
breakfast be located where the Proctor house is, maybe she
could buy that house and convert it to a bed and breakfast,
but given the circled area relating to this issue it is
obvious this is the only place where one could have a bed and
breakfast, of concern is that that circle could change many
times, instead of three hundred feet from the hotel it could
be three hundred feet from most anything else from 11th to
14th streets and to Electric. Ms. Bolen said she is now
hearing that there will be six guest rooms in the front
house, and the owner unit over the garage has the right to
have six guest rooms as well, for a total of twelve guest
rooms, it was understood that some parking could be available
from the garage across the street however the owners of the
garage have said they will not allow any parking on their
property. Ms. Bolen mentioned her tenants again, with the
new building they will lose their privacy, air, light, and
sun, this is their residence, to her it is not fair to say
one can have a bed and breakfast next to an apartment
building but not next to a home. If it is the intent of the
Council to do bed and breakfast then do it in the City as a
whole, not just one area. Ms. Mitzi Morton, Seal Beach,
mentioned page two of the staff report where it is said that
the Proctor house is in probate, the owners have contacted
the City, their intentions are to demolish the house and
construct new houses unless arrangements are made to relocate
the house, to which she responded the Proctor house has gone
through probate and is now owned by the three heirs. Ms.
Morton asked if there is any proof that the statement by
I
I
I
3-13-00
I
staff is true and who talked to the heirs, as ~f today she
called the broker who is handling this property, that person
called the owners, the response is that the owners have no
intention of demolishing the house, there are no written
agreements with the City or Mr. Verhulst that they can have
the house, there is no assurance that Mr. Verhulst is going
to get the Proctor house. She asked if the bed and breakfast
proposal does not come to pass, will the City cancel the Zone
Text Amendment after spending staff time and money on behalf
of this proposal, if the Krenwinkle house is so wonderful
then why did the owners not restore it on their own property,
the answer is money, if bed and breakfasts are desired then
move just one of the houses to 7th Street, the Proctor house
would be a perfect example to remain at its location, make
arrangements for it to become a bed and breakfast and restore
the house. Ms. Morton stated her opposition to this proposal
and the fact that staff is recommending approval where the
Planning Commission denied it. Mr. Kurt Stable, Seal Beach,
made the statement that B & B's are enjoyable places to stay
and many cities have them within their limits, with regard to
the historical significance of these homes, his belief is
that just because something is old does not mean it is
historically significant, from what has been heard it is
understood that these homes would be substantially modified
from their original form and if that is done will they still
be historically significant, otherwise it is merely a
remodel, the intent when you restore is to keep the original
form. Mr. Stable said he previously resided in Pasadena
where there are many historic homes, designed by well known
architects, again it is not known whether the Seal Beach
homes have historic significance, to date it is only
conjecture, is that the premise or argument to do this B & B.
He mentioned that this is not next to a single family
residence, but if this occurs next to the apartment building
and one is a resident of that building, it is certain that is
called home, if someone proposed to build a B & B or a new
home which would one choose, it is obvious that given a
choice most people would prefer to live next to a single
family residence versus a B & B, this supports the argument
that if zoning in Seal Beach is changed the surrounding
property values will decrease. Mr. Stable claimed this to be
a commercial enterprise wedged into a single family
residential area, what if this B & B business does not work,
is it going to become apartment units, fact is that most
businesses fail within the first two years, if this is such a
good idea then why not rezone the whole city, if the Council
is the representatives of the City and its citizens then the
Council should do what is best for the City long term, it is
not felt that a B & B will draw people to the City, they
would likely not want to live next to a B & B, this issue is
about moving two houses which mayor may not be historically
significant, modify their interior and exterior, violate
height and zoning requirements, reduce surrounding property
values, expand the local government, the residents have no
standing around the property issue, if the area is not
suitable for houses then why would it be suitable for a B &
B. Ms. Jan Kahey, resident adjacent to 308 - 7th Street,
said if this area is so objectionable she could not imagine
why the applicant would choose to live there let alone put a
business there, she has a concern should the occupancy rate
be inadequate, what would happen to these buildings, what
kind of people would be coming in and out, parking is a
terrible problem for the area, that is not felt to have been
adequately addressed. The Planning Commission considered a
zoning overlay that could have affected the whole of Seal
I
I
3-13-00
Beach, when that did not work the parameters of the zoning
overlay was then deliberately changed to this specific site,
this would be of benefit to one person and one project, if
that is not spot zoning she would request a better
definition. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach, nearly forty year
resident, said she believes that the history of the people is
more significant than these two old houses, the people voted
to down zone so there would not be things like this B & B
proposal, this is arbitrary, capricious, spot zoning, and a
special privilege, this town is what it is because of the
people standing up for what is right, the Council should be
more in touch with what the citizens want, this is bad policy
and not thought to be in compliance with the General plan
either. Mr. Bruce Bennett, 4th Street, resident since 1965,
said if the Council would take the time to look at the plans
of what is actually being proposed and read the text
carefully it is felt the concerns would be realized. About
December there seemed to be a high profile push to get a
zoning change for the entire City, that was bothersome after
all of the years of precedent to take the zoning down slowly
over a period of thirty years because of the concern with
parking and other issues, to that he asked himself who
authorized the City to pursue this, who authorized the
spending of the amount of dollars necessary, that question
has come up several times, and now thought to have originated
by some means other than the Council, a question too was what
scope does the staff have to work on a project that is
specific to an individual, if the individual wants the
project he should reimburse the City for its time. The
second issue is the trend to reduce density, parking is a
problem, specifically on weekends, a number of people have
raised that question, the third concern, a proposal to change
from the status quo, this is something that is felt would
need an overwhelming amount of evidence to prove making a
change of something existing for over thirty years, the
zoning amendment is designed to broaden the existing use in
the City. Look at the text of the report, the use of
property, page fourteen, reference to S-3, which states that
no more than twenty-five percent of said parking may be
located on a separate parcel, next it says that upon
reasonable notice such off-site parking availability may be
confirmed by visual inspection by the City, both sections not
only talk about having parking on the location but acquiring
parking elsewhere, also the use of tandem parking, that is
what the zoning Text allows, the question is should the Zone
Text allow that kind of parking to begin with, there is also
reference to providing garage, carport, driveway, or open
parking. with regard to use it has been heard that this is
designed for bed and breakfast yet if one looks at page
eighteen of the Amendment it states that the use of the
structure as a bed and breakfast facility would be the most
logical and least detrimental use within the realm of
potential uses, then it says the other possible uses could be
professional office, museum, etc., asking what etc. means.
