HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2000-10-23
10-9-00 / 10-23-00
Attest:
Seal Beach, California
October 23, 2000
I
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
adjourned session at 6:03 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling
the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Campbell
Councilmembers Boyd, Doane, Larson, Yost
Absent:
None
Also present:
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
The Interim City Manager, Mr. MCIntyre, joined the Council in
Closed Session.
CLOSED SESSION
The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in
Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, 54956.9(a), (b),
and (c), and 54957.6, noted that there should be four items
rather than one relating to anticipated litigation, and that
the agenda may be amended to make a finding to include same.
I
Boyd moved,
inasmuch as
agenda.
second by Larson, to add three additional items
they came to attention after the posting of the
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session
at 6:05 p.m. and reconvened at 7:14 p.m. with Mayor Campbell
calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported
that the Council had discussed the items identified on the
agenda as well as the three items added to the agenda, the
City Council gave directions, there was no other reportable
action.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair,
to adjourn the meeting at 7:15
I
consent of the Council,
Approved:
--/JaJJ,JwA.?~
Ma or
I
I
I
10-23-00
Attest:
~OJJI
City Clerk ~
Seal Beach, California
October 23, 2000
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
session at 7:17 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting
to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Campbell
Councilmembers Boyd, Doane, Larson, Yost
Absent:
None
Also present: Mr. McIntyre, Interim 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, Parks,
Community Services
Ms. Arends-King, Director of Administrative
Services
Mr. Dorsey, Assistant to the City Manager
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilman Boyd requested that items "K" and "N" be removed
from the Consent Calendar for an update by staff. Boyd
moved, second by Larson, to approve the order of the agenda
as revised.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilman Boyd noted that the Seal Beach Chamber and
Business Association will be sponsoring a beach cleanup on
the north side of the pier this coming Saturday. Kim and
Steve Masoner added that the beach cleanup will be from 11:00
a.m. until 3:00 p.m., the Governor's wife will be attending
along with than five hundred participants, this will help the
City'S cause to raise money for beach cleanup, also, next
week there will a San Gabriel River cleanup from 9:00 a.m.
until 4:00 p.m., suggested that those having an interest call
the Chamber office for further information. Mayor Campbell
announced that the College Park East Neighborhood Association
will be hosting Halloween at Heather Park on Sunday, October
29th at 1:00 p.m. with games, contests, and fun for all.
Councilman Yost mentioned the Bayers to Barkers fund raiser
for the Animal Care Center and the California Paralyzed
Veterans Run and Walk at the Naval weapons Station, both
taking place on November 11th.
10-23-00
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Campbell declared Public Comments to be open. Mayor
Campbell noted that the public will have the opportunity to
comment on the merchants parking, Trailer Park, and tennis
club issues at the time they are considered, and that the
five minute speaking time will be adhered to in all
instances. Grant Newton, president of the Leo's Club, spoke
on behalf of the Club in support of Red Ribbon Week.
I
PRESENTATION
Mayor Campbell read in full the Proclamation declaring the
week of October 23rd through October 29th, 2000 as "Red
Ribbon Week." Boyd moved, second by Larson, to adopt the
Proclamation.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
Members of the Leo's were introduced and in turn presented
red ribbons to the members of the Council. Chief Sellers
expressed appreciation for the efforts of the young people in
the community and noted that a successful Red Ribbon Week
assembly was held at McGaugh School this date, the Chief was
joined by Officer Paap and Sergeant Zanone.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - continued
Ms. Laura Brecht, 6th Street, stated she recently came upon
information of which she felt the City should be put on
notice as it relates to Government Code Section 87100. Ms.
Brecht reported her inquiry as to the status of the business
license of Councilman Boyd, found it to have expired June
30th and not renewed for either Shawn Boyd, Boyd and
Associates, or BP Company and Associates, her research showed
that Councilman Boyd sold his Dockside Yacht Service business
then founded Boyd and Associates where it appeared he was the
principal and sole employee, that company later became BP
Company, the business address fluctuated between 7th Street
and a post box, and said an employee of the City stated Mr.
Boyd would be notified of the expired license. Ms. Brecht
stated that during the past election campaign there was no
license for the Dockside Yacht Service and to that asked who
enforces the licensing requirement, what is the penalty for
not having a license; as a member of the Council and having
been charged with not having a license what is the recourse
the City must follow. Ms. Brecht made reference to Fair
Political Practices Commission Form 700, Schedule C requiring
all sources of income and business positions to be listed
with blocks identifying a range of monetary interest, the
report of 1998 claimed income of over $10,000, no other
income source reported, other positions included the
Redevelopment Agency, Orange County Sanitation District and
Orange County Fire Authority, if a stipend is received should
it not be listed as a source of income under the minimum of
$250. She mentioned too a like form filed for the City of La
Puente in August, 2000 showing the only source of income as a
La Puente business liaison at $10,000, a contract position
renewed this year at $25,000, neither Boyd and Associates or
other income source was listed. She then made reference to
the 700 Form of January, 2000 showing the only source of
income over $10,000 was the principal of Boyd and Associates,
business activity as real estate/consultant, there is no
listing of the sale of Dockside Services nor monies received
regarding it, to which she questioned why the profit from the
sale was not shown, she questioned also if it is mandatory to
report spousal income, does this relate to how income tax is
I
I
10-23-00
I
filed. Ms. Brecht said as of June, 2000, Boyd and Associates
became BP Company gaining a partner to expand services, the
associate specializing in federal assistance programs and
legislative work spending up to three quarters of his time in
Washington, D. C., this business does not have a Seal Beach
business license yet the monthly invoices to La Puente uses a
Seal Beach address and payments are mailed to that address.
Ms. Brecht claimed that La Puente hired Mr. Boyd to assist in
highlighting their business community as a public affairs
firm specializing in economic development and land use
planning, he writes a column in a local business paper, a
recent article reports that he has provided assistance to the
City of Orange, the Census Bureau, and the California
Department of Fish and Game among others, therefore by not
listing those incomes on the 700 Form Mr. Boyd is misleading
the FPPC by generalizing them as Boyd and Associates income.
To her the key word is accountability. Ms. Brecht said Mr.
Boyd files a monthly report with La Puente as required by his
contract, a report in recent months requests that a meeting
be held with Allied who represent Togo's, Baskin Robbins,
Starbucks, and Dunkin' Donuts. Given the expiration of the
five minute speaking time, Ms. Dorothy Whyte continued to
read the statement of Ms. Brecht which cited those companies
as always looking for expansion opportunities with the belief
there may be such opportunities in La Puente, the comments of
Ms. Brecht were that that is a interesting point in that Mr.
Boyd has been looking to bring Starbucks to Seal Beach, and
according to a recent local news article the Council approved
a new CUP for Starbucks which provides limits of their
operational rights as to the drive through and childrens play
area, Mr. Boyd has been working with a representative of
Starbucks in a consulting capacity in La Puente, is their a
tie to the proposed Starbucks in Seal Beach, if so is that
not a conflict of interest, could he be collecting a finders
fee, and since he has been dealing with Starbucks in an
official capacity as part of his personal business might
there be a conflict of interest where he should have
abstained from voting given the possibility of receiving a
commission, question is if his vote in favor is proper as a
result of information that he has disclosed. Ms. Whyte read
the statement of Ms. Brecht further relating to the new Boyds
Books and Fine Gifts on Main Street, the store currently
being remodeled, there has been no mention of a CUP at that
location, a news article reports that the Council is looking
to charge $200 per annual merchant parking permit, how does
that affect the Boyd Books, as to the CUP if the store were
to be a one hundred percent book store that would be no
problem, the question is what percent of the store is devoted
to books and what percent to fine gifts, the addition of
gifts changes the CUP and that should be looked into by the
Council, since the intent of the store is changing the CUP
should be reevaluated, in future considerations relating to
Main Street businesses Mr. Boyd should abstain since his
family has a vested interest, upcoming consideration of
Boeing as well given a conflict of interest, what about
decisions relating to the coastline to receive benefits from
the California Fish and Game, these need to be addressed.
The statement of Ms. Brecht was that her information was
meant to be given thought, requested that each point be
looked into and addressed at the next Council meeting, this
is putting the Council on notice, she wants this reported on
in a timely manner, Mr. Boyd promised to bring more business
to town and should he receive beneficial gains, questionable
is his ability to serve on the Council. Ms. Dorothy Whyte,
College Park East, questioned what background is necessary to
I
I
10-23-00
be an economic consultant. In reference to the recently
distributed flier by her Council representative, asked why
the residents were not informed of the presentation on the
tennis facility, at the Recreation and Parks Commission
meeting the District Four representative was asked to let her
know when this presentation would be made however said she
did not, stated that College Park residents have not had an
opportunity to review the proposal, she did not see a notice
of any meeting, the proposed park is not for College Park
East, it is a City park, any member of commissions, the
Council, and citizens have a right to discuss it. Ms. Whyte
asked that the tennis facility proposed concept plan be held
over, her feeling is that it is being rushed through, two of
the Recreation and Parks commissioners were new and they
voted on the item at their first meeting, she did not feel
that was proper, and she did not believe that people are
aware that part of Bluebell Park is proposed to be a parking
lot. With regard to the comments made relating to his FPPC
forms, Councilman Boyd asked that legal counsel review his
statements to determine if he had made an error. Mr. Dave
Bartlett addressed the Council on behalf of Hellman
Properties and read a letter from Mr. Jerry Tone to the
Council relating to the Coastal Commission hearing on the
Hellman Ranch proposal. Mr. Tone expressed his hope that the
City would agree with him that the Commission's unanimous
approval of the project on October 11th is an exciting
victory for the environment, the community, the neighborhood,
and the coast as a whole, it has taken many years to reach
this point and during that time there have been many
concessions made by all parties, in truth, the project, as
approved, is a great one, one that all can be proud of.
Hellman properties looks forward to initiating the
restoration of the Los Cerritos wetlands complex and are
enthusiastic about being the first project in that endeavor,
although there are some who fear that nothing will be done to
restore the wetlands, he wished to take this opportunity to
state that the wetlands will be restored, as an example, the
most important first step towards restoration is to make the
property available for sale, that has been done, there have
been productive discussions with the California Coastal
Conservancy, the wildlife Conservation Board, the California
Department of Parks and Recreation, the Port of Long Beach,
and other potential buyers of the lowlands, there is no
question in his mind that an agreement will be reached with
one of those buyers in the near future. Mr. Tone stated he
looks forward to returning to Seal Beach soon to share good
news with regard to a letter of intent to purchase the
lowlands, in the meantime, the enthusiastic support of the
many people in the community is appreciated, and he looks
forward to working with all to make this project a reality.
Mr. Bartlett expressed his personal thanks for the support
afforded at the Coastal meeting a week ago and for the past
couple of years, and he too looks forward to implementing the
project. Councilman Yost noted that changes to the
development agreement, etc. still need to come before the
Council for reapproval, asked if that has been scheduled as
yet, and offered that he would have further comments relating
to the Hellman project under Council comments. The Director
of Development Services responded that staff is reviewing the
documents to determine what revisions will be necessary. Mr.
Doug Brown, Seal Beach, once again brought into Chambers a
large container of trash and debris he claimed to have
collected from the beach and jetty, stated there needs to be
help to collect the big pieces, and reported that a Catalina
boat was recently stopped for dumping, something needs to be
I
I
I
10-23-00
I
done to stop the trash before it reaches the beach. Mr.
Brown was encouraged to join the beach and River cleanup
efforts on October 28th and November 4th. Mr. Gordon Shanks,
Surf Place, said he did not want to be critical but somewhat
practical, the people of Seal Beach have been made aware of
the debris problem that affects the beach and waters, what
could be more helpful would be for Mr. Brown to take his
collections to the cities up-river to show them what is
coming down-river, go to the areas where the problem begins.
