The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC Min 1999-09-13 8-31-99 ! 9-13-99 CLOSED SESSION By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at 5:07 p.m. and reconvened at 5:50 p.m. The City Attorney reported that the Council discussed the item identified on the agenda, no action was taken. I ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 5:51 p.m. clerk Approved: tr C)p,A, ~ City Cler Attest: I Seal Beach, California September 13, 1999 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:01 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Yost Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow Absent: None Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Badum, Director of Public Works! City Engineer Capt. Maiten, Police Department Capt. Schaefer, Police Department Mr. Dorsey, Assistant to the City Manager Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation and Parks Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I WAIVER OF FULL READING Boyd moved, second by Doane, to waive the 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. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried 9-13-99 PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATION - RED CAR DAY - SEAL BEACH Mayor Yost noted that August 27th, 1999 was proclaimed to be Red Car Day in Seal Beach, at that time the Seal Beach Historical Society hosted the unveiling of the All Aboard art deco passenger trains postage stamps, a wonderful event. Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to so proclaim. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4744 - HONORING SEAL BEACH HISTORICAL SOCIETY - . ALL ABOARD' COMMEMORATIVE STAMPS Mayor Yost read Resolution Number 4744 in full entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL HONORING AND COMMENDING THE SEAL BEACH HISTORICAL SOCIETY ON THE OCCASION OF THE UNVEILING OF "ALL ABOARD" COMMEMORATIVE U. S. POSTAL STAMPS." Doane moved, second by Campbell, to adopt Resolution Number 4744 as presented. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried Ms. Laura Alioto accepted the Proclamation and the Resolution on behalf of the Historical Society, and expressed appreciation to those who attended the unveiling ceremony, making August 27th a memorable and historic day in Seal Beach for all time. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4745 - HONORING KEVIN GUSTAFSON - SOLO FLIGHT Councilmember Campbell requested that this item be held over pending the arrival of the recipient as he is presently attending a class. It was the consensus of the Council to do so. I APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Campbell requested that Item "I" be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration, Councilman Boyd asked that the record reflect his abstention from voting on Consent Calendar Item "N", the City Attorney requested that Item "N" be considered separately to receive further information as an additional claim has been received as an amendment to that Item, and a member of the audience requested Item "M" removed. Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to approve the order of the agenda as noted and revised. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Yost declared the Public Comment period to be open. Ms. Carla watson, Seal Beach announced that the Save The (McGaugh) Pool fund raising effort is coming to a close, the period for donation has been extended to October 15th, to date the fund is at $115,000, the hope is to collect $125,000, the name of persons donating $200 or more will be placed on a recognition plaque. She noted that the proceeds derived from Founders Day will be donated to the Pool Fund. Ms. Schelly Sustarsic, Seal Beach, announced that Founders Day will be held on October 2nd from 2:30 to 6:00 p.m. with bands and festivities. Ms. Jane McCloud, Seal Beach, announced that the second and last for this year Concert In The Park will be held September 26th from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. I 9-13-99 I in Gum Grove park, invited all to bring a picnic and enjoy the music for all ages. Ms. McCloud referred to the recently vacant Shell Station property at Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway, noted she has heard of the possibility of three chain businesses planning to locate there, to that she expressed her opposition, requested that that be reconsidered, Main Street has historically been a place for independent mom and pop businesses, that in keeping with the village atmosphere in the downtown portion of the City, her intent is to protect the Main Street merchants from losing business to chain stores, also, the parking is said to be limited with the entry and exit located at the corner of PCH, that is not safe, a potential liability, businesses located at the entrance to Main Street should conform to the village type mom and pop independent style that welcomes visitors who stroll, shop, and dine in Seal Beach. She suggested that any such change to Main Street should be a communitywide decision, her desire is to protect the independent merchants. Mr. John Unrath, Dogwood Avenue, said as president of the College Park Neighborhood Association he wished to invite all to a Summer Concert on September 25th at 1:00 p.m. featuring the Huntington Beach concert band. As a citizen he reported that while in Heather Park recently he was met by someone representing Citizens Against Excessive Development, apparently against the Bixby project, wanting to repeal the recent City Council approvals for all development except for housing, the person collecting signatures was being paid, reportedly between $1 to $2 per signature, which could result in considerable money. He said another divisive election is not wanted and he would charge the members of the Council with the responsibility of explaining to their constituents what the referendum really means and if there in an interest in the future of Seal Beach, which is primarily the tax revenue, to reject the referendum. Mr. Thomas McRoth, retired university president, said the last time he was in Seal Beach was by means of the Red Car to a beach party, he has thought highly of the City ever since. Mr. McRoth expressed his amazement at hearing that a Seal Beach administrator was going to be terminated for philosophical differences yet was also recently awarded two unique awards, one from the State and one a National award, yet the philosophical differences evidently prevailed, this a shame and requested more evidence as to why this is happening. Mr. Ed Simmons, Seal Beach, made the comment that the beach was here before houses or anything else, commended the Council for having obtained grant money to clean the waters, however it is understood that money will be used to purchase a tractor and rake which he claimed is after the fact. He said other cities in this State are doing major things for water pollution, his preference would be two to three bridges in the River to trap debris before getting to open water, maybe a conveyor and screening system that stops the debris when it rains, operated by motors that conveys the debris into a container device, stating it does nothing to clean the beach once the debris is here because one can not go into the water, this is what the money should be used for before purchasing equipment, the existing tractor and rake still work. Mr. Simmons acknowledged that the Council has listened however nothing has been done, no studies have been done of the groin next to the pier, in his opinion the groin should go, maybe even look at the small jetty at the river. He claimed the waters were dirty this summer, that was not due to dirty water coming down River, it was from the boats on the ocean, that is where they dump, a problem that some attempted to resolve years ago. Mr. Simmons said now it is I I 9-13-99 September, the sand berm will go up, and questioned why all of Seal Beach is paying for the berm, why is that money not coming from the adjacent residents, it helps no one else, that is a fact, also, it is fact that the pier went down in 1983 because of the groin, questioned how much money has been spent on replenishing sand over the years, yet the sand is all gone, look to the northerly end of Surfside, the sand I that was placed there is gone, gone because it is summer, the eddy, the wave break takes the sand to the hole at Sunset, then when the north swells come they will break from Sunset and move the sand back. In the event of a major storm, Mr. Simmons asked if the City has resources to deter all of Seal Way from being wiped out because the sand berm will not help, and in referring back to the one day storm in 1983 asked what if that had been a three day storm, there would be no Seal Way and the houses on 15th and 16th streets would have been under five or six feet of water. This issue needs to be addressed, the City has a grant, this is a start, there are other grants as well, every city on the coast is beginning to look at water pollution. Mayor Yost made comment that a couple of bills were just approved by the legislature, for which the City lobbied, that will also help. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, stated her opinion that the issue of bonuses should be agendized, there have been problems in other cities with Managers giving themselves and department heads incentives, yet she has not seen reference to bonuses in the warrants or the budget, such monies would be better used to repair streets. Ms. Corbin read excerpts from a letter from the ACLU Foundation addressed to the Mayor in response to two complaints relating to public comments. She claimed that whistle blowers are often dismissed from their jobs, here I department heads were warned not to speak out, but someone did. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, distributed the ACLU letter previously referred to, asked that it be entered into the record. Mr. Clewley spoke regarding an August 16th hearing relating to a development permit for a golf course and homes on wetlands, stated that the State Supreme Court has upheld the appellate and lower court rulings for Bolsa Chica which then gives Hellman only three options, go back to the Coastal Commission, reach a settlement with the plaintiffs, or sell the property, a mandatory settlement conference is scheduled for September 21st, if settlement is not reached they will then be required to-reappear before the judge. He spoke regarding a recent town hall meeting hosted by the Mayor, some people, it is said, want time to present an alternative restoration plan but the City still supports a golf course, and claimed that the low cost homes in the Trailer Court are part of the Hellman plan and will be gone. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, commended those who attended the August 27th unveiling at the Red Car, mentioning that the City did well to honor the "All Aboard" United States Postal Service stamp. With regard to the property at Main and PCH where a request has been made for a variance, Mr. Shanks noted that there is a video store already located at Zoeter I Place, there have been problems with rental payments from Zoeter, suggesting that before businesses are allowed to locate here that they be required to adhere to the local regulations, particularly parking, the City has come a long way over the past thirty years to establish laws and regulations and require that people conform. Mr. Stan Anderson, Balboa Drive, reported that the Sand Castle Contest this past weekend was wonderful, the event was supported by many local businesses, the Art Festival was exciting, and it is often found that one event helps another. He too mentioned that the desire is to remove debris from the waters 9-13-99 I before it gets to the beach, that is of interest to many, with regard to removal of the groin said that was a concern even in the 1950's as to what that would do, agreed that the groin likely had an impact on the pier failure in 1983 because of the backwash, and it is felt that most people want something permanent rather than the sand berm and replenishment, it is likely realized that the oceanfront homes should never have been built but they were and they need to be protected. Be noted the proposed Starbucks and other businesses desiring to locate at Main and PCB, stated he is for competition however prefers something non- competitive as far as new businesses coming into town, citizen concerns are important, yet it is well known that the City needs money too. Mr. Anderson made mention of Liz Stoddard, recalled that while working on the Orange County bankruptcy she asked why money was being put into the County pool, she has been a good employee over the years, received awards, if it is necessary that she be terminated that is one thing, but as a citizen he would like to know what went wrong, how could someone so important to this town be let go. Be emphasized that it is important to tell the citizenry why, to not do so is not fair, the reasons need to be communicated, the Council, City Manager, and City Attorney need to disclose this, if the reason is not known then someone needs to find out, to have the support of the citizens, this needs to be told. Mr. Bill Ayres, Seal Beach, said he would like to suggest a way to save money that could be used for the Animal Care Center. As a runner and biker he mentioned going up the River five or six times a week, after the bridge that goes over the 405 Freeway the surface is cement on both sides of the River, trash is collecting and with the first rain it will come down channel to the beach, cleanup is then expensive, and suggested that street sweepers and dump trucks be used ahead of the rains to pick up this trash and debris. There being no further comments, Mayor Yost declared Public Comments closed. I COUNCIL ITEMS APPOINTMENT - ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - DISTRICT TBREE Mayor Yost moved to appoint Mr. Jake Eigenbrod as the District Three representative to the Archaeological Advisory Committee for the one year term expiring July, 2000. Councilman Boyd seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried I LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE - VOTING DELEGATE Yost moved, second by Boyd, to designate Councilmember Campbell as the City's voting delegate to the Annual League of California Cities Conference to be held in San Jose from October 10th through October 12th. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES - PART TIME SERVICES/EMERGENCY BACKUP The Mayor invited members of the public wishing to speak to this issue to do so. Ms. Annette Robinson, Clipper way, recalled how she happened to view the introduction of this issue as new business at a prior meeting, a contract with the City of Long Beach to provide animal control officers as well as licensing of Seal Beach animals, during the presentation 9-13-99 she expected to see persons at the meeting questioning the need for this or at least the principals of outsourcing such an important service which she had always felt to be a most defining service in Seal Beach, a compassionate, no kill animal shelter and caring animal control officers to retrieve lost pets, care for injured or dangerous animals within the City limits, protect the wildlife, and educate the pUblic as to the care of domestic animals and wildlife, however to her shock no one arose to speak and fortunately this item was tabled until this meeting. Ms. Robinson said her function as a resident and homeowner in Seal Beach is that basic services are provided, she has never questioned that the City has adequate police officers to respond to an emergency call, or fire and paramedic personnel for a medical emergency, during stormy weather one can see City personnel maintaining the streets, the berm, the storm drains, never questioning that this is an appropriate deployment of resources. She said it never occurred to her that in a community that prides itself as a small village by the sea, a caring community that values a multi-generational population, a community that has a large wildlife sanctuary within its boundaries, a community epitomized by a caring and compassionate no kill animal shelter, that a decision had been made with no public input to reduce the animal control staff to one person and propose to outsource this service to the fifth largest city in California, Long Beach, that is also in another county. Ms. Robinson said it is her understanding that animal control services is part of the Seal Beach Police Department, that it is the mission of that Department to protect life and property within Seal Beach, pets, including dogs and cats, are considered property under California law, and to those that are pet lovers pets are lives to be protected. In addition to the many domestic pets, Seal Beach is fortunate to have one of the largest coastal wildlife sanctuaries in Southern California within its City limits, not including the Hellman property, those animals sometimes come into the populated area and the animal control officers have the responsibility to protect the wildlife as well as protect and educate the citizens about these wild animals, also, since there is a no kill shelter many animals are dropped in Seal Beach and without the vigilance of people, the police and especially the animal control officers these animals would become a threat to the wildlife and the citizens. Ms. Robinson said as a resident, homeowner, concerned and involved citizen of Seal Beach, requested that there be consideration of all collateral issues that arise from a decision to reduce the animal control staff to one person and out source this service to a large city in another county, the lost revenue from not registering all dogs and cats in Seal Beach, the potential of mistakes and the resulting possibility of lawsuits made by animal control officers that are not familiar or directly accountable to the authorities of Seal Beach. Animals taken to Long Beach and placed in their euthanizing animal shelter or left in a veterinary hospital for days before being put down, the wildlife can be put in jeopardy due to stray dogs or cats or errant children, these just a few examples based upon recent experience with reduced staff and out sourced service. Ms. Robinson said a fully staffed animal control department makes good sense, a source to gather added revenue by registering all dogs and cats, to properly extend the priority of a no kill animal shelter to protect the people, animals, and wildlife in the enclosed environment of Seal Beach, to educate the public about the care of both wildlife and domestic animals, and to be a front line offense if any animal is infected with a I I I 9-13-99 I dangerous bacteria or parasite that could affect the health of the people of Seal Beach. She stated that for the past few years the City has had to make due with a decrease in revenue and only two animal control officers to serve the needs of Seal Beach, now that the economy is being turned around and tax monies are being kept in Seal Beach, one of the first things that the City did was a cut of animal control staffing, to her that makes no sense, whomever counseled that this is a good idea and was in keeping with the standards of this unique community was at best uninformed and ignorant or at worst uncaring about the desires and priorities of the people of Seal Beach, now is the time for the City to correct this error. Ms. Robinson urged that the animal services department be fully staffed with people who are accountable to the Police Chief and the City Council, although not an expert on staffing common sense would seem to indicate that for services seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day would require four staff persons to cover the duties, which includes registering every dog and cat in Seal Beach, she would however defer to the Police Department to determine the actual number of staff needed. Ms. Robinson requested that the Council do the right thing, the prudent thing, correct this error, and provide a fully staffed animal control service that will protect lives and property in Seal Beach. Ms. Sally Hirsch, Crestview Avenue, recalled an article in the local paper some months ago written by an animal control officer entitled 'Gum Grove Not A Dog Park', the article reported numerous calls to animal control complaining about dogs being brought to the park, dogs off leash, dog bites, and dog fights, also that allowing dogs off leash on public property is a violation of the Seal Beach Municipal Code and the owner is subject to citation, further reported that animal control would be increasing their patrols of beaches and parks. She said she was so pleased with the article that she called the office to offer congratulations, however upon doing so she had been informed that the City Manager had directed animal control to not enforce the leash law or give citations for dogs in Gum Grove Park, to that Ms. Hirsch said to her it was unbelievable that a City Manager would tell a law enforcement officer to not enforce the law, and that directive was confirmed to be true by the Police Captain. Ms. Hirsch stated that dogs off leash are a potential danger to children and adults in Gum Grove Park, and people in Seal Beach now have knowledge that the City Manager instructed animal control to not enforce the law, she asked if this intentional negligence creates a potential liability for the City if someone is injured by a dog, she has personally seen dogs off leash in Gum Grove Park running so fast that an adult let alone a child would be run over, personal knowledge of a family with a little girl who likes to walk in the forest yet they felt threatened by two large dogs barking and running at them, the parent said they would never go back to Gum Grove, and fortunately thus far the City has not been sued. Ms. Hirsch mentioned that dogs run through Gum Grove Nature Park off leash and aggravate neighborhood dogs which causes loud noises, especially early in the morning, to resolve the dog problem she wished to offer four suggestions, that Gum Grove not be opened to dogs or people until 8:00 a.m., that all dogs be required to be on leash at all times and that the leash law be strictly enforced, on-leash dogs should be restricted to the lower road which will reduce the potential for contamination of the Park, and the City should hire sufficient animal control officers to ensure that the parks are safe and clean for children and residents. I I 9-13-99 Ms. Audrey Winthrop, 112 Dolphin, was allowed to make comments off the subject, commented as to the parking problem, the parking meter fee as she felt it relates to a proposed twenty-three hundred square foot business with only six parking spaces, competing with local businesses, caring not for this small town, specifically the proposed Starbucks and Blockbuster Video. Ms. Rebecca Howard, Trailer Park, agreed with a prior speaker, stated she had been in the Park in recent months with her two year old daughter and within a half hour was confronted by three unleashed dogs, the owner of an unleashed pit Bull yelled at her saying she should be frightened to be there with her daughter and unleashed dogs, she has not been back to the Park. Ms. Annell Aviani, President of the Friends of the Seal Beach Animal Care Center, stated that the Friends are opposed to the contract with Long Beach Animal Control. Ms. Aviani said the need is for professional Seal Beach animal control officers that have been trained and understand the unique and humane treatment of animals that has been a way of life for the citizens of Seal Beach, the budget cuts that eliminated one officer's full time position, leaving just one full time officer, and relying on Long Beach to cover one hundred twenty-eight hours of animal control is not working, in a City of this size and with the animal population it is impossible for Long Beach to respond to emergency situations in a matter of minutes, this was demonstrated a few weeks ago when a mortally wounded dog lay howling in pain on Pacific Coast Highway, a private citizen called several times for help, and it took Long Beach nearly an hour and a half to respond, the dogs injuries, how it was handled, and resulting treatment for the last four days of that dogs life haunts all who know the whole story, Long Beach can not offer the services that are needed. She noted that the contract states that there will be round the clock control when the City's one officer is unavailable and they will license Seal Beach pets, the fiscal impact is $25,000 per year, the first year to set up the program to license the animals will be about $7,000 and in years to follow the projected revenue to Seal Beach will be $20,000 in license fees and canvassing. The Friends of the Seal Beach Animal Care Center propose that they set up a computer program and be responsible for licensing in Seal Beach, the program would be simple, all current owner information and animal description will be put into the computer base and alphabetized, the pet given a number that will be same number for its lifetime, a strong, sturdy tag along with a two part bill will be sent that will indicate the requirements of licensing and the late fees, one part of the bill would be returned to the City with the payment, the information will be fed into the computer, the program will have the capacity to provide a list of delinquent payments that can be followed up with a telephone call, the City would be responsible for the cost of the mailings and the license tags, setting up a local computer program will keep the revenue from all license fees in the City, and pets brought to the Care Center can be returned by a click of a mouse. She has been informed that the canvassing of pets needs to be done by trained personnel and there is a potential to bring in thousands of dollars by canvassing and licensing of animals, employing additional animal control offices to do the canvassing will keep this revenue in the City. As to the issue of overtime and on-call expenses, the cost estimated at $9,000 per year, she said the Friends receive $9,000 per year from the City to help cover the cost of the three day impound period of new animals, if necessary, the Friends are willing to sacrifice the $9,000 paid to them so that the City will have the money to pay the I I I 9-13-99 I ACO's overtime and on-call expenses, the Friends look at this proposal as opening a dialogue with the Council to reach their goal of additional animal control officers. Ms. Aviani said the Friends would respectfully ask the Council to vote on two issues, the immediate funding of additional animal control officers and that any contract voted into existence with the City of Long Beach be only for as needed or on call services. To the question of discussions with Captain Maiten, Ms. Aviani confirmed that there have been discussions as to what is involved in terms of licensing, said they would work closely with the animal control officers as well, the computer program would be at the Police Department as well as the Care Center, the Friends would be volunteer help involved only to the point of getting licenses out to the public, they would use the $7,000 proposed to be paid to Long Beach to establish the computer program, that could be done by volunteers who have expertise in that field. Ms. Sally Parker, College Park East, offered that she too was surprised at the animal licensing proposal where it is said only generates between $8,000 and $11,000, yet she has been informed that the actual revenue was $15,524.85 for fiscal year 1998/99, the contract proposal for the computer program and mailing is the $7,000, the solicitor is included but the actual cost is not set forth, the contract also states that all monies from licensing, whether collected by Long Beach or Seal Beach, would go to Long Beach, all expenses connected to licensing and other associated costs would be taken from the licensing revenue, thereafter the profit would be divided equally between the two cities, if in fact there were any profit. Ms. Parker suggested that that part of the contract be reconsidered, it would be best to have additional officers but there needs to be a better way to license, the Care Center can do it or she too could come up with a program, it is assumed that the City currently has a system to keep track of the license tags. She suggested this function stay within the City. Ms. Carla watson, Catalina Avenue, agreed with prior comments, emphasized the degree to which this community goes to protect this small, special town, not comparable to any other city, and mentioned how fortunate the City is to have such a learned and accomplished group of people who have dedicated themselves to the small creatures that give all pleasure, her opinion is that the City should defer to their expertise. Mr. John Tinker, Clipper Way, stated his opinion that the leash law is not a problem in Gum Grove Park, there are just a percentage of the people who do not keep their dogs on a leash, revenue can be generated through licensing and citations, his feeling is that a vast majority of the people try to comply with the law but there needs to be sufficient enforcement. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, expressed her opinion that many of the issues are connected because of the desire of the Manager for control, animal services worked well, a good system, alleged that the animal control officer was let go because he would not bend, the City needs to go back to the system that existed, questioned why the Council has met in closed session regarding the City Manager if there is not a problem, and claimed there are things that the Council does not want to discuss. Ms. Hoffman, Hazelnut Avenue, stated she has adopted two cats from the Animal Care Center, had a lost dog that was returned within a half hour on a weekend, one of the things that attracted her to purchase a home in Seal Beach was the no kill Animal Center, she is a member, supports the Center, concrete proposals have been presented and should be accepted. As to wrong doings, Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, made reference to brick work on Central. He said the Animal I I 9-13-99 Shelter problem is directly related to mismanagement of resources, the deflection of goods and services for one area then placed in another, handing tax payer money to Long Beach is not right, this issue should be denied. Mr. Chris Deckner, 5th Street, said his family has adopted a cat from the Shelter rather than buying one from the pet store, they will probably adopt another, that saves the life of an animal, instead of bringing in Long Beach, he suggested that the pet store not be allowed to sell dogs, cats, and other animals because to adopt saves the life of an animal, the Shelter should stay as it is. I It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 8:25 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:31 with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order. A request of Councilman Boyd was that the staff report dated August 4th be read or summarized for information of the public. Captain Maiten, Support Division Commander of the Police Department, a member of the Department for thirty- three years, working with animal control for about twenty years. The Captain stated he does not have an adversarial relationship with the Shelter, that is an important nexus that there is no intent to break, and he has no intention of bringing someone in to take over the Shelter or the operation of the Shelter or dispose of animals. He said due to budgetary constraints animal control officers were reduced from two to one and a half, the half time position is difficult to staff, there were few having interest inasmuch as there are no fringe benefits, in the interim a solution was sought to keep the animals from going to Orange County where they are kept for just three days, upon discussing this with the Friends of the Care Center it was unacceptable to them, the County would not bring the animals to Seal Beach even though for over twenty years the backup has been Orange County, the only shelter that would work with the City was Long Beach who guaranteed that they would bring the animals directly to the Seal Beach Shelter, there still needs to be a backup when the Seal Beach officer is not available. The staff report shows a methodology with one animal control officer full time to staff around the half time position and the other hours, that is the $25,000 figure, it is a financially sound way of providing service if the City is not going to have its own animal control officers, despite rumors to the contrary, with the lack of animal control in the month of June of this year Long Beach was utilized thirty-four times with twenty-one pickups, he did not have the figures for July. Captain Maiten said if there were to be more than one animal control officer neither he or the Department would be adverse to that, the question is where does the money come from, that lies with the Council, however he could relay how much an animal control officer costs, with and without benefits, how many citations were written, etc. At the request of Council, the Captain stated that a full time senior animal control officer would cost $37,670 without fringe benefits, with benefits it would be $48,595, between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 1999 there were ninety-nine citations written, most were leash law, nine hundred sixty- eight animals were taken to the shelter, four hundred twelve strays, one hundred seventy-two injured, and three hundred eighty-four dead, the total of strays and injured would make five hundred eighty-four, between August 1st and 31st, 1999 the officers picked up twenty-seven strays and twenty-six dead animals. In response to an inquiry, the Captain explained that it is usually animal services that pick up I I 9-13-99 I dead animals, sometimes Public Works or the Police Officers. As to the animal services budget before the cut, the Captain stated the base pay was $40,000, cut by $20,000 not including benefits, the 1999/00 overall budget was $105,573, the personnel costs for one and a half positions for salary, benefits and holiday time was $75,733, the prior year would be less the $20,000 and twenty-nine percent fringe benefits. The Captain explained further that during the fiscal year there were one thousand five hundred sixteen called for services for animal control, that a bit more than four called for services per day every day of the year, that includes everything from licensing to animal pickup to assisting with a trapped animal problem, the cost for Long Beach for backup is $78.50 per call, yet it must be kept in mind that the local animal control officers are also working on licensing, paper work, education, etc. Councilman Boyd said he would suggest that the City continue with one full time employee, then, due to budgetary constraints, possibly go back to two full time employees, or, he would propose two part time employees with the one full time, those persons working twenty-five hours a week, that would increase staffing somewhat, extend the on-call and pager ability to all three in the event of emergencies, that a plan be developed with the Friends for licensing to be done locally, and if there is need for a committee that it be comprised of the animal control officer, the Captain, two members of the Council, and representatives of the Friends. As to filling two part time positions, the Captain said there had been warnings from a number of cities that that would be difficult basically because of the lack of fringe benefits, the recruitment prompted three replies, none of which had any experience, the preference would be to have someone with some experience in order to reduce training time and increase the level of experience within the animal control bureau. Councilman Boyd said his reasoning for suggesting two part time, non- benefitted employees, was to increase the opportunity for call back and reduce the need to go outside the City for services. It was noted that the lack of benefits is what makes filling the position difficult. Councilman Snow acknowledged the comments made at this meeting, noted specifically the problems in Gum Grove park, suggested that the contract with Long Beach be signed, it could be terminated in sixty days, and during that period investigate thoroughly what the City is up against with the animal services issue, and stated his intent to vote in support of the contract that the Captain has proposed. Councilmember Campbell said in Seal Beach the pets are part of families, this is tinkering with animal services, this is sacred ground, the people take great pride in the animal shelter, people rest easier knowing that should their pets get out the chances of getting them back is good. She spoke favorably to the suggestion of Councilman Boyd for two part time employees with no benefits because that is a considerable saving, the funding is in place for one and a half persons, funding for another half needs to be found, possibly work harder at recruiting, it is likely there are people who could fill those positions, if there were two part time officers that would reduce the need for Long Beach callout. It was stated with some certainty that the part time position was not properly advertised. Ms. Annette Robinson, Clipper way, stated she is a business owner in Seal Beach, it needs to be understood that unemployment is the lowest in at least twenty years, to ask someone to work part time with no benefits is virtually I I 9-13-99 impossible, it will not work in this economic situation, this would be asking for failure. Ms. Robinson said she proposed a fully staffed animal service and it is not unreasonable to ask to have these services provided to the citizens of Seal Beach, this is a priority, animal control is important to the people of this City, this is a politically active community, the Council needs to listen, the need is for full time I staffing. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf place, said he too believes in fully staffed animal services, and suggested that there is a reservoir of people in Leisure World that may be interested and they would not necessarily require benefits. ,Ms. Aviani said the request is for professional Seal Beach animal control officers that are trained and understand unique and humane treatment of animals, this has been a way of life in Seal Beach, what kind of professional person is going to come to this City for a part time, twenty-five hour a week position with no benefits. The Mayor mentioned that the Council held budget hearings, reviewed the document line by line, the most that was found could be saved was about $30,000, the utility tax exemption will result in a possible $300,000 to $500,000 revenue reduction, the Bixby project is now in the courts, possibly subject to referendum, and inquired if there would be a willingness to pay more for animal licenses or whatever. Ms. Aviani offered that people would be willing to pay more, she would be willing to license her pets to have professional officers, animals not on leash should be cited, everyone supports that. Councilmember Campbell noted that if the Friends do the licensing and a canvass, asked how much more would that bring in, if the Friends handle the licensing, the computer program, and mailings, what would be the savings. The Captain responded I that they should not be doing the canvass, and Ms. Aviani advised that the $7,000 proposed to go to Long Beach would be used to develop the computer program, after revenues and expenses if done by Long Beach there may be a $2,000 turnback. Captain Maiten said the licensing and all other duties can not be done with one person, this issue is driven by the fact that there was not enough staff to do what needed to be done, the Long Beach situation is becoming convoluted, the reason for wanting to go with Long Beach is the fact that if an animal is picked up by Orange County the animal goes to the County facility for three days no matter, if it is a Long Beach truck the animal goes to the Seal Beach shelter, that contract could be modified as much as is desired, still, at this point there needs to be a backup plan for when the officer or officers are not available. He acknowledged that even with two full time officers there would be a need for a Long Beach backup, the contract can be terminated, in a recent discussion Long Beach was asked if the $78.50 per call charge became prohibitive could the yearly rate be substantially reduced if there were two full time local animal control officers, their response was yes, however they could not provide a specific number at that point. Ms. Aviani mentioned that the police officers have been bringing I animals to the Care Center for the past ten to twelve years, this is done as a courtesy as part of the police work in this City, they are willing to do that, therefore Long Beach could simply be on-call in the event of emergency, again stating that the Friends are willing to give back the $9,000 that they receive from the City in order to cover the overtime and on-call expense. Councilman