Mr. Bennett noted that after three weeks of review of the
issues the Planning Commission ruled to reject this zoning,
yet interestingly it still exists as it was written, he could
see it if some of the provisions were rewritten that they
objected to, that has not happened, there is reference to how
much revenue this would bring, how much better the bed and
breakfast proposal would be to building a couple of houses,
but if these structures are acquired at a very low cost and
the property is acquired at a low cost, that may be
considerably less property tax to the City, where are the
projections, if you look at each one and monitor and audit it
I
I
I
3-13-00
I
as it is proposed in order to determine if the City will get
revenue the question is does the City have to hire another
person, where are the cost offsets, that is something that
the Council should have if there is to be consideration of
this proposal. Mr. Bennett said these are his concerns,
including those should this proposal not work, in review, why
the big push, why the change in precedent, what about the
problem with parking, what about this seemingly sliding zone,
what about revenue where there is no documentation, it seems
this should go slower and resolve these concerns. Mr. Ron
Bennett, thirty-three year resident, said he does not believe
anyone is against bed and breakfast facilities per se or the
restoration of older houses, he has restored two of them in
Seal Beach, both pre-1930, one 1923 the other 1917, they
remain occupied by those persons he sold them to. Mr.
Bennett noted there is continued reference to off-site
parking, he has never been able to find what off-site parking
means, it is not deeded, not leased, it is not recorded on
title, this is something he does not feel should be done in
any case. He said as a rule projects are conceived and
fitted to the rules and ordinances a they exist, in this case
there are rules, ordinances being developed for a particular
project, and questioned if the City really wants to do that,
specifically, removing the height limit for this particular
project, others have had to abide by the height limit for
over thirty years, the setbacks are negotiable, also, to him
restoration is the updating of a structure, the architect
shows the Proctor house as two thousand four hundred
seventeen square feet then on the 7th Street lot it is shown
as three thousand one hundred fifty square feet on the 7th
Street lot, add to that the fact that the second level was
razed to make all space usable, and there is nothing in the
ZTA that says one could not take the small house on 12th
Street of about four hundred square feet, move it to a lot
and make it five thousand square feet, his feeling is that
this needs to be looked at closer. Mr. Bennett mentioned
that the Planning Commission heard this matter on two
occasions, voted against this five to zero, there is no
question as to how the Commission felt about this issue, the
Zone Text Amendment is the same that is now before the
Council, and given their familiarity with dealing with this
type of issue it seems the opinion of the Commission should
be taken into consideration. Mr. Bennett said if the Council
determines that bed and breakfasts are a positive thing, he
would suggest that direction be given to staff to rewrite the
parking requirements, the height requirements, look at the
setbacks, just do not change the rules for one development,
also, place a limit on how big these restorations can be.
Mr. Chi Kredell, Seal Way, said he is a fifty-three year
resident and that he was on the Council when it down zoned
from R-2 to R-1, to be all single family dwellings, it could
be seen that everything in the downtown area was going to be
a duplex because that was profitable, but over time other
Councils have nibbled away at the zoning, issuing variances,
etc., nothing should be changed, it should remain single
family dwellings only, no exceptions for parking or anything,
also there should be no tandem parking. Mr. Kredell
questioned how this matter got this far, who wants this, he
is certain that no one in this area wants this project, said
this is definitely spot zoning, it seems the residents have
to fight the City to preserve everything in this area, again,
Seal Beach has been downzoned, is respected for what it is,
to make changes would be detrimental, and no special favors
should be granted. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, mentioned
that the Manager pointed out at one of the town hall meetings
I
I
3-13-00
that this was a direction he intended to go, a direction it
is said that could be arbitrary and possibly lead to legal
challenge, the direction then changed to where a bed and
breakfast could be located anywhere in the City, now this has
been changed to spot zoning, this is a special privilege.