Ms. Kim Shearer, Seal Beach, said she did not necessarily
agree with the prior speaker, she appreciates that Mr. Brown
comes to each meeting and tries to bring an awareness to the
beach problem, stated that fifteen years ago the beach was
clean, today it is dirty, an attempt could be made to make
the people up-stream aware but that is the duty of the
Council, not the residents. Mayor Campbell mentioned once
again that everything legally possible is being done to
resolve this issue. There being no further comments, Mayor
Campbell declared Public Comments to be closed.
PRESENTATIONS - continued
PROCLAMATION - INTERVAL HOUSE / DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS
MONTH
Mayor Campbell read in full the proclamation declaring the
month of October in the year 2000 as "Domestic Violence
Awareness Month" and recognizing the leadership role of
Interval Crisis Shelters. Larson moved, second by Yost, to
so proclaim.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
Mayor Campbell presented the Proclamation to representatives
from Interval House, thereafter it was noted that the first
House was rented some twenty-two years ago, working from the
garage with a card table as a desk and a single telephone as
the 'hot line', Interval House has grown and Seal Beach
continues to be its home base. The representative noted that
Interval House will be the recipient of the Governor's Award
this year for the second time, the only battered womens home
to receive this honor, and accepted the proclamation with
appreciation for the many women and children whose lives have
been changed because of the support and pioneering leadership
of Interval House, also, in honor of Adell Fontner Quinn, a
roll model for Interval House, who passed away the previous
day.
PROCLAMATION - INFLUENZA PREVENTION MONTH
Boyd moved, second by Yost, to proclaim November, 2000 as
"Influenza Prevention Month."
I
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
COUNCIL ITEMS
WATER OUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN - AD HOC CITIZEN COMMITTEE
The Director of Public Works noted that this item is
basically the next step in formulating a Water Quality
Management Plan, the City was the recipient of a $450,000
State grant last year to move forward with this program, the
first phase, the purchase of beach cleaning equipment, has
been accomplished, this next phase is the preparation of a
comprehensive plan. He mentioned that Council recently
10-23-00
approved the contract with John Tettemer Associates to
perform the basic engineering work for the Plan, and as part
of this process an ad-hoc citizen committee was envisioned
that would work with City staff and consultants to develop
something fitting to Seal Beach that is workable and
realistic. The Director requested Council consideration of
appointment of a five member committee, however the
membership is at the option of the Council. Councilman Yost
mentioned Mr. Mike Balchin, local Surfrider Chapter President
and stated he would give thought to other appointees. Mayor
Campbell suggested that appointments to such committee be
agendized for the next meeting, and read an excerpt from the
staff report relating to the grant. One appointee per member
of the Council was also suggested. Councilman Yost noted
that the Orange County sanitation District discovered the
source of the last sewage spill, Seal Beach may receive some
reimbursement monies for the clean up and economic detriment
to the community. Councilman Boyd recalled the attendance of
the Sanitation District Manager at a meeting of the Council
shortly after that spill accepting the responsibility of the
District, at which time there was an offer to run public
service announcements on behalf of this City in the cities in
the San Gabriel Valley area that are watershed contributories
to the San Gabriel River, informing people of the problems
that have been created, it is believed those announcements
are continuing.
I
The understanding was that the appointments to the ad-hoc
committee will be agendized for the next meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "E" thru "0"
Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve the recommended
action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except
Items "K" and "N", removed for separate consideration.
I
E. Approved the waiver of reading in full of
all ordinances and resolutions and that
consent to the waiver of reading shall be
deemed to be given by all Councilmembers
after reading of the title unless specific
request is made at that time for the
reading of such ordinance or resolution.
F. Approved the minutes of the October 9, 2000
regular adjourned and regular meetings.
G. Adopted Resolution Number 4848 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS FOR THE
2000/01 FISCAL YEAR." By unanimous consent,
full reading of Resolution Number 4848 was
waived.
H.
Adopted Resolution Number 4849 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING FINAL BUDGET
AMENDMENTS FOR THE 1999/00 FISCAL YEAR."
By unanimous consent, full reading of
Resolution Number 4849 was waived.
I
I. Adopted Resolution Number 4850 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF THE
NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND TURN POCKETS LOCATED
AT THE MAIN STREET/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
10-23-00
INTERSECTION." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolution Number 4850 was waived.
J. Received and filed the Building Department
Activity Summary for June, 2000.
I
L.
Approved the award of a Professional Services
Agreement to AKM Consulting Engineers to
perform the Water System Hydraulic Modeling
Study for an amount not to exceed $40,000.
M. Adopted Resolution Number 4851 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
#623, CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOCAL DRAINAGE
PROGRAM, 10th STREET, CONTRACT ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN E. C. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent,
full reading of Resolution Number 4851 was
waived.
O. Authorized the use of existing grant funds
to purchase a five transceiver spread
spectrum radio data network, display equipment
for WestComm, and purchase hardware/software
required for implementation of an Internet
based, alarm triggered video network.
P.
Authorized the purchase of two, year
2000, Ford Expedition model, patrol and
unmarked police vehicles utilizing grant
funds previously approved in the 1996/97
Supplemental Law Enforcement Block Grant
and City budgets for fiscal years 1999/
2000 and 2000/2001.
I
Q.
Approved regular demands numbered 29424
through 29638 in the amount of $566,349.98,
payroll demands numbered 9464 through 9784,
and 9000395 through 9000416 in the amount of
$466,675.27, and authorized warrants to be
drawn on the Treasury for same.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
I
ITEM "K" - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - ON-CALL
UTILITY/ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS/PROJECT MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT
Councilman Boyd spoke favorably of this proposal, said there
are a number of projects on-going, Seal Beach Boulevard,
alley improvements with water and sewer lines in Old Town and
other areas of the community, City staff is minimum, as an
example the large projects have consumed the Engineering
Department that is staffed with a City Engineer and
Assistant, the Planning Department as well is staffed with
two people, and the majority of public complaints is that
things are not being done quickly enough, also, contracting
for work is cost effective and brings quality work. Boyd
moved, second by Larson, to approve the on-call Professional
Services Agreement to retain Ergun Bakall, P. E., Consulting
Civil Engineer at a rate of $100 per hour, not to exceed the
various budget line items as shown within the City's adopted
10-23-00
2000/2001 fiscal year budget under the Water and Sewer
operational cost centers and various water and sewer capital
improvement projects.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
ITEM "N" - STATUS REPORT - BEACH SAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM /
WINTER BERM CONSTRUCTION
The Director of Public Works reported that the beach sand
berm is essentially in place, about one more day of sand
moving equipment. He mentioned that there has been
backpassing of a substantial amount of sand this year, as
there was last year, this will continue to be done on an
annual basis, surveys were done before the backpass and it
was found that a considerable amount of sand had moved around
the groin, settling on the west beach, a large amount of that
was moved back, and some of the finer sand was moved from the
front of the west beach homes, also, a means of trading the
fine sand for a better quality sand is being looked into.
Councilman Boyd expressed appreciation for the efforts along
Seal Way, working with the residents of that area, sand
management is a major issue and saves considerable City
monies. Boyd moved, second by Larson, to receive and file
the status report.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
Mayor Campbell took a hand survey of those interested in the
remaining agenda items. A majority of the Council dismissed
a suggestion to hold some items over to another meeting.
I
PUBLIC HEARING - MERCHANT PARKING PERMIT FEE
Mayor Campbell declared the public hearing open to consider
an adjustment of the fee for merchant parking permits. The
City Clerk certified that the notice of public hearing had
been advertised as well as hand delivered to the local
merchants, and that written communications signed by twenty-
seven persons in opposition to the fee adjustment were
received, copies of which were provided the Council. The
Interim City Manager mentioned that staff made a presentation
on this subject two meetings ago, set a public hearing for
the last meeting however that was continued in response to a
request from the business community, the issue is rather
simple, what is an appropriate amount to charge for the
annual permit, how often should they be issued, what is the
fair return to the taxpayers for this expensive parcel of
property that is being used for parking purposes. The
Manager offered that staff has no recommendation as to what
the fee should be however it appears that the current rate is
low. Councilman Boyd noted an issue brought up earlier as a
result of his interest in the book store on Main Street, and
inquired if this would pose a conflict of interest. The City
Attorney responded that the issue would be if this
consideration would have an impact on the value of the
property or rent. Councilman Boyd stated they do not own the
property, they are a tenant. Based on that, the Attorney
said it would seem unlikely that this would have a financial
impact on the rent, however it would be a decision of the
Councilman as to whether there is a lease provision where the
rent would fluctuate as a result of the merchant parking
permit fee, the response was that there is not, therefore the
opinion was that Councilman Boyd could act on this item.
I
10-23-00
I
Mayor Campbell invited members of the audience wishing to
speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their
name and address for the record. Mr. Brian Kyle, Seal Beach,
said he wished to speak to the proposal to raise the parking
fee from $40 to $200, mentioned that this fee is voluntary,
it is not a mandatory City fee, in 1983 the fee. was $25,
raised to $40 in 1994, at that time there were two hundred
fifty parking spaces sold, there are one hundred sixty sold
at this time according to the staff report, the dollars off
by only $300. Mr. Kyle stated he offers to split the permit
cost with his forty-seven employees, most are college
students, he would guarantee that if the price is raised none
will buy a permit, the lot will be empty, an example is the
lot in the 100 block of Main since meters were installed, no
one uses it. Mr. Kyle recalled that in 1994 $50,000 was
spent for the Zucker Systems report, which stated that based
on the parking analysis the demand and supply was considered
to be a relatively good balance yet there was need to provide
additional conveniently located parking spaces, the idea of
the Main Street Specific Plan Committee was to move the
employees and merchants from parking on Main Street to the
8th Street lot, that made sense, it was good parking
management, and the only program that is working. Mr. Kyle
suggested that if there is a system that works it should be
left alone, again, there are now only one hundred sixty
permits being sold, if the fee is increased none will be
sold, that results in a bankrupt system with people parking
on Main Street or the residential streets, the City will be
creating its own problem. Mr. Woody Woodruff, Main Street
business and property owner, said he wished to address the
proposal to meter.the 8th Street lot or raise the merchant
parking permit fee by five hundred percent, both will fail,
it is known that the metered lots off-Main, while continuing
free, unenforced parking on Main Street, has caused the
metered lots to be greatly under used which creates traffic
congestion on Main by people cruising for free parking, this
mistake has already been made, what would be the motivation
to do it again. The alternative plan for a five hundred
percent increase of the price for merchant parking permits to
$200 is also ill-conceived, many of the employees on Main
Street are high school and college students that work part
time or summer employees, they can not afford this cost, the
businesses that purchase or split the cost of parking
stickers with their employees will not be able to continue to
do so with the increased price, thus more employees will park
on Main or clog the residential streets, the merchant lot
will no longer be viable, the only component of the parking
policy that has worked, his feeling is that instead of
killing the only successful component of the parking
management program, it should be revitalized, restore and
increase the availability of merchant parking by cutting the
fee in half, that is double the price of a resident sticker
which is valid twenty-four hours, and again allow the
merchants to park in the under-used metered lots and
incorporate the use of the south side of the beach lot. Mr.
Woodruff said he understands the City's concern with revenue
yet traffic and parking problems can destroy the business
district and the neighboring residential areas, the
consequences is 'lost sales tax revenue, lower rents for
residential and commercial properties, lost taxes from lower
property values, and lost taxes due an increased need for
policing, all revenues should be looked at and'how they are
affected by decisions. Mr. Woodruff said he was asked why
the City should be subsidizing Main Street, first, the
businesses have paid between $250,000 to $300,000 in in-lieu
I
I
10-23-00
parking fees yet not one new space has been created, all know
of the grandfathered and bootlegged apartments and garages
rented out and not used for parking and triplexes with only
one space, the business community is no more subsidized than
are the residential areas, when talking subsidizing that is
an attempt to divide people, this is a one-and-the-same
community no matter the area of the City, no one should be
allowed to divide the community. Mr. Woodruff submitted a
petition having three hundred twenty-five signatures, aid
there were more however some pages were lost, the signatures
are mostly residents as Main Street is primarily owned and
run by residents. Mr. Gary Edens, recent owner of Woodstock,
thirty year resident, suggested that this proposal be looked
at from a business point of view, the hardest part of retail
is selling things for a profit, determining what a fair price
is, that is what needs to be done if one wants to stay in
business, his feeling is that the City should be more
responsible in looking at not just the value to the City but
supply and demand, what people will buy, employees that are
students can not afford to purchase a parking permit. Mr.