Boyd moved to authorize an appropriation from reserves of an additional $41,000 to reinstate positions for two full time animal control officers and authorize an 9-13-99 I agreement with Long Beach on a per call basis only, and as requested, explore the possibility of an increase of licensing fees. Councilman Doane referenced a remark that the police officers pick up and deliver animals to the Care Center to which he pointed out that they are not trained to do that. He said his preference is to go back to two full time animal control officers, also Captain Maiten needs to be involved because of the work he has done in this process, the discussion is for a volunteer group to do considerable work for the City, that brings forth the legal issue of contracting with a volunteer group, said he would not necessarily be in a position to make a decision at this meeting yet the Council is aware of what the Friends have said and offered, possibly the Captain, a Councilmember, the animal control officer, and a representative from the Center could meet to look at the necessary revenue, his belief is that further advertising will not get qualified people, Leisure World residents are not trained to do ACe work however they do volunteer at the Shelter. Councilman Snow reiterated his preference to approve the contract with Long Beach as presented which can be terminated later if desired. The Captain mentioned that the contract has a thirty day break contract clause, and requested authority to contact Long Beach once again to explore a better yearly or per call rate. Councilmember Campbell cautioned that Long Beach is in need of a contract, they had agreed to give Seal Beach until this meeting to make a decision, if postponed this will be after the fact. I Councilman Boyd restated his motion to authorize the rehiring of one full time animal control officer, which will require a budget amendment in an amount not to exceed $45,000, that a working group be established to consist of Captain Maiten, two members of the Council, the animal control officer, and a representative of the Friends to determine how the licensing, canvassing, etc. will be accomplished, and develop an on- call, as needed, agreement with Long Beach, in the interim Long Beach will be available, on call, pending the hiring of the second full time ACe, and once hired he would request an update on the contract if the pager/on-call is restored or Long Beach on-call is continued. The Mayor again suggested that the possibilities for increased revenues be explored. Councilmember Campbell seconded the motion. I The City Manager expressed his view that it is the responsibility of staff look at ways to provide government services more efficiently and as cost effectively as possible, based upon the cost/benefit test this program could provide the service at a cost less than what has been paid for a number of years, the other elements for consideration are the comments from the public as well as policy questions and issues that are within the realm of the Council, it is not a bad thing for staff to be looking at providing services more cost effectively but it is understood there is more that goes into decisions than just the cost/benefit test. The Manager stated also that he did not want people have the false impression that the City does not enforce the leash law, the issue brought forth was specific to Gum Grove Park, how does one enforce the leash law after twenty years of people walking their dogs, a number of them without leashes, questioned whether this should be some type of blanket citation program or a complaint based approach where upon call an animal control officer is dispatched, an interim measure, plan had been that when the Hellman Ranch project is built part of the project approvals will require contribution 9-13-99 to the City for improvements to Gum Grove Park, two years ago it was thought that by this time this would have been resolved and improvements made. Mayor Yost requested that the issue of dogs on leashes in Gum Grove be agendized for a future meeting. Vote on the motion to restore a second animal control officer I position: AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Yost Snow Motion carried PRESENTATION RESOLUTION NUMBER 4745 - HONORING KEVIN GUSTAFSON - HISTORIC SOLO FLIGHT Councilmember Campbell read Resolution Number 4745 in full entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL HONORING AND COMMENDING KEVIN GUSTAFSON ON THE OCCASION OF HIS HISTORIC SOLO FLIGHT" and presented the Resolution to pilot Gustafson. Mr. Gustafson expressed appreciation for the honor, the City for providing a place to grow up, his flight instructor for allowing the use of his plane to fly across country, and his parents for not being too scared. By unanimous consent, Resolution Number 4745 was adopted. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "G" thru "N" Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except for Items "I" and "M", removed for separate consideration, and to reflect the abstention of Councilman Boyd on Item "N". G. Approved regular demands numbered 024722 through 024863 in the amount of $325,656.39, payroll demands numbered 004809 through 005189 in the amount of $353,038.50, payroll demands numbered 90000 through 90061 to the payroll liability account in the amount of $311,538.67, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I H. Declined the request from the City of Huntington Beach to participate financially, in the amount of $4,200, in the West Orange County Cities Association Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study. J. Received and filed the Monthly Investment Report for July, 1999. K. Approved an Agreement with HdL, Coren & Cone to audit the utility users tax and franchise fee calculations for utility companies and City franchise holders for an amount equal to twenty-five percent of all new tax revenues, and authorized the City Manager to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City. I L. Adopted Ordinance Number 1450 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE X OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PERTAINING TO THE OPERATION OF PARKING METERS IN DESIGNATED OFF-STREET MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS AND THE PARKING AND CONTROL OF VEHICLES THEREON." By unanimous consent, 9-13-99 full reading of Ordinance Number 1450 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried I ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "I" - ACCOUNTANT REPORT - PROCEDURES RE APPROPRIATION LIMIT Councilmember Campbell requested that the City Attorney obtain for her the management letters prepared by Lance Soll & Lunghard for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99. The City Manager responded that there were no management letters for those years, and that the item on the agenda relates to procedures applied to the appropriations limit. Yost moved, second by Boyd, to receive and file the communication from Lance Soll & Lunghard. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried I ITEM "M" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4747 - ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOC!ATION - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Mr. Larry Likens, Orange County Employees Association, present to represent the Seal Beach Employees Association and some concerns relating to recently completed contract negotiations. Mr. Likens said he was aware of the fact that cities deal with negotiations differently, from the employees standpoint it is asked only that their proposals receive a fair presentation to the Council and that the Council give the negotiator direction in order to reach a fair agreement, one thing consistent with all jurisdictions is that when the employees receive a last, best, and final offer that it in fact comes from the City Council, this is the area where there appears to be a problem, when he spoke with the City's negotiator, Mr. Avery, he said he had never addressed the Council with any of the employee proposals, apparently only discussing them with the City Manager. He said his presence was not to criticize or question how the City has chosen to handle negotiations, only to present the confusion and concern of the employees regarding the process. Mr. Likens said in his years of negotiating contracts he has never dealt with a city where the employee proposals were not presented to the City Council therefore when the employees voted on the contract he told them he found it hard to believe that the last, best, and final offer was not coming from the City Council, therefore based on his advice and recommendation the employees voted to ratify the contract, shortly thereafter the employees heard rumors that some councilmembers were unaware of the City's last, best, and final offer, furthermore, rumors have it that some of those councilmembers felt that some of the employee proposals that were rejected seemed to be fair and reasonable. Mr. Likens said given the rumors and that the negotiator said he had never addressed the Council creates an atmosphere of mistrust which makes these and future negotiations difficult because the employees do not know what or who to believe, and although the employees have voted a second time to approve the contract, they still want to know if the Council was ever made aware of the proposals and if this is truly the last, best, and final offer to these employees, if not, the Association is willing to go back to the table as soon as possible to continue to discuss their proposals and allow Council the necessary time to receive a full briefing thereof. A yes vote by the I 9-13-99 Council at this meeting will show that the Council was informed of all proposals and that this is the last, best, and final offer of the Council, and, as promised the employees, in the future he will provide the Council with copies of all proposals prior to the beginning of negotiations and an update of the City's response after each negotiation session, it is hopeful that this will prevent any misunderstanding at the end of the process. Mr. Likens commended the Council for having the wisdom to restore the full time animal control services position, stating that they tried to talk the City out of contracting to begin with, contracting has always been seen as a panacea, sounds good but usually results in a significant loss of services to the citizens. I Doane moved, second by Yost, to adopt Resolution Number 4747 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING REVISIONS TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND THE ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4747 was waived. Councilmember Campbell inquired about Article VI, Section 1, automobiles/ mileage, to which the City Manager responded that this is for mileage reimbursement based upon the IRS allowed rate not an auto allowance, and, a summary of the MOU revisions had been provided the Council. Councilman Boyd said in the event that the City continues to negotiate with a third party negotiator he would propose that the City be informed of all of the details of proposals or contracts, his preference would be in-house negotiation which in turn would save money, designate someone who would report directly to the Council. Mayor Yost said most of the agencies he is aware of do use a negotiator. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried ITEM "N" - CLAIM - PHILLIPS PETROLEUM / UNION OIL / UNOCAL CORPORATION / SHELL OIL / SHELL CHEMICAL The City Attorney reported that an additional claim has been submitted on behalf Shell Oil and Shell Chemical relating to this same claim issue, it would be appropriate to consider both claims at once, and explained that this involves the Cal Compact Landfill site in Carson, the new landowners are suing a number of industrial companies who in turn are seeking contributions from cities, claiming that household wastes were dumped at that site between 1959 and 1965. It is recommended that both claims be denied. Doane moved, second by Yost, to deny the Phillips petroleum/Union Oil/Unocal Corporation and the Shell Oil/Shell Chemical claims. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Boyd Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4748 - TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TEAl PROGRAM Resolution Number 4748 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITY (TEA) PROGRAM UNDER THE 1998 TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21st CENTURY SEAL BEACH REGIONAL TRAIL PROJECT." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4748 was waived. The Director of Public Works reported this to be a federal program, the project is 9-13-99 I the Seal Beach Regional Bikeway Project, the same project for which funding in the amount of $650,000 was granted by the State legislature, the total project at that time was estimated to be $870,000, this particular program is for enhancements, the original project did not propose a great amount of landscaping nor the greenbelt that is being proposed for Marina Drive, if successful this money could be available to help fund the entire project. He explained that the request is for $843,000, the total contribution by the City will be $110,000 plus the $50,000 that is reflected in the 1999/00 budget. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to adopt Resolution Number 4748 as presented. Councilman Boyd asked that the Council be kept apprised of any additional efforts that may be necessary to secure this funding. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried BEACH CLEANING EOUIPMENT PURCHASE Boyd moved, second by Yost, to authorize the purchase of the beach rake, $10,316.69, a grapple bucket attachment, $16,862.88, and beach sanitizer, $53,336.25, and authorize staff to solicit bids for the purchase of a four by four dump truck. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 9:30 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:40 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order. I PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL - MINOR PLAN REVIEW 99-5 - 24 COTTONWOOD LANE Mayor Yost declared the public hearing open to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Minor Plan Review 99-5 for 24 Cottonwood Lane. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law and reported receipt of two communications from the Seal Beach Trailer Park Resident OWners' Association, copies of both provided the Council.. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explained that this item is an appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a request to construct a two-story cabana within the Seal Beach Trailer Park, the Commission held a public hearing in June, determined to deny the request, the Resolution reflecting that determination was adopted at a subsequent meeting, and the appeal was filed within the time frame specified by the City Code. The request is to construct a two story manufactured home at 24 Cottonwood Lane, this vacant property located adjacent to First Street just north of the oil separation facility that is near Marina Drive and First Street. The Director described the options available for Council consideration. The Director noted that within the appeal there were a number of points made by legal counsel for the appellant, the first that the mobile home installation conformed to all laws, the response of staff is that if it did not conform a variance would have been required, in this case it does conform, the recommendation of staff was for approval, it was before the Commission and now the Council for architectural review of the mobile home itself and compatibility with the other types of residential structures within the Trailer Park, the 9-13-99 Planning Commission made findings that the proposed development would change the character of the Park and that the proposed use would not be compatible with surrounding uses, that based on their public testimony and evaluation of the project. The second issue raised by the appellants legal counsel was that the Planning Commission had no power, discretion or jurisdiction to deny the application, the I response is that the Commission does have jurisdiction as per the Code which requires an architectural review of a two story cabana structure within the Trailer Park, due to that jurisdiction is likewise felt that the Commission has the authority to deny a request based on compatibility. The appellants counsel stated the Planning Commission articulated no findings supported by evidence to deny the application, to that the response is that the Commission did consider the evidence presented during the public testimony, the Commission deliberated after the close of testimony in making their determinations. To the allegation that the deprivation of proposed conforming use constitutes a taking of property and a violation of civil rights, the analysis of staff was that denial of this application was not a taking, a taking by law occurs when a regulation does not substantially advance the viable use of the land or denies all economically viable uses of the land, in this case the Commission denied a particular use of this site, they did not deny all uses, a single story mobile home is permitted without any review by the Commission, there has been no review of any civil rights violation because there was no clarification of what that violation may have been. The last allegation is that there is a violation of Title 25 California Code of Administrative Regulations, the comment to that is that the denial was not I based on any violation of Title 25, rather based upon Section 28-2319 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, it is felt there is a misinterpretation of Title 25, the sections indicated in the appellants letter dealt with building code and permit issues and not planning or architectural review issues, that is separate from the issue before the City Council. The Planning Commission does not review plans for compliance with Title 25, that is done through the Building Department and the contract plan check engineering firm. The issue before the City Council is Section 2B-2319.B, which he read in full, under that authority the Planning Commission considered the matter and made the determination to deny, the matter now under appeal to the Council for architectural review and compatibility with other units in the Park and general community. The Director displayed pictures of other previously approved two story cabanas in the Trailer Park, most of stucco construction and in most cases it can not be readily apparent whether or not there is or is not a trailer within the structure, some trailers are somewhat visible with a separate adjacent structure, he also showed a picture of a manufactured unit in a park in Newport Beach, similar to the one proposed. He noted that staff had recommended approval of this unit, the feeling being that it was compatible with I existing structures, the Commission however denied the matter. To a question of Council as to whether the units in the Trailer Park are essentially mobile home units, the Director responded that it is believed a large majority are, there may be units in the Park that some may not consider to be a mobile home, as to the two units adjacent to the San Gabriel River it is not certain if they are mobile homes with an addition or if they are a manufactured home, whether one or another is no longer an issue because under State law now a mobile home and manufactured home are defined as the same, therefore the opinion is that whether this is a mobile or 9-13-99 I manufactured unit has no relevance to the architectural design issue under consideration. Councilmember Campbell said her concern, from a legal standpoint, was with the precedent of a manufactured home versus a mobile home in that most of the units in the Park are trailers. In response to Council, the Director explained that the definition of a manufactured home in the State Code makes reference back to the definition of a mobile home. I Mayor Yost 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. Terry Dowdall, Orange, stated he was the attorney representing the property owner who filed the appeal, and speaking in favor of the appeal. Mr. Dowdall made reference to a statement that the unit being discussed is a cabana, it is felt that the jurisdictional architectural regulations have been predicated on the fact that it is a cabana, yet a cabana under the Mobile Home Parks Act implementing regulations refers to a site/stick built structure construction, an attachment to a mobile or manufactured home which is essentially the same thing, a cabana is a site built/sleeping room which is an attachment to a mobile home. He said this particular application deals with a two section two story mobile home which is State approved and meets all Code, inasmuch as it is a mobile or manufactured home there is no basis on which to rely on architectural regulations for a cabana because this is not a cabana, that confusion in the findings and decision was erroneous, the Resolution basically speaks to three different issues, the first deals with whether or not there is a change in the character and nature of the Trailer Park by the installation of this two unit structure, as seen by the photographs it is really no different from the other homes in the community, in fact it has less of an impact from the street because the two story section is set back off the street therefore the visual impact is less, in addition to the units shown, the house at space sixty is a six section mobile or manufactured home, previously approved, in that sense it is felt this is well past a precedent because this particular unit has less visual impact than exists in the community. With regard to a concern relating to a change in the character and nature of the residents, it is not felt that the Planning Commission knew at the time that the person who purchased the mobile home has been awaiting its installation and has been paying rent on the vacant space, a low income qualified family has made the purchase and is waiting to move in, that an important point to be brought out, as to concern with the residential character, Mr. Dowdall mentioned the covenant that covers income qualifications for this mobile home park and those would be satisfied no matter who moved in, therefore it would not be a change in terms of the character of the residents, the concern too about being compatible with surrounding uses it is felt the photographs address that, the evidence is clear that when there is a mobile home installation that meets Code, as staff indicated Title 25 is not the issue, there really is no concern, the aesthetics of this home are attractive. The reason for the appeal of this matter, there has been no evidence to support the finding because this does not deal with a cabana, then the discussion should not be with architectural specifications rather it should be Title 25, it is felt that part of the problem is then that part of the procedure adopted by the Planning Commission is respectfully flawed, there was a ministerial or clerical duty to determine whether this mobile home installation met Code I 9-13-99 requirements, if it did then the Commission should approve it and move on as was recommended, there is no basis to not do that. Mr. Dowdall said the underlying problem is that jurisdiction relating to mobile home parks is odd in California statutes, governed by the Mobil Home Parks ACt which, under the Department of Housing and Community Development has jurisdiction, Seal Beach has assumed local enforcement for those Codes and as such acts as an agent for the State therefore is required to fulfill the obligations of the Code and implementing regulations, in this instance those regulations require approval for the installation of the home. In summary, Mr. Dowdall said there is a buyer who has qualified as a low income resident, is paying rent for the space under a rental agreement, and within the legally vested envelope for this project there is a mobile home that conforms in all respects, therefore he would recommend that the Council adopt the staff recommendation for this unit and allow this low income family to move into their house. Mr. Dowdall said the property manager for the project, Mr. Ernie Hommerding, was present to respond to questions as was he. Mayor Yost inquired if this family would fall under and does qualify under the Covenant financially, the response of Mr. Dowdall was that that is his understanding. The Mayor asked also if there are no agreements between the Park owner, Mr. Hall, and the residents to place the occupants of this space outside of the Covenant, short term leases or anything else, that they fall within the Covenant with regard to their status in the Park. Mr. Dowdall said again that it is his understanding, they applied and qualified within the terms of the Covenant, that not be an issue in this case. As a point of clarification, Councilman Boyd said his understanding then is that between the Park owner, Mr. Hall, who Mr. Dowdall represents, and the proposed owner or occupant there are no agreements outside the Covenant, to which Mr. Dowdall responded there are not. Ms. Maria DeBernardo said she and her husband bought this house, she seventy and her husband seventy-five years, Italian immigrants in America, has lived in Oakwood Apartments for five years, looking each week in the Park to find a place that they can afford to live, they are a low income family of social security income, they found a space and put the last penny of their savings in escrow the last of March to buy the house, they made an agreement and since April have paid rent to keep the space until they got the house, they still live at Oakwood but the problem is that they gave thirty day notice in anticipation of the house, they went from a year lease to month to month rent whereby the rent increased, now the apartment is rented, this is difficult and stressful. Ms. DeBernardo said only two people will live in the house, the reason for the bigger house is because every two to three years they receive the family from Italy on vacation, therefore needing an extra room. She said she too has pictures of these houses, like those shown by the Director. Ms. DeBernardo said she does not know what they did wrong, their money is in escrow, they have paid rent so as to not lose the space, she is depending on the Council to decide what is fair for them, and offered a picture of the unit to the Council with the question as to why they do not want them in the Park. Mr. Glen Clark, Cottonwood Lane and member of the Resident Executive Committee of the Trailer Park, said his information may help in the decision making process, the Trailer Park was established in 1930, the Park changed from transient to permanent resident use, the owner in 1978 wanted to build condos and change the character of the Park completely, he came to the City, the Redevelopment Agency, HUD, all were involved, that caused many problems, at I I I 9-13-99 I that time a long term covenant between the City and owners of the Park was established which provided a basis for permanent residency, that must have been done right because in 1981 the Trailer Park received a $5,000 award from the Governor for innovative housing for low to moderate income persons. He said since 1981 the Park residents have always stayed within the guidelines of City