Little has been heard about what is necessary to do a Zone
Text Amendment, it can not be arbitrary, in this case. there
is no evidentiary support, grounds for denial, the decision
of the Planning Commission was never appealed, this item
should have appeared on the Consent Calendar with the
recommendation to sustain the denial of the Commission. Mr.
Clewley noted that the City budgeted $30,000 in 1998 to
relocate the Krenwinkle house then there was a proposal that
Hellman donate $25,000 to cover the relocation costs, yet the
$30,000 was reappropriated to repair the McGaugh pool, he
also claimed that there are excerpts from the Commission
minutes of February 23rd included in the staff report,
however those minutes have not received approval, that is not
right. Ms. Marilyn Hastings, Seal Beach, asked that the
Council maintain a level playing field for all residents.
Mr. Rene Bollen stated he is the owner of the adjacent
property and requested that the zoning for the subject
property on 7th Street not be changed. Ms. Joyce parkay, 6th
Street, recalled the numerous times that the citizens came to
the Council to speak to rezoning, that was done to keep the
small town atmosphere, that is why people want to live here,
her feeling is that if one small area is zoned for a special
privilege for one person it will happen allover town,
everyone should be noticed of this. Talking about revenues,
it is thought there are revenues owed by Ruby's and others,
and special privileges should not be given for one as others
will want special privileges as well. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal
Beach, spoke about the audience having the right to applaud.
She said she is familiar with this part of town, she lived
next to the subject property, her grandfather built the blue
building, that is where they lived. Ms. Corbin said there is
no reason to put these two houses next to each other on the
subject lot, put them on stilts, gut them, and questioned how
this matter could be approved in that the applicant does not
even own the Proctor house, it will be located sideways with
additions to the side, claimed this is not conservation, this
could create litigation and asked why there is not concern
with involving the residents in litigation. She claimed that
the soil has not been tested, it was once a marine repair
shop, the prior use was misrepresented, the applicant now
says there will be two full time maids where it was
previously said there would' be no employees, that he would be
running the operation, there is not adequate parking, he then
said he would do a museum but there is not parking for that,
he may technically own the land but the original landowner is
holding the first, fifty percent of all small businesses
fail, what is the fallback plan for this property with two
buildings on the one lot, the City will likely allow
apartments given there will be seven bathrooms, that will
make more money. She stated that there is no historical
criteria, it is merely said these are old houses, not
historical or that a famous person lived there or used it, it
was said this process was going to be slowed down, also that
there was immediacy because the Proctor house was on the
market which it was not. Ms. Corbin said her understanding
is that the Seal Beach Inn recently sold, it was never
approved as a bed and breakfast, it was grandfathered, it was
just a small motel. She claimed this project is a payback
for political debts, there was nothing done in the past to
save the older homes, these are not worth preserving. Ms.
I
I
I
3-13-00
I
Carla watson, Catalina Avenue, stated both houses are worthy
of preservation but this is not the way they should be
preserved, upon first hearing that the Krenwinkle house was
going to be preserved as a bed and breakfast that was thought
to possibly be the solution, however she had no idea they
were going to be stacked on this lot, the Krenwinkle house
does have historical merit because it dates back to a time
when people had to make sacrifices during World War II, then
it was moved from its original location. She said it is
disturbing to see the house now being torn apart, she was
looking for help from the City, has not given up as far as
other possibilities, it is shameful to lose this history and
historical merit of these houses through pushing the urgency
of this for private demands and profit, there are times when
the end justifies the means but not in this case.
Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to extend this meeting until
11:45 p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at
10:45 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:55 p.m. with Mayor
Yost calling the meeting to order.
I
Mr. Dave Bartlett, representing the 7th Street property
owner, stated although he does not live in Seal Beach now he
did for seven years, worked in the community for fifteen,
shops here, he has developed a fondness for these two houses
and it is a concern when it is said the Krenwinkle house is
being torn apart, to that he acknowledged that there are
boards being taken down so that they can be replaced, it is
true there needs to be some modifications to both structures,
things like a foundation, new plumbing and wiring to bring
them up to Code, this needs to be done to provide safety and
integrity for those structures. There have been comments
that these structures would be too substantially modified,
yet there are protections within the ZTA that allows
modifications to the 1997 Conservation Code only, as the
project presently stands it will meet or exceed most State
and federal guidelines for modifications, therefore is this
going to be a preservation project, from their viewpoint it
definitely will when compared to the Codes and current
standards as required by the City, if one believes those who
say it will not then they need to look at the plans. Mr.
Bartlett said it is disturbing also to say that these houses
are not significant because those who lived there were not
significant, that an unbelievable statement, can one honestly
say that the father of the current owner of the Krenwinkle
house was not significant, he raised several children in that
house, worked for the City of Seal Beach, it is understood
that Mr. Proctor sold tickets from his house for the Red Car,
the Story of Seal Beach makes mention of the Proctor house,
it was significant, yet this is not a Pasadena with landmark
architecture, what Seal Beach does have is a few old homes
however they are going to be razed, in fact, in a meeting one
of the-heirs to the Proctor house stated that the property
would be sold and two new houses built on the site. Mr.