Edens asked where the $200 cost proposal, a five hundred
percent increase, came from, in his opinion no one will buy a
permit at that, this should be done fairly, there will be no
profit made from this, hopefully a more fair agreement can be
reached, and to a prior comment, the merchants are not asking
to be subsidized. Mr. Steve Zenga, a web business owner
located above Woodstock, said he has eight full time
employees, he pays for their parking, the City is now asking
him to pay $1,600 per year rather than $320. Ms. Lisa
Woodruff, Main Street business and property owner, mentioned
talking to a member of the audience who, as a college
student, said that if this fee is raised she will need to
quit her part time job and work elsewhere. Ms. Woodruff said
she is against a price increase of any amount, as a former
resident she is aware of how it will affect them, working on
Main Street she is aware too of how it will affect employees,
as a business owner she is aware of how it will affect
merchants, at present there are a number of Main Street
employees that have a difficult time paying $40 for a parking
permit, most are part time, most are high school or college
students, some merchants have the ability to assume the
financial responsibility to purchase the permit or share its
cost but not all merchants can afford to do that, some have a
few employees, some have twenty or more, with the increase
the employers will not be able to assist their employees with
the permit cost, with the price increase and use.of Main
Street and residential areas for parking residents will have
a much more difficult time finding a parking space near where
they live, consumers will not want to shop Seal Beach when
parking can not be found, this has been found true by talking
to her customers, all of these problems the result of an
unnecessary price increase. Ms. Woodruff stated that not
only should the price of a merchant parking permit not be
raised, other areas need to be opened up for employee parking
so that merchant customers can park and spend money in this
town, the price increase proposal is short sighted, and will
be staggering and financially devastating to many who work
and live in Seal Beach. Mr. Stan Anderson, Seal Beach
resident and business owner, asked what problem is being
solved by this proposal, there is a parking management
problem, obviously nothing has been solved, there has been an
in-lieu program for over ten years, it is not known where
that money is, his understanding is that some of those monies
were spent for the Main Street Specific Plan to help resolve
some of the parking management problems, he has seen nothing
I
I
I
10-23-00
I
done. The need is to increase parking not reduce parking, he
would not like to see parking shift to the Seal Beach Center
but his feeling is that that is what will occur, there needs
to be a place for these people to park, it. is not necessary
to raise the fee from $40 to $200, the merchant stickers
being sold is reduced to one hundred sixty, now there will be
none, someone needs to do a parking management program,
raising the fee does not solve the problem, it needs to be
known where the merchants can park, there should be no price
increase unless there is some means shown that this will help
the merchants and the residents with their parking situation.
Mr. Tom Powers said his daughter works on Main Street, has a
parking sticker yet has received three citations, if this fee
is raised to $200 she will not be able to afford a sticker.
Dr. Walt Babcock, Walts Wharf, agreed with the comments of
the business people, it seems as if the Council is trying to
alienate the people who do good business for the City, it
would be nice if the City could sell the spaces for $200 but
the spaces can not be guaranteed so this does not seem
reasonable. Dr. Babcock noted there are strict parking rules
at Walts, if an employee parks in the Main/Central lot or the
dental office spaces one can lose their job, if the Council
comes to a decision to approve this increase the only choice
will be to tell the employees to park wherever they can, that
will create additional problems for Main Street. There being
no further comments, Mayor Campbell declared the public
hearing closed.
I
Councilman Boyd noted that this issue has come up a number of
times, discussed with staff, the conclusion being that
something is being provided the merchants that is of
significant value, the ability to park in the lot at a
relatively fair price, the current fee can simply not be
reduced, maybe it is timely to relook the parking management
issue, possibly an ad hoc committee consisting of business,
Council, and others, personally he does not advocate meters
on Main Street yet others are for it, at this point the issue
is what is a fair price for a merchant permit. Councilman
Boyd made reference to the breakdown provided by staff
commencing at $.02/hour based upon an annual two thousand
hour employment schedule at the current $40 annual fee up to
a $.10 hourly equivalent for a $200 annual fee, this was
looked at for the purpose of discussion, he did not feel that
$200 was ever seriously considered, optimistically the City
would like to realize $200 from each of those spaces, however
a point was made during this discussion that something being
sold must be reasonable. He said he would advocate an
increase of the fee yet in addition an amendment of the
parking program, currently a merchant buys a permit once a
year and places it on the vehicle, his feeling is that this
should be a transferrable pass that can hang from the vehicle
mirror, this would allow a merchant to purchase permits that
can then be circulated among the employees, possibly tie a
CPI index to the permit fee so that it is not continually
being revisited, maybe provide for a five year review, at
this time increase the fee to $48, which in his opinion is
still an inadequate fee. He offered that with further
planning it is felt additional parking could be made
available behind the businesses, yet it is understood that it
is challenging to find parking at times, the store that his
family is opening will have parking behind, this is an
environment that was built many years ago, there is an
attempt to bring people into conformance with the Code, one
way that is done is to encourage merchants to park in the
8th/Central lot, it is correct that the parking was taken
I
10-23-00
away in the lots that are currently metered, in part that was
due to citizen complaints that there was no parking on Main
Street, now there is and at a minimal fee, if cruising is a
problem it may be necessary to relook the issue.
Councilman Boyd moved to make the merchant parking permit
transferrable and as a hang tag, establish an annual review
period for adjustment by the CPI, and that the permit fee for
2000/2001 be established at $48. Councilman Larson seconded
the motion.
I
Mayor Campbell noted the mention of a comprehensive parking
policy and a parking management problem, to that she agreed
for the reason that as long as there is free parking anywhere
people will use it. With regard to the new parking system at
the beach, the feedback she is getting is that it is
confusing, she has personally never favored a flat fee for
the beach parking, in her opinion that encourages people to
not use those lots because they do not want to pay $6 for
parking time they are not going to use, her preference would
be to pay for the time used, as an example would anyone pay
$6 for parking to have lunch at Ruby's, the 1st Street lot is
confusing as well and Rivers End may very well be losing
business, she agreed that $200 per permit for the 8th/Central
lot is excessive, maybe it is time for meters but no one
wants them, even if there were meters people will continue to
parking anywhere that parking is free, and agreed that a
comprehensive parking program is needed, one that takes in
all lots, Main Street, the beach lots, etc. In response to
the Mayor, the Manager again confirmed that the opinion of
staff is that the merchant permit is very much under valued,
especially if compared to the cost of a meter. In response
to a member of the audience, Councilman Boyd pointed out that
an annual beach parking permit can be obtained for about $60,
if one is willing to walk from the beach lot to their
employment which may be three blocks away, that is an option,
the current merchant permit fee is $40, that could be raised
significantly and see if that plan fails, or, raise the fee a
small amount now and make it transferrable, also, Councilman
Boyd said he does not like in-lieu parking, it should not
exist, if there is inadequate parking on-site one should not
be allowed to build, in his opinion there should be a
condition that requires a back door to a business to access
any parking that may be made available behind the Main Street
businesses.
I
By unanimous consent of the Council, the public hearing was
reopened to allow the comments of a member of the audience.
Mr. Stan Anderson addressed the Council once again, stated
that one good point was to open the beach lots to the
merchants, that would solve considerable problems, that
should be included in the merchant parking program and at the
same price as the annual permit. Councilman Boyd stated he
would include the suggestion as part of his motion.
I
Councilman Larson said possibly parking should be looked at
overall, maybe form a committee consisting of the business
community, no merchant wants to use street parking if it
takes away from his business, maybe these issues should be
discussed in that format. Councilman Yost agreed, possibly
that should have been done prior to this consideration, use
of the beach parking would be good, Dr. Babcock should be
included in such discussions, some of the other merchants
need to follow the practices he applies to his business, his
preference would be a committee of business people and
I
10-23-00
residents in that there are a number of resident serving
businesses on Main Street, if the costs are raised
significantly those types of businesses will be phased out,
they are part of the quaint, small town atmosphere of this
community that it is desirous to preserve.
I
Councilman Yost moved a substitute motion to form a committee
to look into the parking management issue. Councilman Doane
seconded the motion. Councilman Yost again said he would
like Dr. Babcock to be part of that Committee, and Mayor
Campbell stated she would like to have Councilmembers Boyd
and Doane and Mrs. Masoner, the Chamber and Business
Association President, and Mr. Anderson also be members.
Councilman Boyd spoke in support of the formation of such
committee, this should have been done previously, however
questioned what is expected to come out of such ad hoc
committee, if it is expected they will come back with a
recommendation for a parking permit fee for this one lot it
will be parking for nothing, if there is a committee then all
parking issues should be addressed. Councilman Doane
suggested that this committee be designated as a parking
Management Committee, said there is no shortage of parking
otherwise there would not be vacant spaces, he has personally
been looking at the parking management problem for some nine
years, concurred that Councilman Boyd should be a member of
the committee, he too would like to serve, Mr. Corbin should
represent staff as he has done a study of the issue, he would
also like to have Mr. Anderson, Mr. Woodruff, and Mr. Kyle be
members, if Mr. Kyle is not available then Dr. Babcock would
be his choice, there needs to be input for and against any
solution that there may be, the existing parking needs to be
available to those who are going to shop Seal Beach, the
people visiting the beach should use the beach lots only.
Councilman Doane expressed support for the transferable
permit, he would not support an $8 increase of the fee, and
the committee considerations must be comprehensive to include
the beach, Main Street, residential streets, and all of the
lots. Councilman Boyd suggested that the ad hoc committee
membership be agendized for the next meeting, and withdrew
his prior motion, noting however his desire for a
transferable permit.
I
Councilman Yost restated his motion to retain the current
practice and cost for the merchant parking permits, that it
be allowed to be transferable, and that the membership of the
ad hoc committee be agendized for the next meeting.