ordinances, building permits, health and welfare directives designed to maintain the Park in the proper manner, every unit in the Park, including the cabanas, has at least a part of a trailer or mobile home physically incorporated into its structure, that done to satisfy specific Building Code laws of the City and to maintain the mobile home use of the land as was specified in the City plan. He noted that there have been some unique residences constructed, most put together piecemeal, often taking many years as money or time permitted, this a labor of love by the people and an asset to this City, every residence in the Park has either been a trailer, trailer with attached cabana, a mobile home, a manufactured home, or a two story cabana with modifications. Mr. Clark said all mobile homes and operation of the park are governed by the Mobile Home Residency Law, a section of that law states that a trailer that occupies a site in a mobile home park for more than nine continuous months becomes a mobile home by definition, all units in the Seal Beach Park have occupied their space for more than nine continuous months, all of the units are mobile homes under that law, under the Covenant all of the Park residents have had to pass a 'means' test to gain permission to move into the Park, under the rules sixty spaces are for low income, sixty spaces are for moderate income, and six unrestricted lots, at present there are no residences in the Park that are actually owned by the Park owner, all existing homeowners have moved their personal unit into the Park or purchased a unit already on-site, cabanas or other additions were added to the units after they were in the park, on-site, under Covenant rules. Mr. Clark said the advertisement with regard to this particular unit listed the owners as Seal Beach Associates, LLC, however if the owner is the lady, as she stated, then it should have been listed with her name as the owner. He said there is great concern that the new Park owner is moving a unit onto a vacant space and will maintain ownership of the unit, that is not known, the lady said it is she who purchased the house, that is fine, but if it is Mr. Hall and company under this Limited Liability Corporation that actually own it he will be increasing his sphere of influence in the Park which could lead to serious problems in the future unless this type of action is immediately controlled by the Council under the Covenant rules. Mr. Frank Boychuck, Trailer Park Resident OWners Association Chairman, said he wished to speak to the position of the Park residents when the Planning Commission took action on this matter. He said the position of the Executive Committee representing the residents of the Trailer Park agreed that the unit should be brought in, that in agreement with the City's legal and planning departments, it is a manufactured home, however after analyzing the cost, look and feel of the unit and history of similar type units coming in, and at slightest hint of change of land use the Planning Commission voted against the recommendation, they wanted to maintain the nature of the Park, the low to moderate nature of the park, and putting a unit like this in puts that kind of environment at risk. Mr. Boychuck noted that the Trailer Park has a close bond with the City and has had for years therefore the residents want to make sure that at the slightest hint that something may change that it does not, thus the proposal for I I 9-13-99 lot 24 was turned down. The Association is coming tonight with the same recommendation, a recommendation that this unit be approved however only if certain conditions are met, the unit be approved upon the conditions set forth by the City Council, and to that he would ask that the Council entertain the conditions as specified in their letter of september 13th. Mr. Boychuck said it has been about six to seven months since the residents became aware of the new ownership of the Park, there is a building of a certain amount of hypocrisy as a result of the new owners and the request for this new unit, it seems that the lady who wishes to locate the house in the Park would be a wonderful addition to the Park, however she would be the only person allowed to put up a unit such as this, the Park residents in general and specific residents have been told by the Park that they are not allowed to construct or build, there are two stages to putting these buildings up, there is the permitting stage through the City, and then the owner of the Park, currently Mr. Hall, has to approve the plans, if approvals are not obtained from all of the various entities it is not built, therefore it matters not if the Planning Department approves a request to build on to their units because Mr. Hall and associates has said he will not approve, and has specifically turned down resident requests to build or add on or to bring in a new unit, he has said also that he wants to get rid of all of the travel trailers. Mr. Boychuck said he wished to make it clear that there are no two story cabanas in the Park currently that do not have, in some capacity, an attached travel trailer, therefore this would be a precedent setting event to bring the two story modular unit in, a unit without a trailer. Mr. Boychuck recalled that the attorney for Mr. Hall mentioned the 'pink' house, one of the undesignated lots, there are one hundred twenty spaces in the Park that must be low to moderate, five spaces that fallout of the Covenant, the referenced lot is one, to him it was unfair to bring in the five thousand square foot 'pink' house that was once owned by the Park owner, Mr. Dawson, and now his ex-wife lives there. with regard to two story cabanas, this is the .precedent, this is what the people in the Park have done, built the two story cabanas from scratch, saving, itemizing, bringing in friends, doing the construction themselves, so that the residents can have a home built around the trailer, this is how low to moderate income people do things, they can not bring in a modular home costing $150,000 or upwards, this is what the Planning Commission was addressing, and these were some of the comments that came up in the meeting, this should answer some of the questions as to what a modular home is. He stated that as specified in the Code, all travel trailers in the Park after 1992 and have been there for nine months are classified as a mobile home, the residents have been told that these trailers are threatened and are going to leave, why was it the local newspaper reported that Mr. Hall was going to close the Park, why is it this lady is the only person that has approval to put in such a unit that resembles nothing there as far as a two story unit, why is it Mr. Hall is applying for this, why did she not apply for it. He said he would like to question the rent situation, he could not imagine, suggesting inquiry, that the management would require her to pay rent since April on a space where there is nothing, one might inquire also and find that she is paying the rent out of her own volition, that is fine however he does not like misrepresentation. Mr. Boychuck said he understands that conditions one and two of the Resident Association letter have generally been agreed to, which is good and the residents would like to see that continue, but I I I 9-13-99 I they would also request that a condition be made in conjunction with approval of this variance and that Richard Hall and his successors permanently remove the current moratorium that he has imposed on allowing the residents to maintain their units upon existing spaces, to add on and build two story cabanas to existing mobile homes or trailers, it is a matter of hypocrisy, it is hypocritical that he appear tonight proposing that he put in a unit when none of the other residents are allowed to do so, and he has arbitrarily stopped improvements, Mr. Tally said that the residents were members of the wealthy poor by being able to put up these units, whatever that means. Mr. Boychuck urged that the Council vote for the option three as proposed by the Resident Association, adding these conditions so that the residents can move on and a more congenial relationship can be established with the Park owners, continue as people have in the past, it is unfair what he is suggesting, let me do it but you can't. Ms. Francis Little, Cottonwood Lane, said she too had no objection to the unit coming into the Park provided that the conditions are met, she has utmost confidence in the Council, it is their decision, they understand the condition, and it is known that the concern of Council is with the residents of the Trailer Park. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, said as a non Trailer Park resident he has had more to do with this area than almost anyone else, and was amused at the mention of a 1981 award for this low/moderate income housing project because if one were to look at the plan the assumption was that there would be few children and half of the residents would be elderly and not have cars, there are few areas for cars except for the central parking area, yet on a weekend there are more cars parked on First Street than in the central parking because it was not adequate, and the streets are too narrow for parking and have access for emergency vehicles. He said the initial proposal was an assumption that they would keep the demographics of what was in the Old Park, about half geriatric, elderly persons, now it has changed. The vacant lot for this modular house does not show what was there before, now there are families with most likely two to three cars per unit, that is why it is felt incumbent on this Council to not set precedent to make the situation worse by putting in larger and larger units on narrow spaces. He noted that the Planning Commission agreed that a one story unit would be acceptable, once a two story unit goes in there is an assumption that there has to be a certain income which in turn assumes that given the price it is more likely that a two person income is needed, pointing out that there is no area for children to play and certainly inadequate parking. This Park was started in the best interest of taking care of a problem, also, it appears the new owners are being specific about allowing certain people and others not, the owners want to build theirs and then sell to others, as has been done in the past. Mr. Shanks suggested that the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld unless they wish to put a one story or a trailer on this space. Mr. Bob Latta, Welcome Lane, said he is a low income resident of $9,000 per year, eighteen year resident, due to health he was unable to complete his cabana, has had to live with substandard conditions, no hot water, no shower, no bedrooms, he finally received a grant from the City to build the cabana which has now been denied by Mr. Hall and Associates, he is refusing to give him decent accommodations, and now he is requesting to put in a two story, $100,000 unit, where the Park has basically been for poorer people, neither he or his son understands, maybe Mr. Hall would tell his son why he can not I I 9-13-99 have a bed to sleep in at night and a hot water shower. He said he has nothing against the lady, suspect as a shill, but why is he being refused basic living standards while the owner wants this large unit and change the whole park, Mr. Hall is behind all of this. Mr. Mike Narz, Cottonwood Lane, resident since the new Park opened, said his main concern with what Mr. Hall seems to be trying to do is he is going to end up owning this home, his name is on the application, it should be noted that the Covenant states that where there is an empty lot that vacant lot is to be rented to a person of low to moderate income, that is repeated more than once, it specifically states vacant lot, the point is that the owner of the land has never owned a home in this Trailer Park except by circumstance, people have passed away, there was no one to take over the home, the Park owner ended up owning the trailer, the next person got the trailer with the lot, the Park owner sold it to them, they then had the choice of pulling it out, putting in a new home, or whatever, point again, the Park owner or land owner never owned any homes. Mr. Narz expressed concern with the research he has done on the new Park owner, what is foreseen is that he wants to build this home, he owns one, Mr. Hall has told him that he needs to pull his trailer out once a year just to renew the lease, that is a joke, what is he looking for, is it his home, does he want him to remove it, that would cost thousands of dollars, someday he may make an offer to buy his trailer, yet what happens when he owns fifty-one percent of the homes, then with Covenant in hand says City who are you protecting, it is known that there are two trailers that he has said need to be removed if sold, as was just said he is not allowing anyone else to upgrade, just what he wants to upgrade, if he acquires fifty-one percent of the homes what happens to the remaining forty-nine percent, what happens to the land, how long will it take him to bulldoze it and then put in a WalMart or Home Depot. Mr. Narz said he would have no problem with this lady bringing in her home, if it is her home, why does the application say Trailer Park, LLC, again, said the Covenant states that when lots are empty they are to be vacant lots to be rented. The Director of Development Services noted question as to who the owner is, explaining that the owner on the application represents the owner of the property, in this case it is the Limited Liability Corporation, the application has to be signed by the property owner otherwise it would not be accepted, the Trailer Park