Bartlett stated that the parking issue has been researched
and satisfied, one space per unit plus the owners unit is
standard, and with the occupancy rates it will be rare that
there is a full parking area but should it be on occasion
there are outside parking spaces that could be utilized. To
the question if minor accommodations are necessary on-site
I
3-13-00
for these houses, the answer is yes, is it worth saving these
two houses and give an eighteen inch height variance on the
front house, their feeling is that it is, raising this
structure to a foundation is what necessitates the eighteen
inches, with regard to the five foot setback he explained
that in the early 1900's houses were built wider, what is
requested is a one foot sideyard setback reduction, from five
to four feet, nineteen feet on the other side, an average of
about twelve feet. To a question as to whether the
accommodations are prudent and good planning in order to save
the houses and accommodate the site, the answer is yes. To
the mention of old motels it is acknowledged that there are
some, yet there is also a very nice bed and breakfast at 5th
and Central which has smaller rooms than this proposal and
provides one-half parking space per room, and asked if anyone
has ever been negatively impacted by the Seal Beach Inn, it
is thought not, the same type of guests that frequent that
facility would visit this bed and breakfast. There was
mention also that this is commercial zoning, Mr. Bartlett
suggested that inquiry be made of staff if that is so, it is
in fact a conservation zone overlay. Mr. Bartlett expressed
his opinion that this is a great project, it is simple, the
intent is to save some houses, his interest in the Krenwinkle
house is the result of his involvement with the Hellman
Ranch, the house is felt to be worth saving, and if an action
on this is not taken the wrecking ball is unfortunately
likely to be seen. There being no further comments, Mayor
Yost declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Snow noted having moved to Seal Beach Leisure
World some twenty-three years ago, at that time the Mayor was
also a resident of Leisure World, over some twenty years he
has observed City Councils and staff, this past year a
particular privilege to have the opportunity to watch staff
operate, and resents the anti-staff comments that have been
made recently and in the past. Councilman Snow suggested
that the staff recommendation relating to this Zone Text
Amendment be accepted.
I
I
Councilman Doane reported having had the opportunity to visit
both of these homes, was disappointed however with the
Proctor house because someone has remodeled it from the old
fashioned single family home to four units that share a bath
in the upstairs area, most likely rented in the summer, the
house needs considerable work, at present the Krenwinkle
house is being worked on, there is some termite damage, but
these two homes are .worth saving, the proposal is the only
way to do so. Councilman Doane said he has heard the
objections, some good points have been made, he has had
conversations with some, respects their opinions, however he
does not see the danger in allowing this use, this overlay
provides that the only use of this particular site is for a
bed and breakfast, if that use does not occur then the
overlay zone ceases to exist, therefore there is no danger in
approving the ZTA and going to the next phase which is the
approval of the bed and breakfast.
I
Snow moved, second by Doane, to approve the staff
recommendation relating to Zone Text Amendment 00-1 as
presented.
Councilmernber Campbell stated she also took a tour of both
houses and the lot, this proposal is the only way to preserve
these structures because they are going to be torn down, to
her old is Georgetown or Williamsburg with houses some two
3-13-00
I
hundred plus years old, but these are considered to be old
for this community, and agreed with Councilman Doane with
regard to the Proctor house, the interior is terrible, its
charm is in its exterior, this is going to be a plus for
whatever neighborhood it is in, and a potential adjacent
neighbor also felt it would be an improvement. Councilmember
Campbell mentioned that the restrictions in the Zone Text
Amendment are so strong that they can only apply to these
structures, located within five hundred feet of the
centerline of Pacific Coast Highway, within three hundred
feet of an existing hotel/motel facility, minimum fifty-five
foot front yard, can not be adjacent to an existing single
family residence on the same street, the recorded owner shall
be the operator of the bed and breakfast and reside on the
premises, maximum stay, hours, etc. Of Mr. Verhulst,
Councilmember Campbell sought confirmation that the
Krenwinkle house is intended to be his residence and not a B
and B, the response being that that is correct however the
plans have not as yet been changed, and noted the project has
been downsized from eight to six rooms. Councilmernber
Campbell noted the density of the downtown area, people want
to use the entire of a lot with little open space, however
this project is proposed at forty percent lot coverage where
others could have seventy-five percent, in that case nothing
is gained. She mentioned having questioned the proponent's
business plan and resultant impact on the City should this
facility fail, pointed out that the proponent does have the
expertise of having operated other such facilities, also the
fact that if the rate for this facility is $200 per night one
can be assured it will be nicely done, and should this
facility fail it could very well become a nice single family
residence, this proposal is to merely relocate two older
homes and live in one, that he can do without further
permission. Councilmember Campbell noted the concern with
having a bed and breakfast in their midst to which she again
made reference to the restrictions of the ZTA, concern too
about setting a precedent, that is something that needs to be
dealt on each case. She expressed her opinion that this
would be a plus, there is limited nice hotel space, this
would be within walking distance of shops and restaurants, if
the Radisson and Seal Beach Inn are generally booked, this
will provide another means of accommodations, and her intent
is to vote for approval. Councilman Boyd said having
listened to the discussion he made a pro and con list, his
approach has been that maybe a bed and breakfast is not so