Councilman Boyd seconded the motion with the understanding
that the ad hoc committee will consider all parking issues in
the business district south of Pacific Coast Highway.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
I
By unanimous consent, the Council declared a recess at 8:55
p.m. Mayor Campbell reconvened the meeting at 9:11 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - CUP 00-10 - 1198 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY - BLACKBOARD BISTRO
Mayor Campbell declared the public hearing open to consider
the appeal of Conditional Use Permit 00-10 permitting the on-
premise sale of beer and wine at an existing restaurant,
Blackboard Bistro. The City Clerk certified that the notice
of public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and
reported receipt of two communications in support of the
appeal, copies of which had been provided the Council. The
10-23-00
Director of Development Services presented the staff report,'
reviewed the options available for Council consideration,
explained that the property has been utilized as a restaurant
from about 1989 or early 1990, the building was previously an
elementary school, the Redevelopment Agency acquired and
rehabilitated the property for the commercial uses that
presently exist. He noted the restaurant is approximately
2,400 square feet with a 400 square foot outdoor patio dining
area to the north of the building. The Director reported the
Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application
on September 20th, the Commission approved the project
subject to certain conditions, an appeal was subsequently
timely filed and is now before the Council for final
determination. The Director reviewed the provisions for
findings that are required to be made for a CUP by the
Planning Commission or on an appeal that the City Council
must make, the Commission made affirmative findings on all
three findings and are set forth in the Commission
resolution. He described the property as being at the corner
of PCH and 12th Street, the property is in a C-1 commercial
zone, to the rear of the property there are play areas for
the day care facilities, Zoeter field, and a skateboard park
that were acquired by the City, there is a mix of residential
and commercial uses on the easterly side of 12th Street, and
immediately north is the Seal Beach Center, and showed a
photograph of the property used for restaurant purposes. As
part of the Planning Commission process in looking at
Conditional Use Permits there is an evaluation of over-
concentration of liquor licenses within a particular census
tract, that is an issue the City may consider in its
deliberations as to whether or not to grant an additional
CUP, this particular census tract, based on population under
ABC criteria, would allow seven licenses without being
considered under their rules to be over-concentrated, this
census tract includes all of Main Street and everything on
the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway, within that area
there are twenty-six currently licensed locations which,
given the land uses that exist on Main Street and the south
side of PCH, it is not unusual to have that type of
concentration in an area, the Commission evaluated that,. did
not feel it was of concern, and recommended approval of the
project based upon the criteria that is set forth in their
approving resolution. The Director explained that the issue
of over-concentration does not necessitate denial of a
license yet is an issue that the Commission can consider and
determine based upon their judgment and testimony received,
as set forth in the staff report this use is at PCH and 12th
Street, a commercial use of a property, a restaurant for a
number of years, the only change proposed is the on-site sale
of beer and wine. He noted that upon looking at the interior
layout of the restaurant and outdoor dining area it was not
seen as being detrimental to the adjoining land uses,
particularly the daycare centers, the issue of noise was also
evaluated, particularly from the outdoor dining area, the
resultant traffic noise from PCH would drown out any noise
coming from that area. A picture of the interior of the
restaurant was shown as entering from the main entrance off
the parking area showing an approximate ten counter seats and
cashier area, the total interior restaurant seating is fifty-
eight, the outside patio is forty-eight, access to the patio
is from the interior of the restaurant and one entry to the
rear of the patio. The Director noted that the Planning
Commission recommended approval of this matter as conditioned
by unanimous vote,.the item now on appeal. Councilman Yost
inquired as to the law relating to alcohol in businesses and
I
I
I
10-23-00
I
proximity to schools. The Director responded that the City
has no regulations specific to alcohol permits, the
Conditional Use Permit is the process used by the City to
evaluate compatibility of uses, the Alcoholic Beverage
Control has regulations for their agency, the understanding
of those regulations is that this is an issue they consider
in granting an ABC license and if there are objections filed
at the time of their posting of the-property of the intent to
sell alcohol the ABC will consider that as part of their
evaluation as to whether or not to approve the ABC license,
the ABC process is a different level of review to that of the
City process.
I
Mayor Campbell invited members of the audience wishing to
speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their
name for the record. Ms. Carla Watson, Catalina Avenue,
stated her concerns lie with the parking situation, persons
backing out of a parking space where there are children at
the skateboard park and children being picked up late from
the nursery schools. Mr. Joseph Barbara, proprietor, said he
would let the reputation of himself and his partners at
Finbars speak for the type of establishment they run, and
requested Council consideration of granting the beer and wine
license for the Blackboard Bistro. To the issue of being too
close to the pre-schools, Mr. Barbara said he has spoken with
the schools on more than one occasion, they have no problem
with the Bistro being a neighbor, with regard to the parking
he said he could not address that concern, people simply need
to be careful. Mr. Kevin Gafney, 12th Street, residing
across the street from this establishment, spoke favorably of
the on-premise sale of beer and wine, the previous
restaurant, Russells, is gone, it is good to have a
restaurant reestablished at that location, alcohol sales
increase revenue, revenue increases tax dollars, that is
something he has heard from everyone is what Seal Beach
needs, with regard to noise, he hears more noise from
baseball bats and crowd cheers at a Zoeter field softball-
game than from the patio area of the restaurant which he
believes to closes at 9:00 p.m., they are believed to be a
respectful business as has been proven at Finbars, and he
would expect them to operate similarly at the Bistro. There
being no other comments, Mayor Campbell declared the public
hearing closed.
I
Councilman Yost made reference to the 'Commissioner
Questions' section of the minutes of the Commission meeting
of September 20th where the Assistant Planner stated that the
ABC representative had reported that 'ABC can refuse to issue
an alcohol license to a business that is located within 600
feet of an existing school, but it is not an automatic
refusal', and questioned if that is the rule. The
Development Services Director explained that is a regulation
of ABC that gives that agency the discretion to deny an
application if it is felt the use would be detrimental to
surrounding uses, it does not automatically require them to
deny the license. Councilman Yost then said to have three to
three and a half times the number of designated alcohol
establishments does not mean an automatic refusal but does
give ABC a reason whereby they could refuse it. He expressed
his concern with an establishment selling alcohol and sharing
a parking lot with a day care facility, toddlers do not
always mind their parents, the concern is with the safety of
children, this facility is also in close proximity to the
skate park, his feeling is that it is not good to have
alcohol serving establishments in the same general location,
10-23-00
it is in close proximity to a physicians office and family
practice medical that shares the same building, recalling
that the location of the Blackboard Bistro used to be the
school nurses office, which seems strange. Councilman Yost,
expressed concern also that a CUP runs with the land, and
even though this may be operated as a fine establishment his
concern is with what the patrons may do and having children'
outside, Hennesseys an example whereby they first got their
alco~ol license as a wine and cheese
shop, then it became Papillions Restaurant, then the fourth
Irish bar on Main Street under the same CUP, another example
is the drive-through for the bank, converted to a fast food
and now possibly a Starbucks.
I
Councilman Yost moved to deny the CUP for the Blackboard
Bistro for public safety reasons because of the close
proximity to the toddlers that use the parking area, the
proximity to the skate park, the medical offices, and because
a CUP runs with the land. He noted that by population
density there should be seven alcohol serving establishments
however there are twenty-six. Councilman Doane stated that
if this were a full liquor license he could support the
appeal however the request is for beer and wine which is
something one has with a meal, BJ's is an example, people may
have a beer with their pizza, they do not frequent the
facility just to have a beer. Councilman Boyd noted that
this. business is within his district, as a courtesy it would
be appreciated if the members of the Council talk to each
other before filing an appeal, stated this is a good
operator, this is a difficult location to do business however
it is felt this operation will do well, the business also
brings a number of charitable opportunities for the schools,
and he does not share the concerns of the appellant.
I
Councilman Boyd moved to deny the appeal and sustain the
decision of the Planning Commission subject to appropriate
terms and conditions, by adoption of Resolution Number 4852
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH APPROVING CUP NO. 00-10, PERMITTING THE ON-PREMISE
SALE OF BEER AND WINE AT AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1198
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SEAL BEACH (BLACKBOARD BISTRO)."
Councilman Doane seconded the motion. By unanimous consent,
full reading of Resolution Number 4852 was waived. Members
of the Council again expressed their feelings. The City
Attorney noted that the first motion, to sustain the appeal,
failed for lack of a second.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson
Yost Motion carried
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING /
RESOLUTION NUMBER 4853 - SEAL BEACH TRAILER PARK ACOUISITION
FINANCING / BOND ISSUANCE
Mayor Campbell declared the joint public hearing of the City
Council and Redevelopment Agency to be open to consider the
issuance of bonds by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency
for the purpose of the Seal Beach Trailer Park acquisition
financing. The City Clerk certified that notice of the
public hearing had been advertised as required by law and
reported receipt of three communications, one in support, one
requesting that the acquisition be set aside pending further
review, and one questioning the process. The Interim City
Manager mentioned that several consultants have worked with
City staff on this issue for a number of months and will be
making a presentation on behalf of staff.
I
10-23-00
I
Mr. Kyle Snow, Best, Best & Kreiger, bond counsel, explained
that under the Health and Safety Code redevelopment agencies
are allowed to issue bonds for the purpose of making loans to
certain types of corporations who can use the proceeds of the
loan to acquire mobile home parks and other types of housing
projects, if the bonds were to be approved they would be
issued under an indenture then loaned in this case to Linc
Housing under a loan agreement, also a regulatory agreement
would be placed on the property that would require that at
least twenty percent of the units in the Park be set aside
for very low income tenants. Mr. Snow stated that this
hearing is being held as a requirement of federal tax law,
the bonds will be tax exempt and the federal tax code
requires that there be a hearing to allow the public to
speak, at this meeting the Council is being asked to approve
the bond issue yet that does not result in the issuance of
bonds because at a later date certain agreements will come
before the Council for consideration with an official
statement, which is the marketing document, at that time the
Redevelopment Agency would authorize issuance of the bonds,
thereafter the bonds would be sold, the action at this
meeting is a preliminary step to allow the bonds to be tax
exempt. Ms. Pam Newcomb, Kinsell, Newcomb & DeDios,
underwriters, confirmed that this is the pUblic hearing and
this matter will again be before the Council on November 13th
for approval of bond documents, at that time the proposal
will be three tiered financing, tax exempt bonds in an
approximate amount of $6.5 million, a State MPROP loan of
approximately $1 million, and an Agency loan of $1 million,
that funding combined will be able to provide for the
purchase of the park, payment for all costs associated with
the issuance of the bonds, set aside bond reserves and
capital improvement funds for the Park acquisition, the
intent is to market the bonds thereafter and to close the
financing by mid-December. Mayor Campbell noted that there
are some that do not understand the process, the fact that
the residents of the Trailer Park have the opportunity to
purchase the Park from Mr. Hall is wonderful in that a
similar attempt made by the residents of a trailer park to
the south was not successful, the conditions imposed by Mr.
Hall on the Seal Beach Park were basically unlivable and
intended to drive the residents out, this effort would allow
the residents to preserve their homes and bring some
stability into the rental increase process, it is unfortunate
that past rents did not keep pace with market values, and
noted there are only two hundred resident-owned mobile home
parks in California, Seal Beach could be two hundred one.
Councilman Yost asked for clarification of the proposed sale
price of the Park.
I
I
Mayor Campbell invited members of the audience wishing to
speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their
name for the record. Mr. Bill Orton, Riversea Road, was duly
sworn by the City Clerk as requested. Mr. Orton stated he is
generally in support of a buyout, that he stood before the
Residents Association and said exactly that, to the one
hundred plus people whose doors he knocked on, campaigned at,
and talked about the proposed buyout, and said he was pleased
to hear details from the attorney and financing authority as
details have not been forthcoming in this process. Mr. Orton
reported that as of this date he sent a letter to the MPROP
program in Sacramento requesting that his name be struck from
the application which was submitted by the Resident
Association and/or Linc, .the reason for that is that when he
signed the application for MPROP funding he was told by an
10-23-00
officer of the association that it was just an application
for State funding, to that explained that he works for the
State, his job is to look out for the way taxpayer dollars
are spent, therefore he is not comfortable putting his name
on a blank check by saying that an application is also an
election. Mr. Orton said he was told by Hunter Johnson at
the last Association meeting that by signing the application
form he was also declaring himself in support of all of the
terms that are presently being negotiated, to that he said he
made no such election, he has voted every time in the past
twenty years that he could, he knows what an election is, he
has not had the opportunity to express his free will and to
have the informed consent of the govern in this matter. Mr.
Orton said he generally supports a buyout, hopes that one
works, yet he sees no detail, only vague outlines of the
proposal, if it works that is great, but City and State
taxpayer dollars are involved here, no fear mongering and no
closed process runs unless adequate information to the govern
is adequate if there is to be millions of dollars involved.
Mr. Orton offered that he would call upon the City to not
recognize the MPROP application as being an instrument of
election, it is an application but it is not a declaration or
an election instrument, if there is to be an election in the
Park as to whether the residents endorse the actual terms of
an agreement, he would ask that the City Clerk, who conducts
local elections, be empowered to conduct an impartial process
where people have the opportunity to read the documents that
they are going to be affected by, that they have the
opportunity to debate, and that a free and fair vote be taken
as he does not feel that that process has been followed. Mr.