situation is different from other properties in the community. Mr. Steve Kriden, Welcome Lane, said when the paperwork on his application for a two story cabana went ut it was in his name, had nothing to do with the Park owner, in this case there is no name other than the owner of the Park. Mr. Kriden said he has no reason to doubt that this lady is the owner as she said, that is welcomed as would hearing that this would fall under the terms of the Covenant rather than moving in a two story home, charging higher rent than neighboring properties, which would cause friction, if Mr. Hall were to do this in several places in the Park that is going to be a problem. Mr. Kriden said if this lady is truly the owner why is it that she can not be on the paper work as he was, and if she is the owner and Mr. Hall can assure that this will be under the guidelines of the Covenant permanently, because the local news article reported that neither Mr. Hall or Mr. Tally believe in the Covenants, so what are people to believe. Ms. Rita Brenner, Trailer Park, said she was in agreement with the comments of Mr. Boychuck however would like to add that the people are like prisoners now, no one can rent or sell, two families were told they I I I 9-13-99 I could not sell when they had the opportunity, many things are unclear, another issue, if this is approved, assurance that Mr. Ball and his associates not be allowed to go behind the other residents and have this family sign a secret paper so that their rent can be raised, where will that leave the other people. Ms. Brenner said in the picture shown there was no cement pad for the home, initially all units were to have cement pads, that was not provided, money was provided but somehow it dwindled and no one has cement pads. She stated her understanding that when a new person takes over a building, business, or whatever, and is the total owner, not a partial owner, plans for changes are certainly in mind then where is the ErR. She expressed sympathy for Mr. Latta who is seeking to bring in a new home, questioning why he is not being allowed to do so. At 10:45 p.m., Campbell moved, second by Yost, to allow the meeting to extend past the 11:00 p.m. deadline. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried I Mr. Frank Boychuck addressed the Council again, stating that if he decided to build a cabana on his trailer would Mr. Ball pay for his associates and an attorney on his behalf if it were decided he needed a variance, the question is what is going on here, why are all of these people here, when the residents had to apply to build a cabana they appeared before the City without an attorney, as they are tonight, and asked for the recommendation, what is the significance of employing a high priced attorney and having these consultants here tonight on behalf of this lady. Mr. Boychuck mentioned too that the residents have been told that the existing two story cabanas are illegal and those who have them should be careful because those units are threatened, what is going on, and now they are asking to put up a two story modular home. Ms. Jenny Jacobson, Cottonwood Lane, noted that the Covenant states that there will be two parking spaces assigned per lot, that is about like it is, reported that when the person who was to put up the mOdular building was asked who the applicant was the response was his brother, Gus, then it is not known who this lady is. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, stated opposition to the appeal, made reference to the discussion of overturning the denial by the Planning Commission, they must approve two story cabanas otherwise they will not be built, the architectural compatibility in this case is in keeping only with an undisclosed vision of San Gabriel River properties and has to do with the Hellman interest to revitalize the area in the vicinity of the ten acres proposed for a luxury hotel on the DWP property, revitalization would mean removing the low and moderate income people, replaced by moderate and high income people, revitalize the Trailer Park into something other than a Trailer Park, approving this unit will change the type of buildings to be built, the end of the Trailer Park, changing the nature of the City. Mr. James Howard, Cottonwood Lane, said about February he and his wife had spoken with American Homes the manufacturer of the proposed unit and had been informed that Mr. Ball and Associates wanted to put this type of unit allover the Park, this may be setting the precedent for them not wanting to bring homes in or sell homes in place in order to repopulate the Park with these types of units. Mr. Paul Jeffers, Cottonwood Lane, said he feels intimidated since the new Park owners, people have been told they can not sell their trailers, sales have been stopped, they can not I 9-13-99 add on. Mr. Jeffers mentioned that some three years ago he bought a new mobile home instead of building a two story trailer, at that time the manufacturer was starting to build the two story units, some were set up in the park on Lido Isle, that used to be a small, family owned park, the spaces at that time were renting for $1,100 per month and the units were selling for $150,000, the small units are being forced I out, the space rent is now up to $1,800 per month on ten year leases. Mr. Jeffers said to him the scenario is that the residents can not sell, can not build, sell only to the owner of the Park, then what happens to the low and moderate income people. He recalled the efforts of the owner, the City, and the residents to save this trailer park, said he stayed in the Park because he believed in the Redevelopment Agency, intended to live and retire there, to separate from the people who have lived there for years is frightening. Ms. Sue Corbin said she had heard this would be appealed and approved therefore the comments will be for naught, claimed that the former owner had five spaces that always moved, in this case the Council needs to see the contract. Mr. Larry Carto, Cottonwood Lane, said he hoped that it could be conveyed to this lady that the people are not opposed to her moving into the Park, it is a shame that she got caught in what is happening to the residents, the people feel threatened by what is not known as to the future of the Park, possibly the Council could find out from the new owner what his intentions are for the future. Mr. Dean Scheele, Cottonwood Lane, asked if the unit proposed is up to the Code that the cabanas had to be built to, California standards, sheer walls, big foundations, strapped ceilings and walls, fire systems. Ms. Maria DeBernardo stated her appreciation I for the comments of the people, that she has gotten involved in a situation, she has had nothing to do with this, she did not know there was a new owner of the park, she does not know the people at this meeting, she does not know the attorney, she is in the middle of something she does not deserve, she can not buy in Leisure World because she does not have the money, she has papers to prove that. A previous speaker referred to the statement that it was known the denial would be appealed and that it would be approved by Council, and said if consideration is in fact being given to grant this, then along with that let there be some clarification for others to either build up, sell, rent, and when Mr. Latta can bring in his home. Mr. Gene Vesely, Riversea Road, said he has never met this lady before this evening, he continues to be somewhat fearful, his request would be that the City Council verify that she is the owner of the home and qualifies under the terms of the Covenant, that needs to be clear. Ms. DeBernardo provided documents to the Director of Development Services. Mr. Dowdall noted that a lot of issues have been injected, this turned into a forum for an attack on Mr. Hall, the issue under discussion is 24 Cottonwood Lane, the lady who purchased the home is due an apology for certain comments I made, however the residents have seen Ms. DeBernardo who seems to be the kind of person that one would want in their community yet there are conditions, demands and clarifications for other residents, they are holding hostage for their own desires, there may be a time for those residents to do that, however this hearing is to merely consider and approve one home that meets Code that this lady has already purchased. Mr. Dowdall stated he had no idea who this lady was until this evening. He explained that 24 Cottonwood is one thousand square feet, the unit sits off the 9-13-99 I street, said she has waited long enough, and urged that she be allowed to bring the home into the community. Mr. Dowdall said not much that has been said is relevant to what is under consideration at this meeting. Mayor Yost asked how Mr. Dowdall came to represent Ms. DeBernardo and the person who filed the appeal. Mr. Dowdall responded that he represents Richard Hall and the Limited Liability Company that owns the Park, he has known Mr. Hall since about 1986, and for twenty- one years he has only represented trailer park owners. Councilmember Campbell expressed concern with the many unresolved issues, the attempt is to separate these two issues but the Park residents are seeking answers to some of their questions. Mr. Dowdall stated this is unreasonable in the context of approving this two unit mobile home to move onto 24 Cottonwood for this lady, as to Mr. Hall said he does not know what he says to people but it is doubtful that what has been said about him this evening accurately characterizes what he has said, his business practices, or the man that he has represented for several years, the residents may have issues but the issue at hand is a mobile home that it is said meets Code, this should not be turned into a forum to attack Mr. Hall. Councilmember Campbell responded that whether liked or not some of the issues brought forth are tied into the matter under consideration because it is precedent setting, her intent is to pose questions to which she is requesting answers, why are some people being denied to improve their homes and some denied the ability to sell their unit. Mr. Dowdall responded that the home under consideration is moving onto a vacant space, some residents have mobile homes some have what is known as recreational vehicles or travel trailers and fall under a different aspect of Code, reference was made at this meeting as to a definition of mobile home, a recreational vehicle or travel trailer that stays in continuous occupancy in a mobile home park for nine continuous months acquires the right of just cause eviction, the same as a mobile home tenant, but none of the Article VII rights under mobile home residency law apply which means that if they wish to sell a travel trailer it has to be removed on resale, that is wnat the Code says, and claimed to have written a letter to the City Attorney on that point, and suggested his opinion be sought. At the request of Council, the City Attorney made reference to the letter submitted this date where the Executive Committee for the Residents of the Seal Beach Trailer Park say they have no objection to this unit coming into the Park provided their three conditions are met, to conditions 1 and 2 the park owner, through his representative, has indicated there is no objection, those being that new residents fall under the covenant and fully qualify as either a low or moderate income family, and that there be agreements between Richard Hall and the potential residents, to that they have indicated there are no side agreements. The City Attorney said the third condition is a problem because it does not apply to this particular application, a number of issues have been raised at this meeting, a number of unresolved issues however again do not apply to this application, suggesting that the representative can volunteer an answer to condition 3 but it can not be made as a condition to the approval, that condition applies to other units and must be considered separately, it is also known that the rules provide where two story cabanas can be located, the Code provides a separation rule, therefore there is no blanket answer as to whether some other unit would be approved, it would be necessary to go through the process. The only issue tonight is whether this particular application meets the Code and the only issue of I I 9-13-99 discretion is compatibility which was the basis for the Planning Commission decision, compatibility should be the focus for the Council. Councilmember Campbell inquired if answers could be required of Mr. Hall, or could this matter be agendized with regard to Mr. Hall, it is felt there are inequities and there is a responsibility to the Park residents. The City Attorney advised that questions can be I asked however there would be no obligation to answer them, it could also be placed on future agenda. Mr. Dowdall said Mr. Tally is a representative for the Park owner and it is believed there is a dialogue with the City Manager, an example is the gentleman who demanded better housing, that is a dialogue that has been ongoing, with respect to the september 13th letter he claimed to not have seen it and that he could not agree to something he has not yet read, with regard to a position with respect to Maria DeBernardo that is fine as it can be confirmed with property management but to make a broad stipulation for the entire community, he does not have the authority to make that decision for the property owner. Councilman Doane said he wished to make an observation from what has been heard, this lady is not the guilty party, it is okay for the new management with a vacant lot to bring in a new modular home and put it on the lot, it is okay that representatives are present to help this lady get her home, he is also hearing that if one has a camper/trailer type unit on a lot and it needs to be sold, it can not be sold and kept on the lot, it needs to be sold to someone on the outside, it is gone, then there is a vacant lot, and another two story modular home can be built. He said he is curious about the gentleman who wanted to do an expansion on his home that has been allowed throughout the I years, under the Covenant, and he is not being allowed to do that. He said he could not vote on this item with the many unanswered questions, even though the representative attorney said he was not in a position to answer, there may be an ongoing discussion with Mr. Till, but his thought is that this needs to be brought forth at the next Redevelopment Agency meeting and explored as to where this trend is going, if in fact it is a trend, why the gentleman can not expand his unit yet by not expanding and if he wishes to sell it then it has to be removed, there are rules here that Councilman Doane said he could not understand. Councilman Boyd concurred that there are some issues, yet tonight the item under consideration is to approve or deny the appeal relating to this one unit. Mr. Bill Tally, Orange, was duly sworn by the City Clerk. In response to comments of Councilman Doane, Mr. Tally said the gentleman who said he had made application for a remodel has not done so, the City through the Redevelopment Agency has approached Mr. Hall with the idea of replacing the unit he has with another similar unit, and they have replied back to the City/Agency saying that the term of ownership that the City was proposing was something they were uncomfortable with, however by means of voice mail the City Manager has been advised that they are prepared to discuss how to replace his unit at City expense, I again stating that there has never been an application or request by Mr. Latta to perform anything at his own expense, it is merely trading units at City or Redevelopment expense, and offered that they are prepared to negotiate so that can . happen. Mr. Tally said also that they have met with a group that said they represented the owners, at the end of that meeting it was said that associates of the owner were prepared to continue meeting with the residents upon their request, in over a month there has not been a request for another meeting, Mr. Hall has empowered him to engage in 9-13-99 I dialogue with the residents, however his feeling is that this is not an appropriate forum for people to come up and make any statement they wish, attack anyone they choose, and expect that matters are going to be resolved, they are prepared to meet weekly with the residents, he invited the City to send a representative, make notes of the dialogue, etc., he could not imagine where people got the ideas that came forth through statements made at this meeting as to what Mr. Hall's plans are, most statements do not represent his thinking. A prior speaker stated that Mr. Tally was the same person who stood in front of the Park residents in February saying that nothing was going to change, there was nothing to worry about, don't hire a lawyer, don't get together, don't become a group, then it was found that at that exact time his boss was standing before the Council saying that he did not believe the Covenant exists. Mayor Yost declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Boyd moved to deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, denying construction of the two story cabana home at 24 Cottonwood Lane. He explained that there are now other issues, once those are resolved that may be the time for the applicant to request this matter be reconsidered. Mayor Yost seconded the motion, stating that he feels for the residents, the legal issues as well in that this is one unit, one application. Councilmember Campbell agreed that there are issues that need to be resolved, some are ethical issues. Councilman Boyd noted that unrelated to the matter under consideration, the differences are between the Park owner and the residents and visa versa, there is an individual who bought a trailer park, he wants to do something with it, the residents want to maintain their residences, it is not certain this can be resolved by the next Agency meeting. Vote on the motion to deny the appeal: I AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Boyd, Campbell, Yost Doane Snow Motion carried The City Attorney advised that a resolution with findings will be brought to the Council at a future meeting. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report was given. I CITY MANAGER REPORT The City Manager displayed an award from the California Waste Management Board recognizing the implementation of the first waste diversion stage required by AB939. The Manager noted that the Public Works Department is putting together bid specifications for the next street repair project, a signal project, and the pool project, all time sensitive because of the upcoming winter months, suggesting that the street project be considered at an adjourned meeting on September 20th. He announced also his attendance at the upcoming annual ICMA conference, requested to be excused from the September 27th meeting or if the Council were to meet September 20th the 27th could possibly be canceled. with regard to the Agency meeting, the Manager said the next issue will be the rent increase and it is not felt that will be ready by either the 20th or 27th. The City Attorney stated he could not be present on September 20th however someone else would be in attendance. There appeared to be general 9-13-99 consensus to meet on September 20th instead of on the 27th, however it was questionable if the 20th meeting could be cab1ecast. There was clarification that Stanford, Came1ia, Columbine, and Banyon will be combined for the next street project. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Yost declared the Public Comment period to be open. Mr. Stan Anderson, Balboa Drive, announced that the Seal Beach Chamber and Business Association will be holding the annual State of the City luncheon at the Naval Weapons Station on September 22nd. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, questioned the difference between Yorba Linda and the City Manager giving himself bonuses, asked that it be determined how long this has gone on and that it be discussed. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, referred to the State of the City to be held at the Weapons Station and claimed that the cost may disallow some people from attending. Ms. Fran Johnson, Coastline Drive, thanked the Council for their action on behalf of the animals, and that she appreciated the debate relating to the Trailer Park. There being no further comments, Mayor Yost declared Public Comments closed. I COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Campbell made reference to a local news article in which there were remarks that she said needs clarification relating to the Bixby homes, and explained that the problem is the connotation of crash zone and former crash zone, the homes in the old mixed use plan were not just near the former crash zone, they were in it, the crash zone and former crash zone are at the end of the runway, College Park East is not at the end of the runway and the flight path does not go over College Park East, an extension of a straight, direct takeoff is directly over the present crash zone and goes over the former crash zone, the former crash zone is the site of some of the proposed housing in the old mixed use plan and some of the residential in the current plan. She quoted a statement from the article that claimed houses would shut down the Base due to resident complaints, which she said she did not say, however explained that certainly houses two thousand feet from the end of the runway would encroach on the Air Base, and recalled that when people were moving into College Park East the developer told the people that the Base was closing and air flights were going to stop, flights ceased but the Base did not close, then when Army aircraft activity started up the people were upset because they thought the Base was going to close. Now, the people in South County are upset with regard to El Toro but there the nearest houses are three miles in one direction, five miles in another, then, can one imagine what homes two thousand feet from the runway would do. With regard to the referendum effort, Councilmember Campbell urged people to read the petition before they sign, people seem to think that the referendum will repeal the whole project, that is not. so, it only affects the shopping center and the commercial area at Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard, the seventy-five houses will remain in the project. She noted that the City has been dealing with the Bixby project for over ten years, this is not over, the concerns of the community are and continue to be traffic, school impacts, and aircraft safety, said she does not support this project but in turn her feeling is that the referendum does not go far enough. Councilman Boyd announced the rescheduling of his town hall meeting to Tuesday, September 28th in Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. He too referred to the referendum suggesting that caution should be I I 9-13-99 I used in signing, it should be understood that what is being signed is a ballot measure for March, if approved, the zoning would be rescinded, the housing will remain, the commercial would not be built, the $7 million plus of public benefits to the City would not occur, the tennis club site would be lost plus the $1 million for improvements to that site, the widening of the 405 overpass will likely not occur thus increasing congestion and traffic as it will naturally increase. He said he finds it ironic that the people behind the referendum call themselves Citizens Against Excessive Traffic where without the project and the public improvements there will be excessive traffic. Mayor Yost too suggested caution in signing the referendum which will result in more traffic and increased City expenditures as houses do not pay for themselves. As to the mention of bonuses, he reported there were three given last year, a total of $5,000 paid out over three years to employees who did an excellent job, about $1,700 per year. with regard to the ACLU, Mayor Yost said he was once a member, after receiving their letter he also received a note from the 'organization requesting that he join again, in his opinion if the ACLU were to view a tape of the meetings it is likely they would be much more sympathetic to him than those who have filed a complaint, it is easy to file complaints, be believes in the Brown Act, but there is a problem with abuses of Councilmembers and staff by the public, the Council listens yet it is a difficult problem. With regard to the City Manager, the Mayor said the issues raised were looked at at three levels and there is no evidence of any problem whatsoever, with regard to closed sessions, anything discussed in those sessions stay there in. accordance with the Brown Act, he said however that he will make public anything that he can. Mayor Yost reported that on Friday Assembly Bill 1355 and Senate Bill 216 passed, probably the best thing that could happen for water quality in Seal Beach, the San Gabriel River Conservancy Bill. Councilmember Campbell added that Seal Beach did support this legislation, it not only creates the Conservancy which is a thirteen member Board and Orange County requested to have three seats on that Board, Seal Beach wants one of those seats given its location at the mouth of the San Gabriel River. Councilman Doane inquired as to information on placing a barrier in the channel, as had been previously mentioned, to which the Mayor responded that the problem is that the San Gabriel River is a navigable waterway and it can not be blocked, the option would be to do something above where it becomes navigable, this is being looked into with the cooperation of Los Angeles County who in fact just placed a boom on the Los Angeles River. I I CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda, a conference with the City's real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 relating to Rubys Restaurant, and personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 11:50 p.m. and reconvened at 12:52 a.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported that the Council had discussed the items identified on the agenda, gave direction to the City Attorney, and no other action was taken. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn the meeting until Monday, September 20th at 7:00 p.m. By unanimous 9-13-99 / 9-20-99 consent, the meeting was adjourned at 12:53 a.m. clerk Approved: tf::_ I Attest: Seal Beach, California September 20, 1999 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Yost Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow I Absent: None Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Steele, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Badum, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Chief Sellers, Police Department Chief Cushman, Lifeguard Department Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation and Parks Ms. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Boyd moved, second by Yost, to waive the 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. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried I APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boyd moved, second by Yost, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Yost declared Public Comments to be open. Mr. Reg Clew1ey, Seal Beach, claimed that this meeting is not to take