bad, maybe something can be worked out, will it be a benefit
to the City, the revenue is nice, bed and breakfast guests
are typically upper middle class people, spend money, he has
stayed at such facilities, there are limited impacts. What
is being heard from the Council is that there are votes to
approve the ZTA, his feeling however is that there needs to
be a level playing field and it is not felt this is that, he
is in the apartment business in the field of real estate, if
one owns apartments in this City then ones business is
apartments, in many cities a business license is required to
own apartments, that generates revenue, in this case one
business is being treated differently than another. He said
this is a difficult area to build in, the question is will a
Band B be successful there, the revenue is marginal, the
house to the front of where he lives could likely be of
historical significance in that it is believed it was built
about 1922, it is uncertain that the time frame goes back far
enough when considering historical significance in that the
City of Seal Beach was incorporated in 1915. Councilman Boyd
said he supports the idea of downzoning, it will take two
I
I
3-13-00
generations to realize completely, the City is at the end of
the generation that did the downzoning, the second will
realize the benefits thereof, the first owns the majority of
apartment units, however the residential land value in Old
Town is $140 per square foot, therefore it is not thought
that the City would want to commercialize something that has
been unsuccessful in the past five to ten years as the
predominant residential area in the community. Councilman
Boyd noted parking as a significant issue also, pointing out
again that there appears to be three votes to approve, and if
that is the case he would propose a number of amendments to
this Zone Text Amendment which may change things or change
what the proponent may want to do, a question is would this
be allowed to be built new, the answer is no, when people are
asked if they want Band B's in Seal Beach the response is
generally affirmative, they are not so bad, one of the things
heard from the speakers is that the process has not met with
the satisfaction of the people, another issue is to weigh the
public benefit, what is it versus what would need to be given
up, there are also people who do not want tourism encouraged,
it is desired that businesses thrive but it is not desired
that Seal Beach be the hottest destination point, weekend
traffic gives an example, there are a number of pros and
cons. Mayor Yost pointed out that the subject area of the
ZTA is actually in his district, he understands the points of
both sides as well as the planning issues, there are tough
tradeoffs, no one is against saving old homes or bed and
breakfasts, it was said that if the Proctor house proposed to
be a bed and breakfast where it presently sits that would
likely pose little difficulty. The Mayor said of concern to
him is that if one wanted to build this project it could not
be done, in this case this is above the height limit, would
not meet the setbacks, require several variances, that does
become a privilege, yet it is said that is an exchange for
doing restoration, saving homes that are a part of Seal Beach
history. Mayor Yost stated of question to him is if this is
really restoration, the beauty of the Krenwinkle house to him
is the front side, the facade, the balcony, yet the proposal
is to turn the house sideways, place it on the back of a lot,
hide it behind the Proctor house, over a garage, is that
really restoration, and gave as an example Council Chamber in
a small town in Germany where restoration was customized as
original to the greatest degree possible, restoration to him
would be the Proctor house on its present location, possibly
as a bed and breakfast by allowing some things that would
make that feasible. The Mayor said of further concern is
density, only two units can be placed on that lot, what would
happen if the bed and breakfast no longer became viable, a
multi-unit dwelling, he needs to look out for the best
interests of that area for the future, what is going to
support the property values and quality of life in the long
term, single family residential probably does that more than
a bed and breakfast. Mayor Yost indicated he is leaning
against the ZTA. He noted a question as to why the City
proceeded with this matter, as obvious from the testimony
there is about equal numbers for and against this issue, it
is the obligation of the City to bring forth propositions and
proposals yet they do come to public hearing, it is unfair
criticism of staff to say this should not have been brought
forward, when there is an opportunity to try to save these
homes, the Historical Society in support of that, the City
too having tried to save them for some time, it is then felt
reasonable to expend the effort. Mayor Yost mentioned that
the way this ZTA is structured the need for variances is
greatly reduced, one can go over the height limit, there is
I
I
I
3-13-00
no need for setbacks, there are exceptions that pose concern,
if the Proctor house were to be moved without the variances
there would be much less concern.
I
Councilman Boyd stated his intent to propose changes to the
Zone Text Amendment as they are felt to be relevant and
significant, and specifically impacts District Three and
District One to some degree. To the Ordinance proposed,
Councilman Boyd referred to page seven, stating that this is
not a Residential Conservation Overlay rather a Bed and
Breakfast Overlay, if it were called a Residential
Conservation Overlay one would assume it would be to conserve
residential homes, that is not the case, it establishes bed
and breakfasts, and moved that the designation be changed.
Councilman Doane seconded the amendment. Councilmember
Campbell countered that this is preservation, if the
preservation aspect is removed then the bed and breakfast
aspect applies to any house one wants to move to the site.
Councilman Boyd expressed his viewpoint that an ordinance
should state exactly what it is. The City Attorney suggested
that since there is a motion for first reading of the
proposed Ordinance, the Ordinance can either be introduced or
the concept approved, reminding that there is the issue of
the Zone Change that will also be back before the Commission
and Council for public hearing and first and second reading.