Paul Jeffers, Trailer park, noted the statement by the Mayor
that this is a wonderful opportunity for the Park, yet said
he was told twenty years ago that he had a wonderful
opportunity to take part in the covenants and disposition
agreement established the Redevelopment Agency, there was a
recent rent increase of 3.8 percent pursuant to that
agreement, to the statement that the residents were lucky
that the rents did not increase with the land value, he
stated the covenants were not written on the value of the
land, it was the City who bought condemned land and turned it
over to the original owner of the property, to that he asked
what has happened to the covenants since this sale was
started, the Redevelopment Agency had an obligation to
protect the covenants for the residents, there had been
considerable involvement and money on the part of the City to
set up the Trailer Park. Mr. Jeffers said he too would like
to buy the Park but with covenants similar to those
originally promised, the history of the Park needs to be
looked into, he has been involved since the Park was
established, fought rent increases, etc. He noted that there
is now the lawsuit by the current land owner and the
attorneys are saying the residents do not have a chance under
the covenant, how could this happen, also, having just looked
at the loan documents said he had been told the rents would
be $500 and that would not change, however the documents show
the rent changing every year. The Mayor advised that legal
experts have analyzed the covenants, this is an opportunity
for the residents to purchase the Park, and if not, Mr. Hall
will then do as he has done in the past. In response to
Mayor Campbell, the City Attorney advised that the-covenants
are not the issue of discussion and are the subject of
litigation. Mr. Gordon Shanks said he too has been in favor
of the Park purchase, however he also understands the
question of Mr. Jeffers, suggesting that possibly there is
something wrong with the financial statement because for the
I
I
I
10-23-00
I
first twenty years the space rent is shown as going up one
hundred percent where the operating income only goes up
thirty-eight percent, that may be the source of concern,
possibly someone should review the space rent figures, as yet
he could not see where the difference between the space rent
and operations goes. Mr. Shanks said if there is anything
that can be done within reason to get the Park out of the
hands of the current owner it must be done. Ms. Newcomb said
in discussions with Linc it was represented that in the first
year, starting with the sale of the bonds, there would be
average rents in the Park of $364, the second year they would
go' to $446, the third year would be $527, during "that period
of time the Agency would pledge approximately $340,000 as a
rent subsidy to help people transition from the initial rent
up to what will eventually be the $527. A reason that all of
the documentation is not being approved tonight is that one
of the documents is an Agency agreement which sets forth in
more detail those items, if at the time the $527 is reached
there are still people in need of subsidy there are a couple
of ways that can be achieved, one is surplus cash flow after
payment of the debt and expenses, the surplus can flow into
the subsidy funds, or Linc could also ask the Agency if they
would be willing to pledge additional subsidy. Ms. Newcomb
offered that the reason the proforma looks odd is because the
$340,000 is shown, that is cash that is realized at the time
of closing, it is factored into the equation, the proforma
also shows that after reaching the $527 the rent is generally
increased by two percent per year after that, to her
knowledge that has not been discussed with the residents nor
has it been determined at this time.
I
Ms. Renee LeShon, Trailer Park resident since 1969, mentioned
there have been many changes, when she first bought her
trailer the rents were $40 per month, when Mr. Dawson bought
the Park the rents tripled, people were concerned, but as
this takes place the people will .be able to accept, she
personally qualifies in the Park for low income, she has
concern as to how she will have the money, but she feels
strongly about the hundreds of hours that the committee and
the City has put into this effort, and she supports what the
City, committee and Linc Housing have done, and she is
uncertain that the covenants are going to continue to protect
her in the future. Ms. LeShonsuggested that the residents
be sensible, there will be rent increases but they can be
managed, this is a wonderful way for the residents to be in
control of their homes and destiny, and the fear of change
should not overcome what will be good for all. Mr. Mark
Cunningham, Cottonwood Lane, offered that the applause alone
shows the support for this effort, the group is very united,
although he has not been involved in the purchase effort the
committee has done an outstanding job of dispersing
information and seeking opinions, when there is something of
this magnitude there will always be four or five opposed, the
majority wants this to go through. Ms. Linda Stobbe,
Cottonwood Lane, noted the figure of $527 being the average,
asked if there is a high end dollar figure, also, at a recent
meeting a comment was made that Linc Housing is an
organization set up for helping residential trailer park
communities such as Seal Beach, to that she asked how a
lending organization can be non-profit. Mr. Hunter Johnson,
Linc Housing, explained that they are not the lenders rather
the borrowers in conjunction with the residents, it is the
underwriting team that brings the money in to buy the bonds
and the Redevelopment Agency is actually the lenders, Linc
brings the ability to borrow at tax exempt rates which is a
I
10-23-00
significant savings. Mr. Johnson stated that they are in the
process of developing the range of rents, that was another
reason to delay the other documents until the next meeting,
there are also some ideas that they want to present to the
Resident Committee for consideration, in all discussions
there has been an estimated average range, they are going
through and looking at the size of the space, location, and
other characteristics that are felt may have an ability to
influence what the rent ought to be. with regard to the
question relating to the total purchase price, Mr. Johnson
reported it to be $7,450,000, there is a draft appraisal that
has a range of values in the low to mid $6 million up to over
$11 million depending upon a variety of circumstances and it
sets a value for the Park, based upon the set of
circumstances under which this purchase is being made, at
$7.4 million, the purchase price and the appraisal are within
two to three percent of each other. Mr. Glen Clark, Trailer
Park, also expressed appreciation to the Council and Agency
and consultants. He noted that about eighteen months ago the
Park residents woke up to a crisis, their homes and lives in
jeopardy, the Park had been purchased by a profit oriented
person, a committee commenced to look for a permanent
solution to the problem, first was the existing covenant, a
good document however developed several years ago and may not
reflect the terms and conditions necessary for present day,
legal opinions were sought, every opinion was that the
document had holes and not an iron clad document that could
be defended in court, and if anyone of the provisions were
tested and found inadequate the covenant could be deemed to
be invalid, there were two choices, rely on the covenant or
defend the covenant as best one could and look for a more
permanent solution, thereafter expert advice was sought,
people who are knowledgeable about trailer parks, the advice
of all was to buy the Park. Mr. Clark noted this long
process has been on-going for some fourteen months, no quick
decisions, numerous committee and general meetings, community
affairs, innumerable face to face communications with
residents of the Park, letters sent out, several surveys,
primary question was if they wanted to participate in a non-
profit purchase of the Park if they could afford it, average
rent about $500 per month based upon size and location, a
question too as to the need for financial aid, there were
nine-four responses, of that nine-two said yes, two no. He
provided a copy of that survey to the City Clerk. Mr. Clark
noted the presence of Mr. Johnson of Linc Housing, and
expressed the desire of the Park Association that the Council
and Agency approve this first step for the purchase of the
Trailer Park. Mr. Jeffrey McMorrow, Welcome Lane, stated he
is a practicing attorney in Long Beach, former resident of
San Marino. Mr. McMorrow said when the original committee
formed there were suggestions from neighbors that he take an
active role, he saw that as prudent given the legal
complexities and his ability to explain certain things to the
residents, the current theme however has been that there are
more questions and concerns about details, and repercussions,
it was hoped there would be an explanation by the committee
or its members, by one C-3 corporation, a non-profit, he is
curious why the Trailer Park did not consider that route as a
possibility, there are also questions relating to long term
ramifications of property tax that persons such as himself
might pay, concerns with rent increases in the future, people
are trying to make sense of this. Mr. McMorrow noted there
have been allegations at this meeting that the committee has'
taken actions without being forthcoming about how information
would be used or presented to this agency, he has seen little
I
I
I
10-23-00
I
discussion of alternatives to purchasing the Park, in fact
his position is that dissent has not been welcome at the
meetings, he for one has not been privy to the meetings, not
invited, because he has indicated that if his property values
were damaged by any action of the committee he would take
legal action as appropriate, he has been excluded, he was not
present at the election of the present board. Mr. McMorrow
expressed his opinion that the purchase plan needs more
study, at least with regard to the concerns of the average
resident, again his belief is that there are alternatives to
the sale, it is thought that the covenants are probably
enforceable which was the position of the City when Mr. Hall
proposed rent increases in October of last year, he has read
the complaint, the answer to the complaint, both felt to be
well drafted, it is known that the Park attorney, Mr.
Stanton, has suggested that the owners of the Park take an
active role in the lawsuit, his feeling is that this will be
a divisive issue in the Park, there is fear, he knows nothing
about Linc Housing or its qualifications, no knowledge as to
how the bond issue will come about or how financing
perfected, the appraisal will indicate more as to the worth
of the Park. Mr. McMorrow said he has a concern as a
dwelling owner in that Mr. Hall has indicated that he could
not sell his home in place, his personal feeling is that he
has a cause of action against him, nor does he feel that
buying the park at any price is a sound solution to the
problem, a fair price is warranted, and residents are
entitled to more information. Mr. Paul Jeffers, Cottonwood
Lane, mentioned that a petition was being circulated in the
Park recently with questions to which people wanted answers,
it became controversial, he too wants to buy the Park, it is
known that that is the best thing to do, yet he wants to see
the facts and figures first. To Mr. Jeffers question as to
the sale price of the Park, $7.4 million was confirmed to be
correct. To the question of total debt, Ms. Newcomb
responded that there is a $6.5 million tax exempt debt, a $1
million State loan, and a $1 million Redevelopment Agency
loan, the payments on the State and Agency loans are deferred
for approximately five years at a reduced rate of interest,
the State is generally three percent and the Agency has been
proposed at three percent, the tax exempt financing ranges
between serial and term bonds, four and a quarter to six
percent. With regard to the question of the purpose for the
$1 million difference between the $7.4 million debt and the
approximate $8.4 million, Ms. Newcomb stated approximately
$500,000 is a debt service reserve fund, if that is never
needed for a shortfall it would be the final debt service
payment in the thirty-fifth year, it is an asset, it is
invested at approximately the cost of the money, until all
reports are completed the final numbers are not known,
however about $120,000 is held as a capital improvement fund
if it is needed, a physical needs assessment will be done in
terms of what is needed to be done to the Park today and over
the next ten years, that is capitalized into the bond issue,
there is also the cost of issuing the bonds, bond printing
fees, underwriter, advisory, other fees, there is a non-
profit fee, there are also some small operating reserve funds
as various options are being looked at as to how to prepare
the bond financing, it can be insured, it can be rated, or
even non-rated, part of the up-front money is to pay the
insurance costs, that is done to secure a lower, long term
interest rate, however it needs to be determined if that is
economically feasible, this requires looking at all of the
different options as to how the bond sale will be finalized
and sold and the least costly in terms of debt. Mr. Jeffers
I
I
10-23-00
stated it was good to get some of the questions answered, he
mentioned however that meetings have been held with those
that have long term leases, it was heard earlier that those
leases would present a problem, offered that when the
residents tried to buy the Park in the 1980's it was found
that there was a new State law whereby if thirty percent of
the Park had long term leases it would become a subdivision
and if that. were to occur it would no longer fall under any
form of rent control, the people were requested to not sign
the long term leases as that could impact the covenants, at
that time the Park owner was told that the covenants ran with
the land. Mr. Jeffers said he requested that all of the
people with long term leases be talked to individually, is
there an answer as to what will be done with these people,
how are they going to fit into the rent schedule, and can the
residents in general be invited to any of the meetings where
these leases are discussed. with regard to the appraisal,
Mr. Jeffers mentioned that it is known that at one time there
was a toxic chemical plant along the backside of the Park and
possibly Oakwood, when digging was being done for Riversea he
watched, there were pipes dug up with some kind of green
substance inside, he wants assurance that toxics will be
looked at. Mr. Johnson reported that the standard in the
industry is a phase one environmental study anytime a
property is bought, that was done when Mr. Hall obtained the
property, no reference was found to there being a former Dow
Chemical site, the search includes walking around the site, a
small amount of asbestos and lead base paint was found, they
are in the process of ordering a new phase one report,
neither the lenders or Linc Housing would go forward without
it, so everything that can be determined with regard to
harzardous materials will be. With regard to the situation
of leases, there have been meetings with the lessees, there
are fifteen of them, an analysis of the leases has been done,
they are valid, there are some issues that are still being
sorted out, this was discussed at the last general meeting,
in reality there is no ability to terminate those leases, the
leases provide for pass throughs among other things, there
may be a way to offset some of the inequality that was
mentioned, it is a fact that the residents without the leases
are agreeing to a higher rent increase, at this point some of
the leaseholders have indicated willingness to essentially
void their lease and join the other residents, however there
may be a few that may not do that, in essence the lease will
be treated as a legal document and if there is an ability to
pass through any cost increases that the other residents are
already sharing, that will likely be done, that may be offset
for those of low income or by the rent system program, yet
they expect to honor the leases for the good and bad of them.