The Mayor stated he would not accept amendments to this
Ordinance on such short notice, they should be put in writing
before consideration. The City Manager stated that staff is
looking to see if the Council wishes to put any further
effort into this issue, if a majority does then it is felt a
statement in concept could go before the Planning Commission
to move forward the other associated approvals. The City
Attorney again stated that if there are three votes in
support of the Overlay Zone, then the suggestions of Council
could be brought back to be discussed at a more reasonable
hour.
I
I
Councilman Boyd claimed privilege, however the second of the
amendment, Councilman Doane, said given further thought it is
not felt that the terminology of Residential Conservation
Overlay is misleading in that it states it permits only bed
and breakfast facilities within the overlay zone.
Councilmember Campbell suggested that either the amendments
being proposed by Councilman Boyd be considered one by one at
this meeting or that they be continued, that Councilman Boyd
list his changes, that will then allow the Council and public
an opportunity for review. Mayor Yost indicated his
opposition, however suggested a vote in concept and that
Councilman Boyd then work with the City Attorney, to that
Councilmember Campbell said she would not support.
Councilman Snow asked if this matter should be postponed for
further study. The City Attorney clarified that the original
motion and second was to approve the first reading of the
proposed Ordinance as drafted.
Councilman Boyd read his proposed changes as follows: 1)
change the reference from Residential Conservation Overlay to
language that would include terminology of Bed and Breakfast;
2) pages ten and eleven, that the owner can not attempt to
abate property taxes for a period not to exceed thirty years;
3) limit the size of the rehabilitation and construction of
the total square footage as specified by the Assessors Parcel
Book to no more than fifteen percent of the buildings; 4)
that two parking spaces be required for the owners unit
rather than one, and one space for each guest room; 5) that
3-13-00
there be no tandem garage parking; 6) require a fifty foot
front yard and a lot depth no less than one hundred feet; 7)
remove item 'e' that states that the operator also has to be
the owner and live on premises, narrowly restricting so that
it can only be an owner/operator, the Seal Beach Inn is not
owner/occupied, the owners do not live there; 8) remove item
'k' that states that subject to a conditional use permit bed
and breakfast facilities may be permitted to sell beer and
wine to registered guests, as it is preferred that guests
support the local business community; 9) that a development
agreement be drafted to specify that no conversion of the bed
and breakfast shall occur to allow the facility to convert
back to apartment use, to be signed by the applicant; 10)
page 12, remove section F-3, relating to no more than twenty-
five percent of parking may be located on a separate parcel,
no in-lieu parking at all; 11) delete Section 28-852(4), that
parking requirements for a bed and breakfast facility may be
met by additional on-street spaces as a result of the closure
of existing curb cuts; 12) must be completely ADA compliant;
and 13) strike Section 28-853 which allows for the variance
for the sideyard and height requirements. Councilmember
Campbell said she could not agree to some of the suggested
changes, and this would require too much discussion for this
meeting.
I
Vote on the motion to approve first reading of proposed
Ordinance Number 1455 as written:
AYES: Doane, Snow
NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Yost Motion failed
Boyd moved, second by Campbell to continue this item until I
the next meeting.
AYES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
NOES: None Motion carried
Inasmuch as the public hearing was closed, the City Attorney
suggested three options for consideration, to accept no
further public testimony, reopen the public hearing now, or
renotice for the March 27th meeting, if reopened at this
meeting additional noticing would not be required. Mayor
Yost said his preference would be to renotice the hearing
given the proposed changes. It was noted that some of the
changes proposed could actually make the project impossible,
such as the height, setbacks, and tandem parking.
STATUS REPORT - MUNICIPAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
It was mentioned again that this item had been held over
until the last meeting in April by action earlier in the
meeting.
RESOLUTION NUMBER 4791 - LEASE AGREEMENT / AWARD OF BID -
TELESCOPIC and ARTICULATING AERIAL DEVICE (BUCKET TRUCK)
Councilman Boyd suggested that in the future items that have
gone through the bid process, are approved budget items, or
do not exceed the budgeted amount be placed on the Consent
Calendar as has been done in the past. Council consensus was
indicated.
I
Boyd moved, second by Snow, to award the bid for the purchase
of one Telescopic and Articulating Aerial Devise to the sole
bidder, Altec Industries, Inc. in the amount of $66,218, and
adopted Resolution Number 4791 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING LEASE
3-13-00
AGREEMENT,
(Municipal
reading of
SIGNATORIES AND NOTICE
Finance Corporation).
Resolution Number 4791
OF INTENT TO
By unanimous
was waived.
BE REIMBURSED"
consent, full
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
I
AWARD OF BID - SEAL BEACH PIER CONCRETE REHABILITATION -
PROJECT NUMBER 715
Bids were received until March 7, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. for
Project Number 715, the Seal Beach pier Concrete
Rehabilitation, at which time the bids were publicly opened
by the City Clerk as follows:
Ace Restoration & Waterproofing, Inc.
Howard Ridley Co.
Metro Builders & Engineers Group, Ltd.
American Marine Corp.
Surfside Restoration
Los Angeles Engineering, Inc.
John S. Meek Co., Inc.