Mr. Johnson noted that there have been inquiries about
obtaining answers, there is a process, they are going through
and answering those questions, by the next week or two they
will sit with the committee to obtain their feedback, work
with the financial consultants, then meet with the residents
for further explanation, that is hoped to be completed by the
next meeting. with regard to the toxic issue, Mr. Jeffers
said he believed it was eight to ten feet deep. Mr. Johnson
assured that will be done before this transaction is
complete. There being no further comments, Mayor Campbell
declared the public hearing closed.
I
I
I
Yost moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4853
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH OF ONE OR MORE SERIES OF MOBILE
10-23-00
I
HOME PARK REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OF THE
SEAL BEACH TRAILER PARK." By unanimous consent, full reading
of Resolution Number 4853 was waived. Councilman Boyd noted
that he is essentially an institutional real estate investor,
does similar bond transactions, commended the consultants for
putting together this issue, however he does not want to
chance someone claiming that he has a conflict, which he does
not, therefore will abstain from voting on this item.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None
Boyd Motion carried
ZOETER PARK RESTROOM REFURBISHMENT - VERIZON ENDOWMENT
This request was that upon acceptance of the new fees, the
City Council approve a budget amendment creating a Capital
Improvement item in the amount of $20,000 for Zoeter Park
restroom refurbishment. The Interim City Manager noted that
the $20,000 check from Verizon has been received. Councilman
Boyd expressed his opinion that the project proposed is
needed, this would be a good use of these funds, however two
more bids should be sought. Boyd moved, second by Larson, to
approve the proposed expenditure to refurbish the Zoeter Park
restrooms.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
I
OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB FACILITY - PARKS and RECREATION
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Director of Recreation and Parks presented the staff
report, explained that the intent is to present a conceptual
plan for the facility, currently operating as the Old Ranch
Tennis Club, that culminates one year of study and planning.
The Director introduced those assisting in the presentation,
Ms. Shelly Sustarsic, the Parks and Recreation Commission
chair who also chaired the Council appointed committee chosen
to study the facility, and Mr. Jim pickal of Purkiss-Rose-
rsi, a respected architectural firm, who assisted the process
by placing the committee ideas on paper and a price tag on
the various activities. The Director noted the Council
appointment of an ad hoc committee in March, 1999 to address
the Old Ranch Tennis Club site if it were to become public
property, eighteen volunteers met over nine months to
investigate the recreational opportunities which might serve
the community if the site were open to the public and
available for modifications using the $l million from the
Bixby Company dedicated to this location. The committee
became very familiar with the site as each meeting was held
at the clubhouse, the seven acre private site currently
operates sixteen tennis courts, twelve of which are lighted,
a 2,100 square foot clubhouse including a kitchen, lounge
area, pro shop, and office area, a 3,200 square foot
locker/shower and restroom facility, and a 1,000 square foot
workout room, the club is nicely landscaped both within and
outside its walls, during the first meetings the committee
discussed the numerous possibilities for the seven acre site,
the intent was to develop three potential plans, leaving the
club as it is, leasing the operation to a vendor with the
exception that should the club become City property it would
no longer be exclusively private, or to modify the site
opening the possibility for a number of recreational
activities. The committee, wondering if the tennis facility
was a viable business opportunity, sent out requests for
qualifications to potential operators, they reviewed the
I
10-23-00
responses and applied that to their research, this revealed
that the site was of interest to at least five local court
operators who would respond to bids if opened up, each of the
respondents were asked their opinion as to the number of
courts desired to operate the facility as a business,
specifically a twelve, eight, or sixteen court facility, of
course all preferred sixteen yet each was equally eager to
operate a facility of approximately twelve courts. Having
this information the committee began reviewing the most
desired recreational opportunities if the site were to be a
mixed use site, that would be about one half tennis and one
half community recreational opportunities, the committee
members interviewed neighbors, relied on their family
recreational use patterns, and developed a wish list of needs
for the community, through their research it was discovered
that there are over eight hundred school age children in the
immediate College Park East neighborhood, meeting the needs
of these and all children in Seal Beach was the first and
foremost goal in planning for the future. The Director
reported the committee developed a mixed plan, essentially
splitting the site leaving eleven tennis courts, the
shower/dressing room in tact, and the option of hiring a
professional operator who would utilize approximately one
thousand square feet from which they would operate the tennis
facilities, the site plan includes a pool, skate park,
expanded community center, tot lot, picnic area, basketball
court, and walking path, both the pool and the skate park
would be pay-for-play subsidized areas. The Director noted
that parking was an additional concern of the committee,
currently there are seventy-seven parking spaces that will
continue to exist for use of the entire facility yet it
seemed logical to try to add parking on the Aster Street side
of the club, a suggestion, given the addition of seven
recreation acres, that consideration might be given to adding
twenty to twenty-two spaces by developing the Aster Street
side of Bluebell Park, there, the community has been
struggling as to how to rehabilitate a picnic shelter, former
tot lot, and basketball court, all of which are in a state of
deterioration and would be relocated to the new facility.
The Director mentioned that this plan was reviewed at the
town hall meeting held by the Mayor in May of this year, the
Mayor also distributed a survey to all residences in College
Park East requesting their input as to the site uses, last
month the Recreation and Parks Commission reviewed the plan
and voted in favor of forwarding the committee suggestions
for a mixed plan to the City Council.
I
I
Mr. Jim Pickal, Purkiss-Rose-rsi, landscape architects and
park planners, expressed appreciation to Mayor Campbell,
members of the ad-hoc committee, the commissioners, the
staff, and public, this was a helpful group of people. He
stated most of their park planning is done through public
input meetings, that seems to be the only way to design a
park system whether it be large or small, neighborhood or
regional, that creates stewardship and ownership. Mr. Pickal
showed conceptual drawings of the proposed mixed plan, the
proposed improvements are at the south end of the site, the
remaining eleven tennis courts will continue to exist at the
north end as will the parking area, the community center and
pro shop would remain in its existing location as will the
locker room/shower facility, noted their attempt to locate
all of the more static type activities, the pool, basketball
half courts, the skateboard area, along with the tot lot, in
the southwestern corner of the site, that primarily due to
the street and freeway locations and the proposed new parking
I
10-23-00
I
area, the street edges were given a more passive, parklike
setting, not pulling any of the more static uses out into
that area, rather it would be primarily turf, picnic area,
and trees. Making reference to the southerly elevation
showing the existing structure, he noted that it would be
expanded to the south, a small stage area created with an
adjacent large turf panel, encased by trees, that primarily
for outdoor gatherings or activities from the community
center. Mr. Pickal displayed two renderings looking from the
tot lot towards the skate park, a restroom facility divides
the skate park from the swimming pool area, the shade
structure would assist the City to create an attendant to
collect monies for the use of certain facilities, both the
childrens pool and skate park are fenced as is the entire
southerly location, the purpose of that is to deter people
from mid-block crossings for access to the new parking area.
Again, the area is mostly turf, a tot lot area with a shade
structure for parent seating to watch their children play,
the skate park is concrete, about three thousand square feet,
it has been found that utilizing half court basketball is
much better than full courts where the tendency is to be used
by one group only as opposed to half courts where games tend
to be shorter, the turnover is greater, thus can be used by
more people. Mr. Pickal explained again in addition to turf
there are open walkways, it was a request of the committee
that the walkways be a looped design. He confirmed that the
childs pool is forty by sixty feet, ranges from zero to five
feet in depth, and can be used by any age group.
I
The Recreation Director noted there have been recurring
questions throughout this process, one has been why this plan
could not be located elsewhere, the answer is because of the
City's development agreement with the Bixby Company, the City
will become the owner of the property within five years of
the development plan, Bixby will also give the City $l
million for improvements that will benefit the College Park
East neighborhood, however this plan benefits the entire
community with a high quality recreation center. Another
question has been costs, estimates at this point is about
$1.35 million, then the question is how does the City make up
the difference, her understanding of the agreement is that
the City has about four years before it takes title to the
property, in the meantime the City will receive a one time
per capita allotment from Proposition 12 of approximately
$350,000, while the Recreation Commission and City Council
will ultimately direct where these funds are used, it is
assumed that a project such as this and the Marina Center
rehabilitation project will be given high priorities. The
Director mentioned also that it was pointed out at the
Mayor's town hall meeting that due to the retail development
the City's budget will gain a greater sales tax revenue base
to assist in meeting the City's overall needs, additionally,
a capital improvement budget item over the next three years
could offset the deficit, that should be considered given
this one time opportunity to develop a unique, high quality
recreation facility. The Director noted also that on-going
recreation programs will be fee-based as are those currently
operating in the City facilities, the suggestion is' to
operate the tennis facility on a lease basis with the City
sharing in realized profit or an established lease payment,
in addition, the on-going arrangement with the Los Alamitos
tennis team is in no way in jeopardy as this is a community
facility and high school tennis players are an important
element in the community, too, the current membership of the
private tennis facility is estimated at one hundred fifty
I
10-23-00
members, a Recreation Commissioner questioned how many of
that number live in Seal Beach, the response was
approximately one-third of the membership.
Mayor Campbell noted that the Director had outlined the
history of the committee, also stated that she had sent out a
request for volunteers through her newsletters, the committee
members were not hand picked rather volunteers from the
community, the group consisted of members of the tennis club,
tennis players, parents of the high school tennis club, and
College Park parents having an interest in obtaining
recreation facilities for the children, this group worked
hard, had a wide divergence of wants and needs when they
started, then they all came together, and the results felt to
be outstanding. Mayor Campbell mentioned that this past
summer a survey was sent to every home in College Park East,
over seventeen hundred were sent out, five hundred eighteen
were returned, thirty percent, questions posed related to
whether the tennis club should be kept as it exists or use
part of it for other recreational facilities, seventy-four
percent wanted additional facilities, the second question
related to park configuration, sixty-one percent preferred
the one with the pool, skateboard park, and half basketball
courts versus the plan without the pool. Mayor Campbell made
reference to a letter received from District Three residents,
the comment, none of the tennis courts should be removed,
response was that it is a shame to remove anything useful but
a hundred percent tennis facility serves only a small segment
of Seal Beach residents, if the City had acquired vacant land
and the money to build a community facility, a tennis only
facility would never have been a consideration, another
comment, residents of Seal Beach other than College Park East
should have had the opportunity for input to this plan, the
response, simple geography dictates that the greatest use of
this facility will be from residents of College Park East,
they best know their needs and should have the most input,
any resident with an interest in City affairs has known for
years about eminent changes to the tennis club and over time
has had the opportunity to communicate with City Council
and/or the committee, residents also have that opportunity at
upcoming Council meetings. Another comment, the new facility
is too far from the Hill and Old Town for those residents to
take their children there to use it, response, that may be
true but that is no different from College Park East and West
residents now having to travel to the beach, McGaugh pool,
tennis courts, Marina Park, and other City facilities. Mayor
Campbell mentioned the tennis club membership also, seventy
percent of which do not live in the community, this will
become a City facility, the committee felt it was prudent to
keep as many courts as possible and still provide
recreational facilities for the area. The Mayor said she
felt most people know the feelings of College Park East with
regard to the Bixby development, the tennis facility has been
quite a bone of contention, many feel that club is the
doorstep of College Park East, Bixby continued to threaten to
develop it commercially, the City did not go along with what
they wanted, therefore, the site and the money were offered
as a tradeoff for the development of Seal Beach Boulevard.
She noted that some suggested that the $l million be spent
elsewhere in the City, she found that to be offensive, this
is a chance for the City to come together, with regard to
additional monies that have been asked for, she did not feel
it right to spend all of the money on this one site, at the
end of last year a letter was sent to Sacramento requesting
several hundred thousand dollars to complete this project,
I
I
I
10-23-00
I
another letter requesting money for a soundwall by the
existing parking lot that the tennis club members use, both
requests were denied, with regard to funds to remove the
basketball court and picnic area cover in Bluebell, the
picnic cover must come down no matter, the court needs to be
rehabed, she too does not like putting in asphalt or concrete
but if the clubhouse is going to be used for a community
center additional parking will be needed. Mayor Campbell
agreed that this will be a City owned park as is Heather,
Almond, Marina, Gum Grove parks, yet they are also
neighborhood parks, her feeling is that it is best to let the
people in the neighborhood design what is going to meet their
needs, this area is immediately adjacent to the homes in
College Park East therefore it does effect values, that is a
reason for the interest of the residents.
Question was raised as to continuing the meeting past the
11:00 p.m. deadline. Upon a dispute with a speaker from the
audience, Mayor Campbell declared a recess at 11:05 p.m. The
Council reconvened at approximately ll:l7 p.m. with Mayor
Campbell calling the meeting to order.
I
The City Attorney read excepts from the Council meeting
procedural resolution, that no new items can be considered
after 11:00 p.m. unless they have been opened before 11:00
p.m., if there are a number of items not opened by then a
motion would be required by 10:45 p.m., in this case this is
the last item on the agenda, opened prior to ll:OO p.m., if
the item is not concluded by 11:59 p.m. it would be necessary
for the Council to make a motion to extend the meeting past
midnight.
I
Although not a public hearing item, Mayor Campbell invited
members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come
to the microphone and state their name for the record. Mr.
Bob Bolling, Hazelnut Avenue, said he wished to speak on
behalf of his wife and himself, thirty year resident of
College Park East, twenty-two year member of the tennis club,
and members of the site committee which was a diverse, well
rounded group of people who spent a great deal of time on the
project, there was agreement on many issues but because of
the diversity there was also disagreement. Mr. Bolling
commended Ms. Sustarsic for keeping the committee moving and
Ms. Beard for her time, knowledge, and contacts. Mr. Bolling
noted that Bixby traded the tennis facility and $l million
for the zoning to construct their Towne Center, since the
Center will negatively impact College Park East more than.
other areas of Seal Beach that the reason for this
dedication. Mr. Bolling said early in the' committee
discussions there was concern with regard to the ability to
maintain the facility once it was transferred to the City, it
was generally agreed by the committee that part of the money
be put aside as a contingency fund for future maintenance or
capital improvements, the committee also came up with two
choices, leave the facility as it exists or develop a wish
list of different amenities, that wish list then reduced to
two options, both having architect estimates of $1.3 million,
not only will there no longer be a contingency fund the City
will need to find the additional $300,000, and as it is
known, estimates this early in the planning stage will go up
by the time the actual process is started, where will that
money come from, he has been told that there will be some
State money as well as increased sales tax revenue from the
Towne Center. With regard to the wish list, Mr. Bolling said
both options will call for the removal of five high quality
10-23-00
tennis courts to make room for other facilities, that will
include two to four half basketball courts, to provide
parking for this new facility an existing full basketball
court will be torn out, both options have a skateboard park,
that is popular with young boys however he has not seen many
girls or adults skateboarding, yet all people of any age can
play tennis, said he is a pool owner and knows the cost of
upkeep, it is known there are a great number of private pools
in College Park East, will the utilization of the splash pool
be reasonable, it is not thought so, it should also be kept
in mind that there are the McGaugh and ARFC pools open to the
public. In conclusion, Mr. Bolling said it seems there will
be a lot of tearing down of good facilities to put in things
that the City may not be able to afford, the survey
previously referenced said there was twenty-six percent in
favor of keeping the existing facility as is, seventy-four
percent for the conversion however the survey lacked mention
of money, if the $1.3 million had been mentioned the results
might have been different. Mr. Bolling urged the Council to
think carefully of the ramifications of this project, and
urged that the site be kept as is for now, it can be leased
to the best of several operators to operate as a public
tennis facility, the $1 million can be invested in whatever
means that allows a good, safe return, if the potential
lessee makes a success of the tennis site then those monies
could be used for amenities to existing parks in College Park
East, if the lessee fails the money would still be there for
the conversion that the committee developed. Ms. Carla
Watson, Catalina Avenue, agreed with the prior speaker,
commended Ms. Sustarsic and Ms. Beard for their efforts,
however said she had difficulty with bulldozing these tennis
courts without a little more time, even though the residents
of College Park East deserve as much as they can get, to
replace the center court would be well over $100,000, this is
a lifetime sport, the children of the community have never
had the opportunity to have a tennis center open to them, she
too would like to see the facility stay open for six months
or more to see what the participation is, have it open to
all, the facility she would least prefer would be the
childrens pool. Ms. Watson said she still has some
bitterness as a result of the vote to join the Los Alamitos
School District, the first thing that was done was to sell
the Zoeter School, that School was paid for and given to the
City, when the property was sold one of the first things done
was to tear out the tennis courts, when Bridgeport was built
they were going to put in four tennis courts but put in only
two, many people in Old Town do not have back yards so they
rely on the greenbelt or the beach for their children, a
number of people moved to College Park East so that they
could have back yards, a larger area, and there would be
parks. Ms. Watson said it is not that she is opposed to the
plan, it is a wonderful plan, it is just that other things
will replace the existing tennis courts, with regard to the
Recreation and Parks meeting there was only one press
release, had she not made phone calls no one would have been
there in support of tennis, stated that motions should not be
made at 11:00 p.m., there could be mistakes, maybe just do
the skateboard park, if the $1 million were put away for a
year or two the interest from that could then be used
elsewhere in College Park East, she always believed that the
$l million should be used for College Park, the $350,000 from
elsewhere she would question. Mr. James Koulakowski, Regatta
Way, current president of the Riverbeach Homeowners
Association, a member of the Old Ranch Tennis Club as well.
He offered that $l million is a lot of money, the point of
I
I
I
10-23-00
I
the previous speaker should likely be considered, possibly
that money could go to many places besides the proposed park.
He said when he moved to this community he first looked for a
good school for his daughter, then a good tennis club, in
Colorado he belonged to a club that had a ,history similar to
that of Old Ranch, in that case the club was bankrupt during
the recession, the County purchased the facility and leased
it back to the metropolitan district for $l, the club then
went from bankruptcy to one of the top public tennis
facilities in the country. Mr. Koulakowski mentioned that
the Old Ranch club and its staff has existed for thirty
years, there are many youth in Seal Beach that learned to
play tennis at that facility, it seems very little
consideration was given to the membership of the club even
though only thirty percent are Seal Beach residents the other
members shop and eat and participate locally, and maybe, as
beautiful as the landscape plan is, to give up these
wonderful tennis courts, the best in the area, then spend
$1.3 on top of that seems to be surreal, as a public facility
it could grow, make Seal Beach recognized as a real tennis
center, the people who would be using the facility are the
same that use it as private, and he too urged that it open as
a public facility for one to two years, give the current
members and management a chance to grow the facility, then
use the $l million for something else. Councilman Boyd noted
the terminology being used is that this will be a public
facility where in fact it would be a publicly owned facility,
his understanding is that it would be the operator selected
who elects to have it a public facility or private, his
challenge to the Recreation Director would be to make this a
stellar facility yet have it pay for itself, noting that the
City puts about $800,000 per year into recreation programs to
offset the deficit in user fees, public recreation is
subsidized, that is not necessarily bad however in the future
as the City moves in that direction the City should be
looking for opportunities like this to have the facilities
pay for themselves. Again, his impression was that upon
receivership of this facility then leased to an operator, it
could operate as a wholly private or partially private/public
facility. Mr. Campbell, a member of the audience, said then
why not take out ten courts so that any number of things
could be put on the site, this is a tennis center, if one
goes up and down the coast from Santa Barbara to San Diego
there are beautiful tennis centers but they do not turn them
into a playground, this has now become a playground with
considerable money proposed to be put into it to make it a
playground for kids, there may be times when the clubhouse
could be used as a community center, this plan ruins a great
tennis club and takes away the mystique of a tennis club,
there are certain things realized through joining a tennis
club, a golf club, or whatever, there are tournaments,
meetings, things that one pays the price to do, one will not
find people who will want to play tennis next to children
playing basketball or skateboarding, this proposal will
change something that is now quite nice, it is too bad the
City can not find another location to put the beautifully
designed recreation facility. Mr. Campbell mentioned his
background as a tennis coach for twenty-nine years at Long
Beach State, a recreation director in five cities in Santa
Barbara County as well, therefore a great appreciation for
anything recreation, but the two should be separated, leave
the tennis courts and put the City name on it and take pride
in bringing tournaments to the facility, as a college coach
he has used those courts to bring in college teams, this plan
would change all of that. Councilman Boyd asked if Mr.
I
I
10-23-00
Campbell is a member of the club, the response was he is not
due to the amount of time he has spent on the courts at
school, however his wife plays every day at McGaugh even
though the courts are in very bad condition. To the question
of Councilman Boyd as to the number of courts in the
community now, the Recreation Director responded there are
two at Marina, two at Heather, and three at McGaugh, and Mr.
Campbell advised there are standards for the number of courts
per population in the recreation books. As to the cost of
putting in a tennis court, Mr. Campbell estimated about
$100,000 if it is started at the base and they are done
correctly, the courts here must be sandblasted and acid
treated otherwise if they are just surfaced that does not
last, dual purpose courts will be the greatest problem
because you think of a court as being like sandpaper, which
you do put grit into an epoxy base, those are broken down by
roller skates very quickly, even basketball, courts have to
be resurfaced which is expensive. The Recreation Director
said she has been advised that it is about $60,000 to build a
new court, lights another $30,000. Mr. Bill Lower, 6th
Street, said there is at least one person who bicycles to Old
Ranch from downtown, Seal Beach is thought of as unique, that
largely due to Main Street, unique also because of the
separations of the various areas of the community, only two
contiguous, some even. inaccessible to the public, this can be
divisive. With reference to the site committee, Mr. Lower
noted that all fourteen members were from College Park East,
it is likely they should have had the majority representation
however his feeling is that there should have also been
representatives from the remainder of the community in that
this is meant to be a City facility. Mr. Lower agreed with
the comments of Mr. Bolling that the facility be left as it
exists, set the $lmillion aside and let it appreciate, there
are two tennis courts at Heather Park, instead of putting
basketball courts at Old Ranch the courts at Heather could be
converted to basketball, that would save at least one more
court, the report said the concessionaire needed between
twelve to sixteen courts yet at this point there would only
be eleven, however should the decision be made to take down
some of the courts it is hoped that the windbreaks will be
salvaged and placed at McGaugh. Mr. John Unrath, Dogwood
Avenue, said he .would talk on behalf of the some eight
hundred children in College Park East, there is no real good
park in that area, everything is flat, old, needs to be
redone, an argument has been made that there are not enough
tennis courts, counter to that he referred to the ten or
twelve courts at Los Alamitos High School that are not used,
he never had trouble finding an open court when he took his
children to play tennis, he still sees open courts, the
facility at Old Ranch has not changed or grown over the
fifteen years of his residency, a claim has been made that
there are not enough good courts, these are $100,000 courts.
Mr. Unrath said one plan was to bulldoze the entire site,
there are sixteen courts now, it is likely the tennis people
are being done a favor by keeping eleven courts, if the
sixteen courts were to be kept the conversion of the
clubhouse to a community center would be lost, more community
centers are needed, a nice center that can be used for
weddings, receptions, parties, etc., such things can usually
not be done at Marina Center and the North Seal Beach Center
is always booked, and offered that the operator has said that
the facility can operate with eleven good courts. Mr. Unrath
noted comments relating to the pool, from his experience very
few and short periods of free swim are available at McGaugh
therefore he took his children to Los Alamitos where there is
I
I
I
'. _4
10-23-00
I
free swim most all of the time, the pool at the new facility
will be open swim to all children of Seal Beach all the time,
in response to a comment that girls do not seem to ride
skateboards, said he has observed just as many girls riding
as boys, noting too that a skateboard park has now opened at
El Dorado Park. Mr. Unrath said the new facility will offer
a skateboard park to the youth which was prompted by
residents of College park, the pool and skateboard park will
be financially self-sufficient, it was the intent of the
committee to bring in enough money to cover the park
expenses. Mr. Unrath concluded that the site plan proposed
is a compromise, the result of many meetings, they were open
to all, meeting notices were distributed, the effort was to
refine the project to the point that it would be something
the community could live with, and between the needs of the
tennis people and the needs of the College Park East
children, this project seems to do that.