$35,000.00
$38,695.00
$39,076.84
$43,090.00
$43,111. 00
$48,125.00
$48,850.00
Awarded the construction contract for Project Number 715,
Seal Beach pier Concrete Rehabilitation, to the lowest
responsible bidder, Ace Restoration & waterproofing, Inc., in
the amount of $35,000 and authorized the City Manager to
execute said contract on behalf of the City.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
I
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1456 - NEWSRACKS / AMENDMENT 00-1 - MAIN
STREET SPECIFIC PLAN
Councilman Boyd proposed changes to the Ordinance as drafted,
specifically that no newsrack grouping shall be within two
hundred feet of each other rather than the proposed one
hundred feet, also, instead of the newsracks having wood
grain panels and gloss black mountings, suggested they
possibly be a kelly green, slate blue, or grey or other
acceptable colors as approved by the City Council and shall
be regularly maintained as to not appear in disrepair or poor
condition, the actual newsrack can be placed inside a shell
that meets the requirements of the City, other cities have
done this, they are attractive, this a means to improve the
appearance of Main Street, also, that the City reserves the
right to require the owner to replace or repair the newsrack
if found to be in disrepair with reasonable notice. with
regard to the proposed change to two hundred feet, the City
Attorney mentioned the legal standard, which is litigated
every so often, and advised that the City can not impose
restrictions that would unduly hamper the distribution of
newspapers through newsracks, thus the two hundred foot
restriction would need to be researched further. As to how
the one hundred foot requirement was reached, the City
Attorney stated this is basically determined by doing a
survey of what other cities have done, one hundred feet would
still allow a reasonable number of newsracks yet not hamper a
media source. The Director of Development Services reported
that staff did conduct a survey, Main Street in particular,
the issue that usually comes up is whether the number of
public information racks already in the area are going to be
reduced, the one hundred feet was felt would not require the
reduction of the number of racks that exist on the Street,
rather, be located in smaller groupings, if two hundred feet
that would likely result in the elimination of a substantial
I
3-13-00
number of racks which could cause concern by some of the
distributing publications, that is always a legal issue that
cities need to deal with. Councilman Boyd suggested a
compromise of one hundred fifty feet, and asked that by
second reading there be language relating to the enclosure of
the news racks or he would be willing to provide photographs
of such enclosures. With regard to the number of different
publications, the Director of Development Services responded
that there are probably about twenty-five to thirty counting
the free publications, and approximately eighty newsracks in
the Main Street area alone. It was noted that if the
distributors were not selling their papers they would remove
the racks.
I
Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve the introduction of
Ordinance Number 1456 as amended to incorporate the changes
stated, including the grouping distance of one hundred fifty
feet.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
The City Attorney advised that proposed Ordinance 1456 and
Amendment 00-1 to the Main Street Specific Plan will next be
presented to the Planning Commission for public hearing, then
the City Council.
CITY MANAGER SALARY INCREASE
Yost moved, second by Doane, to approve the amendment to the
employment contract of the City Manager to provide for a two
percent salary increase retroactive to November 15, 1999.
AYES:
NOES:
Doane, Snow, .Yost
Boyd, Campbell
I
Motion carried
STATE COPS FUNDS - ALLOCATION - WEAPONS/GEAR PURCHASE
To an inquiry of Councilmernber Campbell as to disposal of the
old weapons and ammunition, the police Chief responded that
the recommendation would be to have their value assessed and
limit them to sale to officers who currently carry a weapon,
not sale to the general public, concern would be with the
firearms falling into the hands of someone other than a peace
officer, turning them in was a consideration however there
was no guarantee as to whom they would be sold, the City
would lose that control. Reference was made to the street
value of a weapon.once belonging to a peace officer.
Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to find that the purchase of
in-service duty weapons with associated leather gear is
exempt from the formal bid procedure as defined in Section 2-
28 of the Municipal Code, the equipment is law enforcement
sensitive, in the best interest of the City to limit the
bidding to vendors already contacted and not submit to an
open, published bidding procedure, approved the purchase of
fifty-five Glock handguns from Glock Manufacturing in the
amount of $25,910, funded by State Cops Fund monies for
1998/1999 and 1999/2000, and approved the purchase of forty-
nine holsters and magazine pouches from Aardvark Tactical,
Inc. in the amount of $5,287, also funded by State Cops Fund
monies.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
'None Motion carried
3-13-00
Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to extend this meeting by an
additional fifteen minutes past the 11:59 p.m. adjournment
time.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
I
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Yost declared the Public Comment period to be open.
Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, claimed that the Council did not
want the public to speak to certain agenda items, charged
that there has not been an evaluation of the City Manager yet
he is receiving a two percent salary increase, now the
Council will meet in Closed Session to discuss a possible
settlement relating to the prior dismissal of a whistle
blower employee, it is wrong to allow an increase without the
evaluation, the Council is becoming a party to his behavior,
once the behavior was known the Manager needed to be released
from employment. She charged that the Manager is now sending
public records to Arizona, that requires a court order by a
judge in Arizona, there has been employee harassment,
employees told to not discuss certain issues. Ms. Corbin
said it has been clarified that Roberts Rules are in the
Charter and that the Manager and staff are required to remain
in the meetings unless excused, the rules need to be followed
not continually changed. The Mayor responded that the
Manager did receive an evaluation and that resulted in the
two percent salary increase. Ms. Marilyn Hastings, Seal
Beach, referred to the amendments put forth by Councilman
Boyd to the Zone Text Amendment, one that if the bed and
breakfast use were not successful he would not want it to
revert to apartment units, and asked that that be expanded to
include motels. Ms. Hastings mentioned that a video will be
made on Jack Haley this coming Thursday morning at 9:00 a.m.
that will include a number of people who were instrumental
with regard to the building of the Police Sub-Station, and
extended an invitation to the City Manager to be part of this
piece. Speaking to the ZTA item, Mr. Dave Bartlett said in
response to some of the amendments proposed they are
basically a conditional denial of the project, the
restrictions would eliminate the project, he mentioned that
there are standards in the City and the industry, the only
request is that the standards be respected. He noted that
the Radisson has seventy-one rooms, seventy-two parking
spaces, one being for the manager, it is believed the Seal
Beach Inn and Gardens has twenty-four rooms, twelve parking
spaces, one-half of a space per room, the proposed project
has one per unit plus one for the owners unit, considerable
research has been done, it is believed the independent
analysis done by staff is fair, if the Council wants the
houses to meet the wrecking ball that is what is being asked
for. Mr. Bartlett made reference to the fifteen percent
modification limit, what is proposed is twenty-two percent
which is within the standards of both federal and State
guidelines, that is felt to be fair, the proposal that the
recorded owner does not necessarily have to live on the
property, that is felt to be a mistake, the owner should live
on the property, that is pride in ownership to make the
facility look better, operate better, as an example for years
the owners of the Seal Beach Inn lived in and operated that
facility, they no longer do but they set the standards and
that is what has made it an asset to the community, to delete
the ability to sell alcoholic beverages is acceptable, to the
proposal of deleting the twenty-five percent of off-site
parking, the City allows that now, why would it not be
I
I
3-13-00
allowed for this project. Mr. Bartlett said the request is
that everyone operate by the same ground rules, not treat
this project differently than others, so when this is next
discussed it is hoped there will be a level playing field,
and it is understood that for a project such as this to move
forward it is necessary to have parameters that are
acceptable to the applicant and the community, if not it ends
up as a conditional denial. There being no further comments,
Mayor Yost declared Public Comments closed.
I
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
No report was presented.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
No report was presented.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Campbell extended congratulations to City
Clerk, Joanne Yeo, and Mr. John Larson on their recent
election victories, expressed appreciation to everyone who
helped with her election, those who voted, and those who
called with congratulations afterward. Councilmember
Campbell mentioned that everyone would like to see the
utility users tax lowered however the people in her district
did not want to lose the Police Department in that process,
and to that asked that during the budget considerations that
a one percent reduction be looked at. With regard to the
scam in College Park East that was previously mentioned,
Councilmernber Campbell reported that the Police Department is
now involved, pursuing the people for fraud, and explained
that these persons take money up front, remove driveways,
dump the rubble in the street and then leave. She urged the
residents to check to make sure their contractors have a
license, compare that to their drivers license, check
references, workers should never be paid up front, in the
recent instances the City has had to clean and haul away the
debris, if such people are observed the residents should call
the Police Department. Mayor Yost stated that Mr. Till is
probably the most evaluated City Manager in Southern
California.
I
CLOSED SESSION
The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in
Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the
addendum to the agenda, a conference with legal counsel
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Stoddard
versus City of Seal Beach. The Council, by unanimous
consent, adjourned to Closed Session at 12:05 a.m. and
reconvened at 12:26 a.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting
to order. The City Attorney reported the Council gave
direction to the City Attorney, no other action was taken.
ADJOURNMENT
By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned the meeting at
12:27 a.m.
I
clerk
3-13-00 / 3-27-00
Approved:
r
Mayor
Attest:
I
Seal Beach, California
March 27, 2000
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
session at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Yost dedicated this meeting to the memory of Jack
Haley. At the invitation of the Mayor, Ms. Marilyn Hastings
stated that on March 25th an era ended when Jack W. Haley,
icon of world surfing, passed on to surf perfect waves in an
eternal endless summer, Aloha Jack. A moment of silence was
observed in memory of Mr. Haley.
Those present joined in the Salute to the Flag. It was
announced that services for Mr. Haley will be forthcoming,
the City will be participating in that Mr. Haley gave
considerable to this community.
I
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Yost
Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow
Absent: None
Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development
Services
Mr. Dancs, Assistant City Engineer
Chief Cushman, Lifeguard Department
Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation and Parks
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
I
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Yost requested that Item "G", the Seal Beach Boulevard
Sewer Replacement project, be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate consideration, and Councilmember
Campbell requested that Item "M", the public hearing to
consider renewal of the Edison Company pipeline franchise, be
heard before Item "L", Zone Text Amendment 00-1. Councilman
Doane noted that the new category of Announcements was not
listed on the agenda. He was assured it would be added after
the approval of the agenda. Boyd moved, second by Campbell,
to approve the order of the agenda as revised.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
Councilman Boyd pointed out to the public that under the new
meeting guidelines they are allowed the opportunity to speak
on any item removed from the Consent Calendar, as has also
been past practice. The Mayor noted that the public may