Councilman Boyd moved to extend the meeting for an additional
thirty minutes. Councilman Larson seconded the motion.
There appeared to be a consensus of the Council to do so.
I
Ms. Emily Frazier, 13th Street, said she voted in favor of
this project for the reason that it is for the children. She
has been a teacher for thirty-eight years, children are
becoming more and more stressed as a result of new standards,
hard work, working parents, etc., many spend up to twelve
hours at day care and school each day, children need
relaxation, fun, to keep moving to get rid of their energy,
this park will be beautiful, it is a compromise and should
meet the needs of all.
Councilman Boyd stated again his motion to extend the meeting
for an additional thirty minutes until 12:15 a.m. Councilman
Larson seconded.
Ms. Dorothy Whyte, College Park East, approached the podium
to address the Council once again, and asked if she could be
prevented from speaking as she spoke to another matter
previously.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson
Yost Motion carried
I
Mr. George Springosky, Ironwood Avenue, said he agreed with a
number of the comments, the existing facility is beautiful,
to tear out tennis courts to put in basketball courts where
there are courts across the street and put in a pool with the
assumption that it is going to pay for itself yet will not be
large enough for much swimming but large enough to drown in,
a lifeguard will be needed, it can not be imagined that it
could be self-sufficient, the City will be tearing out fine
tennis courts, if the skate park and pool do not pay for
themselves the courts will be gone, they will either not come
back or it will cost considerable to bring them back, the
City will be stuck with a lot of operating costs, and asked
that careful thought be given before decisions are made to
approve these modifications, possibly look at some revenue
analyses and predictions.
Ms. Dorothy Whyte asked that she be allowed to speak again to
this issue, was informed that she had spoken previously. To
a question of the City Attorney, he advised that it is at the
discretion of the Mayor, that persons have had the
opportunity to speak to this matter, however the Council
10-23-00
could overrule the decision of the Mayor.
A gentleman from the audience stated that the Bixby Company
never pushed the tennis club, it has always been a stodgy
organization, at one point potential members had to be
interviewed to join, when this facility is taken over the
membership will increase dramatically, described his
experience of participating in a tournament the previous week
in Rancho San Clemente where they used all of their eighteen
courts, if this facility put on tournaments it is certain all
sixteen courts would be used, his children are tennis
players, he would like to see them complete their training
here. He described this facility as great, it could make
Seal Beach famous, nothing should be changed, the City courts
are in disrepair, dirty, that is not the case with Old Ranch,
yet that facility too is in disrepair, whomever takes it over
will need to spend considerable money to put it in good
condition, the courts are deteriorating, the clubhouse needs
repair, the City will not have enough money, as a contract
specialist he has worked overseas, stated it costs a lot of
money to maintain these facilities, and he has not heard the
specific cost estimates. The gentleman concluded that he
supports keeping the facility as it exists, whomever takes
over the facility needs the clubhouse for food and beverage
services to make it successful, under this plan it is doomed
to failure, it should be turned over to a private operator.
Mr. Bill Hayes, Seal 'Beach, said he has been an Old Ranch
member for nearly five years, it is a wonderful facility, the
key word heard at this meeting is compromise, it is either
going to be a good park or a good tennis center, the tennis
center is going to be lost and get a small park for some
eight hundred children in the immediate area, a facility the
size of a few tennis courts is not a park, there is not
enough pool or anything to service a community, the existing
parks should be improved and leave the tennis facility as it
is. He noted that ever since he joined there has been a
cloud over the facility because it was always going to
change, it is believed that membership has dropped because of
that, if the ownership were to change and there was some
future for the facility the membership would certainly
increase and cover its costs, as a tennis club it would be
viable, likewise, Old Ranch Golf Club is being remodeled,
they would not do that unless it were felt necessary, and it
is quite likely that the golf facility would not turn away a
membership because one did not live in Seal Beach.
I
I
Councilman Boyd said he still did not understand who would
operate this facility, have there been discussions with
prospective operators, if so was there any indication if this
could be a successful facility if remodeled, and the comments
seemed to indicate that the center court was a big issue.
The Recreation Director responded that there have been
discussions relating to the tennis portion of the facility,
indication was that it could be successful, of the five
respondents all would rather run a sixteen court tennis
facility but also said they would run a lesser sized
facility. Councilman Boyd stated he believed the best idea
would be to vacate the street and make the park contiguous
with the existing Bluebell Park across the street, his
personal preference is to play golf at a private, pristine
course where one can play by invitation only, compare that to
a public course where there are divots, the greens are poor,
that is probably the same scenario with a private and public
tennis club. He agreed with a speaker that revenue is the
issue, particularly in Seal Beach, the question is what makes
I
, .
10-23-00
I
the best financial sense and offers the most opportunity,
especially to those eight hundred plus children in College
Park East, how can that opportunity be offered and still have
the revenue offset, is this the compromise that does that.
The Recreation Director responded she could not say with a
hundred percent assurance that the entire recreation portion
will be entirely self-supporting, the existing skateboard
park is self-supporting, the pool is not, the existing pool
is much larger, the new pool is anticipated to be a four
month operation so it is believed it can be self-supporting,
the community center with classes, rentals, etc. should be as
well, the subsidy issue is one that the Council always
wrestles with, in the minds of some recreation is just as
important as infrastructure needs, that recreation should be
available to all of the public, that is a decision of the
Council. She concurred that this is an ambitious plan but a
good plan, at this point she does not have a business plan,
that would require coordination with a contractor to develop
such plan. Councilman Boyd said the proposal tonight would
be to move forward with the development of this concept, he
could support that with conditions in that this issue will be
back before the Council, what he has heard is that there are
people who think this could be a viable opportunity, but it
is very differential for the Mayor as this is her district,
he is pleased to see a pool that will be dedicated to play
activity not just lap work, if the intent is to go forward
with this concept then he wants to see a business plan, he
would not support the concept without one and it needs to
make sense, his preference remains to reroute or close the
street and combine the parks for a large park facility, the
committee did a good job but the business facts need to be
shown as well, if it does not work he would want to readdress
the issue. Councilman Larson indicated confusion as to how
this facility is intended to be operated, it is not going to
be a private club, an example are the Long Beach golf courses
where civil service employees collect the fees or the
operation is contracted, but it is still a public course,
there are not members that have a priority. The Director
stated that to be a correct concept for the tennis portion.
Councilman Boyd agreed in that he did not know of golf
courses that are both public and private that are successful.
The Director said there are a number of different ways that
the tennis facility can be operated, that has yet to be
decided, it was the vision of the committee that it would be
a completely public facility, perhaps there could be
memberships, not private memberships, possibly a monthly
membership that would alleviate the need to pay each time for
a court, or have the opportunity to use prime courts at prime
times. Councilman Boyd said the highest and best use for
this facility is to retain an operator that will operate it
as it exists as a private tennis club, that is where the most
money can be made. Mayor Campbell noted that is not what the
residents of College Park East want.
I
I
Councilman Boyd moved to move forward with development of the
proposed concept, with the understanding that if this does
not work there will be a willingness to find some other way
to make it work even if it is a wholly private facility, and
that a business proposal for this concept be developed that
says if this plan will work. Mayor Campbell seconded the
motion.
Councilman Doane sought clarification that with this plan the
center court is being removed, the response of the Director
was yes, he then asked if that would not eliminate the
10-23-00
opportunity to host tournaments, the response was it would
depend on the concept of a tournament, he clarified that
there are clubs that have large events each year and
interested persons do attend. The Director said she believed
that with eleven courts one could hold a good tennis
tournament, would a sixteen court facility be better, the
answer is yes. Councilman Doane explained that should such
an event be held it would be necessary to provide seating,
the Director agreed that seating would be necessary however
questioned how often such an event would be held. Councilman
Yost made reference to the statement that the pool would only
be operable for four months and inquired about the remaining
eight months. The Director advised it would be covered and
not utilized, however that is just one concept, its use could
be extended to year round however it is difficult to have a
pool be self-supporting year round with limited activity and
use, the four months was what the committee discussed however
it is open to operating many different ways. Councilman Yost
stated he is committed to the $1 million staying in College
Park East and going towards the facility and its
improvements, also in favor of College Park having the
greatest share of the decision making over what happens to
this site, he is however not in favor of College Park having
complete control because it is a City park and there should
be input from all of the community, he also has some problems
with the process, with little input having been allowed from
the residents, not only College Park East but the remainder
of the City and the membership of the facility, they were not
welcome on the committee, the Recreation Commission had
minimum announcement, only a few knew of the consideration,
the meeting took place with one member absent relating to
what is going to be the largest recreation facility in the
City, it has been rushed through as it is at this meeting, he
has a problem with that. Councilman Yost said he has
questions about the survey, whether it was professionally
done and what it actually means, as surveys tell one what
they want them to depending on how they are worded, he wants
to make sure all of the College Park East residents are
informed. with regard to the pool, the majority of cost
would be for personnel to run that facility, is there an
estimate of that cost, the response was no, will swimming and
water safety classes be offered, the response was yes,
question was if staff has ever run a pool next to a freeway
without a soundwall, the response was no, question was if
part of guarding that pool safely is going to be dependent
upon being able to hear things, the response was that after
spending numerous hours at the location and being familiar
with the surrounding sounds it is not felt that would playa
part in lifeguarding safety, Councilman Yost stated he has
concerns with regard to the financial viability, input from
the community, notification to the community, his
recommendation would be to not take action at this time and
allow more people to speak to this issue at a more rational
time of evening.
I
I
Councilman Boyd restated his motion to direct staff in
concept to come back with a business plan for the operation
of this proposed plan, the entire plan, including finances.
Mayor Campbell explained that the committee looked at
combining the two park areas,. the. problem, how do you tell a
resident that instead of living on a side street that they
now live on a main street, that can not be done to someones
property values, also, a business plan can be done but it is
when you go to bid that you find out what. the. c;:osts will be,
and offered that if this concept is not feasible it will not
I
I
I
I
10-23-00
go forward. Councilman Boyd agreed that the directive is to
move forward in concept and bring back further information.
Mayor Campbell said she understands that the tennis players
want to keep this facility, however the surveys were
distributed, there was a thirty percent response, of that
seventy-four percent want some type of additional recreation
facilities, that is what needs to be listened to.
In response to Council, the City Attorney noted that there
was a motion to waive the adjournment hour of 11:59 p.m. and
extend the meeting until 12:15 a.m., at this point a vote can
be taken or the meeting can be extended further.
Councilman Boyd moved to extend the meeting by five minutes
until 12:20 a.m. Councilman Larson seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Larson
Doane, Yost
Motion carried
Councilman Boyd noted that a concept has been developed,
there is nothing as yet that indicates that the concept will
work, and once again restated his motion that staff be
directed to bring back additional complete information that
proves the concept works, including bid information, that
would be necessary to determine what will be done with this
site. Mayor Campbell seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Larson
Doane, Yost
Motion carried
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
No report was presented.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
No report was presented.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Yost expressed his concern with the tennis
facility site process, in his opinion i~ is not the co~rect
way to do things in a public forum, he ~s not necessar~ly
opposed to a particular project~ i~ is just not ~he way to do
things it is not healing or br~ng~ng the commun~ty together.
Councilman Larson called for conclusion of the meeting.
Councilman Boyd suggested that the meetings begin at 6:00
p.m.
ADJOURNMENT . .
It was the order of the Chair, with no obJect~ons from
Council to adjourn this meeting until Monday, November 13th
at 6:00'p.m. for both the City Council and the Redevelopment
Agency. The meeting was adjourned at 12:23 a.m.
clerk
. y Clerk and
f the City of
Approved:
YJ~/~
Mayot
Attest: