HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1999-11-08
11-1-99 / 11-8-99
CLOSED SESSION
By consensus, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 9:50
a.m. and reconvened at 10:27 a.m. with Mayor Yost calling the
meeting to order. The City Attorney reported that the
Council commenced a performance evaluation relating to the
City Manager, no action was taken.
I
ADJOURNMENT
The City Attorney recommended adjournment of this special
meeting until 6:00 p.m., Monday, November 8th, the item for
discussion at this meeting to be continued until then, and
that an additional item, a report from the City's liability
attorney, would be included on the special meeting agenda.
By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned until
November 8th at 6:00 p.m.
o
ex-off cio clerk
Seal Beach
Attest:
Approved:
I
Seal Beach, California
November 8, 1999
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in special
adjourned session at 6:00 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
Absent:
None
Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
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
CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Yost announced that the City Council would meet in
Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda,
a conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a) with regard to Lupash versus the City of
11-8-99
Seal Beach, and pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, a
public employee performance evaluation, City Manager.
Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, inquired if there would be no
public comments at the special adjourned meeting, to that
Mayor Yost advised that comments could be made to the items
shown on the agenda prior to the Council taking an action, I
the regular public comment period would be during the regular
meeting. Ms. Corbin said she believed that the time has
come, rather than evaluating the Manager's performance, to
ask him to leave, it is thought to have become an impasse for
the City, he is a problem for the City. The Council had a
meeting a week ago where it was said things would get back on
track, she did not believe he has ever been on track, you can
keep propping him up but this is not going to help the City,
the City needs to move on, the City needs a competent
manager. Ms. Corbin mentioned that she had asked to use the
slide projector, did so in a timely manner for use at oral
communications at the regular meeting tonight and it was
denied by Mr. Till, perhaps he saw the Press Telegram article
that referred to her wanting to show the sideyard of his
home, a public nuisance as defined by a San Jose case before
the Supreme Court, that is denial of free speech. Ms. Corbin
claimed this man has no respect for the Constitution nor
respect for free speech, he certainly has no respect for his
employees. It is not known how he can keep limping along,
the City is not going to survive, it can not pay all the
lawsuits that Mr. Till creates week after week. She stated
there was a water rate increase without a public hearing,
that is illegal, it is illegal under federal law, it is
illegal under State law, that needs to be reversed, there I
needs to be the proper hearings. Mr. Badum, at the last
meeting it is believed, said that his water department was
indeed properly staffed, yet the next day he ran around
trying to hire a consultant or several consultants, there is
no need to tell untruths to the public, the water department
is indeed illegally constituted. That issue is something
that should be part of the evaluation, no one wants to work
for this Manager, he has pressured and harassed the water
department to the point that they have all left. The public
nuisance issue that applies to Mr. Till is that his nuisance
spreads out into the neighborhood, he has a dog that runs
without leash, just this week it was on another street, the
dog has been picked up, the tickets still sit unpaid, that is
something that needs to be considered. Federal racketeering
is where you put yourself above the rest of the population,
you have special rights, he does not have special rights, you
do these types of things twice in one year, it is federal
racketeering. His relatives, I am speaking off camera
because I do not want to be too explicit on camera, he has
family members that spread out into the neighborhood and
torture animals, this is a public nuisance where you harass
your neighbors to a point where they live in fear, this is
what is happening up on Southshore, he lets his dog defecate
on his neighbors yard and then yells at his neighbors. They I
are trying to charge Mr. Clewley as a public nuisance, Reg
Clewley has a van in his driveway that he is outfitting with
a lift for a disabled person, and as he has the money he buys
the parts, it is not a disabled car, it is not unused, it is
not an abandoned car, but Keith Till would like to harass Mr.
Clewley, this is another point that you need to bring up,
abuse of the law, we do not need any more lawsuits because of
people who have no respect for the law, there is someone at
the top of this City in charge of the Police Department who
has no respect for the law, he needs to move on, maybe there
11-8-99
I
is a place where he would fit in, with him the City will not
make it, we can not pay all of the lawsuits, each one is a
million dollars, risk management will pay the first $300,000,
where is the other $700,000 coming from, this is how the
school district was lost, this is how the Fire Department was
lost, there is not going to be a warning, the warning is now,
Council needs to do the right thing and ask him to move on.
CLOSED SESSION
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to adjourn to Closed Session at 6:17 p.m. The Council
reconvened at 7:12 p.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 liability attorney relating to the Lupash matter, no
other action was taken.
ADJOURNMENT
By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
I
Attest:
1f:.yor
~"L'iJ);( k
Ci ty Clerk I
Approved:
Seal Beach, California
November 8, 1999
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
session at 7:15 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
I
Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Mr. whittenberg, Director of Development
Services
Mr. Badum, Director of Public Works/City
Engineer
Mr. Danes, Assistant City Engineer
Chief Sellers, Police Department
Ms. Beard, Recreation/parks Director
Ms. King, Interim Finance Director
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
11-8-99
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
PRESENTATION - CHILD ABUSE SERVICES TEAM ICAST)
Ms. Jan Grotewold introduced herself as the coordinator for
the Child Abuse Services Team, and Ms. Donna Langford, the
Court Appointed Child Advocate. She explained they were
present, along with the Police Chief, to let the Council and
community know what a wonderful job the police officers and
the Chief do to assure that children who are alleged victims
of sexual abuse are brought to the CAST Center to commence
the healing process as quickly as possible. Ms. Grotewold
explained that the Child Abuse Services Team is a program
that was started in 1989, Seal Beach being a pioneer City and
the Chief at that time was instrumental in deciding how the
pilot program would work, and has now been an official
program for five years. Ms. Grotewold noted that they came
to honor the Department with a book of poetry written by the
CAST poet, the poetry is moving, they tell about kids and how
much pain they endure through sexual abuse, also tell what
grownups can do to help kids. Ms. Grotewold mentioned
Detectives Chauncey, Gordon, Hardin, and Captain Schaefer,
all having worked with the Program on a regular basis. Ms.
Langford read a piece from the book of poetry entitled 'Speak
Up For A Child.' Chief Sellers stated it is the Police
Department that should be thanking CAST for their services,
through them a single, all encompassing interview of a child
can be done with one or two people rather than the extensive
contacts and traumatic interviews in years past. The Chief
expressed appreciation to CAST. Ms. Grotewold presented a
commendation for the Police Department to the Council.
I
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Yost requested that Item "B" be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate consideration, and a member of
the audience requested Item "C" removed. Boyd moved, second
by Snow, to approve the order of the agenda as revised.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Yost declared Public Comments to be open. The Mayor
noted a request received to use a slide projector during
public comments, and inquired of the City Attorney if there
has been precedent set previously to do so. In response the
City Attorney stated there is no such requirement in the
Brown Act for the use of equipment and presentation of slides I
during public comments, nor in any other requirement of law,
the Brown Act merely requires that people have the
opportunity to testify, provide input, or evidence, he has no
recollection of this being done previously in Seal Beach.
The Mayor asked if that would mean that a multi-media
presentation would not be a freedom of speech issue or
protected by same, the response was that the Brown Act merely
allows the public to participate in the process, the
opportunity to comment on anything on the agenda or anything
else within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council,
11-8-99
I
that would include comments, documentation, photos submitted
to the City Clerk for Council review but that does not mean
they can make a multi-media presentation. Mayor Yost asked
if there are limitations with regard to someone wanting to
display photos of private residences. The City Attorney
advised that that could pose some problems, the City could be
subjected to some exposure. He explained that if pictures
show things that are visible to the human eye from the street
there is then no reasonable expectation of privacy, however,
if pictures show something inside houses or behind fences
that is an intrusion of privacy rights of those individuals,
thus there is a potential for a cause of action against the
person presenting the evidence, also, if the Council as a
body knows that a picture violates the privacy rights of
individuals there could be a cause of action against the City
as well. Mayor Yost said he would have no problem with
people using other forms of communication, he would have no
problem with the request given the provisos mentioned by
legal counsel, to that members of the Council agreed provided
the pictures were not obtained in an illegal manner, and
should that appear to be the case the photos would be denied
presentation. A suggestion was made that if people want to
utilize City equipment for their presentation a request
should be submitted to the City Clerk in sufficient time to
make preparation.
I
Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, stated that she had made such
request of the Clerk on November 3rd, she returned to City
Hall on Friday and Monday, was advised that the request would
be submitted to the City Manager, thereafter was informed
that the she would not be able to use the projector nor would
Mr. Clewley who is representing the appeal of Mr. Albers, yet
in the past Bixby Ranch and Hellman were allowed to use that
equipment. As to the showing of a picture Ms. Corbin was
again informed that it could be shown provided it was not
obtained illegally or violates the right of privacy, to which
Ms. Corbin stated her willingness to accept any liability.
She requested that the cover of the picture be removed, the
picture of the sideyard of Keith Till, said the reason for
the picture is that Mr. Till had a letter sent to Mr. Clewley
alleging an abandoned van in his driveway, which he does not.
Ms. Corbin complained that Mr. Till covered the picture, and
said he is not allowed to just leave the meeting, to that the
Mayor pointed out that the picture was of Mr. Till's house,
an invasion of privacy. Ms. Corbin claimed that Mr. Clewley
was charged with having debris in the sideyard, how would
that be known, and, there is not, that leaves it open for the
reporter to take this picture, Mr. Till wants no one to see
his sideyard, the sideyard is a nuisance, needs to be cleaned
up, said she filed a complaint on the 5th citing debris on
the sideyard with no clearance for emergency entrance as is
required by Code, overgrown vegetation, installation of brick
in the parkway, etc. She stated that if Mr. Till wants to
silence people who speak by using the law against them then
he should expect that people will then look at what is going
on with his property. Ms. Corbin stated again that Mr.
Clewley does not have an abandoned vehicle, it is being
retrofitted for a wheelchair lift, it is licensed, a legal
use, is not a violation of the law. She requested again that
her picture be shown. Councilman Boyd invoked a point of
personal privilege as allowed as a member of this body under
the Brown Act, explained that the Brown Act does provide the
public the opportunity to address the Council and speak to
matters that are not on the agenda yet within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the City Council, a member of the
I
11-8-99
Council may request a point of personal privilege which
allows the Council to stop a speaker at any time that
assertions or allegations are made against the Councilor
anyone sitting at the dais, said he does not favor that being
done in this City however was exercising that point at this
meeting. Councilman Boyd invited Ms. Corbin to continue her
comments, time would be allowed to do so, yet to make further I
allegations or allege actions directed towards the City
Manager are not productive, while he could support the
speaker on some issues he could not support doing this time
and time again, the speaker should be allowed to make
comments yet within the rules and decorum of this body. Ms.
Corbin continued, stating that under the Brown Act the
legislative body of the local agency can not prohibit public
criticism of the policies, procedures, programs or services
of the agency or the acts or omissions of the legislative
body, and expressed her belief that she was within those
parameters. Ms. Corbin stated she wished to submit a letter
to the City of Seal Beach, the City Attorney, copies to the
Council and City Clerk, the letter stating that Mr. Till
faxed her privileged communication to the City to Mr. Ron
Bennett, that he has no authority to fax her communication to
any party, his illegal and abhorrent disregard for privileged
communications is reprehensible, and asked that the City
Manager be counseled that he is in violation of the law, to
cease and desist. Mr. Gordon Shanks was advised that he
would have an opportunity to speak to the utility users tax
issue when considered. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, said he
wished to complain about the registered letter he received
that instructed him to go down the street and remove
abandoned vehicles from a property that he does not own, also I
to clean that front and side yards, to that he offered that
if the City has the authority and jurisdiction to direct him
to clean up after his neighbors, then why does not the City
direct him to clean the side yard and remove the abandoned
vehicle from the garage of Mr. Till. There being no further
comments, Mayor Yost declared Public Comments closed.
COUNCIL ITEMS
There were no Council items presented.
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "B" thru "H"
Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to approve the recommended
action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except
Items "B" and "C", removed for separate consideration.
D.
Adopted Ordinance Number 1453 entitled "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND
GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7th,
2000, CONSOLIDATED WITH THE PRIMARY
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE
CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATEWIDE PRIMARY
ELECTION, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED
VOTERS AN ORDINANCE";
I
Adopted Resolution Number 4767 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MARCH 7th, 2000 WITH
THE SEAL BEACH PRIMARY ELECTION, CALLED BY
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1452 AND CONSOLIDATED WITH
11-8-99
THE STATEWIDE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION
10403 OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE",
I
Adopted Resolution Number 4768 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES
FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT REGARDING A
CITY MEASURE, AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY
TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF SAID MEASURE",
and
Adopted Resolution Number 4769 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE
FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR A CITY
MEASURE SUBMITTED AT THE MARCH 7th, 2000
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION."
By unanimous consent, full reading of
Ordinance Number 1453 and Resolutions
numbered 4767, 4768, and 4769 was waived.
I
E. Authorized the printing and handling of the
City of Seal Beach Sample Ballot Pamphlets
for the Primary and Special Municipal
Elections to be held on March 7th, 2000 by
Martin & Chapman Company rather than by the
County of Orange.
Received and filed the status report relating
to landscape maintenance contract specifications,
anticipated for the December 13th meeting, and
an ordinance proposed by the Tree Committee
relating to removal, planting and trimming of
trees in the public domain for a future meeting.
F.
H.
Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned
and regular meetings of October 25, 1999.
Approved Resolution Number 4770 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH RE FUNDS FOR THE URBAN FORESTRY
GRANT PROGRAM AS PROVIDED THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA
TREES FOR THE MILLENNIUM INITIATIVE FUNDED
THROUGH THE FOREST RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT FUND."
By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution
Number 4770 was waived.
G.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
I
ITEM "B" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4766 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
WETLANDS RECOVERY PROJECT
Mayor Yost announced that Seal Beach has been granted one
seat on the recently created thirteen member San Gabriel
Conservancy, this board the result of recently enacted State
legislation to deal with some of the water quality issues of
the San Gabriel River. He noted that his is believed to be
the first appointment to the Board, and expressed
appreciation to Councilmembers Boyd and Campbell and the
staff for their assistance.
11-8-99
Yost moved, second by Boyd, to adopt Resolution Number 4766
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH IN SUPPORT OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WETLANDS
RECOVERY PROJECT." By unanimous consent, full reading of
Resolution Number 4766 was waived. J
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
I
ITEM "c" - DEMANDS ON TREASURY
Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, claimed that three auditors have
been present in the City during the past couple weeks however
only one audit was budgeted, inquiring how these audits are
to be paid for and why. She charged that there is a new
audit team in the Finance Department, asked if the auditors
are from IRS investigation, if that is so the Council needs
to divulge that the City is being investigated, if not, is
this another audit firm that the Manager has hired. Council
held a special meeting this week because of objection to
money proposed to be spent for something that was not
approved in the budget, the people need to know about the
audits, and more and more money is being spent for computer
fees, the people need to know too that the Navy reports that
Seal Beach is one of the worst cities as to Y2K readiness,
asking again who authorized additional audits. The Acting
Finance Director responded that the only audit taking place
is by Lance, Sol and Lunghard, the annual audit, at the
request of Council explained that this is a public
organization, responsible for public funds, required by law
to conduct annual audits, certain guidelines are followed to
assure that the financial statements are represented fairly. I
She stated having no knowledge of other audits. There have
never been auditing problems, there are notes within the
financial statements that address specific issues, loans,
bond issues, etc. Council clarified that this is not a
forensic or IRS audit, it is intended to show that the
representation made of the treasury is consistent with what
actually exists on any day. The Acting Director stated again
that Lance, Sol and Lunghard are the contract firm to perform
the annual audit, other auditors periodically come in to
review certain fundings, CalTrans as an example for gas tax
monies, grants, etc., however the City does not pay for
those. She noted that some contract personnel are being
hired for the Finance Department because the staff is down by
three at this time, they are not auditors.
Boyd moved, second by Yost, to approve the regular demands
numbered 25305 through 25556 in the amount of $696,078.77,
payroll demands numbered 5665 through 5819, 27663, 9000100
through 9000112 in the amount of $76,024.94, and authorized
warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
I
STATUS REPORT - SEWER MASTER PLAN / RATE STUDY ANALYSIS
The City Manager recalled that about mid-1998 the Council
requested that a report back with a business plan setting
forth activities for the upcoming year and beyond, also to
look at the issue of the utility tax and when and if the
Council could look at options to reduce that tax, to that he
stated the response was by means of a report to Council in
January of 1999 entitled the Strategic Financial Plan and
Utility Tax Report. He noted that a recommendation contained
in the report was to set a target date of December 30, 2001
11-8-99
I
for a possible reduction of the utility users tax rate. One
of the things that the City looked at was not just when new
revenues might be realized through new sources of sales tax
but also costs that had been identified, in particular the
backlog of deferred maintenance projects of the
infrastructure, the estimate was $39.5 million as of January,
1999, at that point the Sewer Master Plan or Water Rate Study
had not been completed of which there was a backlog of sewer
projects, those are projects that have been set aside over
the course of time rather than annual maintenance projects,
replacements not done because of lack of monies to do so. He
noted that the estimate of backlogged sewer projects then was
about $10 million, the backlog covered the entire street
system, storm drain and water system, curb, gutter and
sidewalks, and the City's buildings, based upon the projected
revenue stream over the upcoming several years it was
estimated that to start addressing the backlog in the
foreseeable future and try to avoid higher costs over the
long term by further delay, the Council would need to
identify $2.2 million each year to do some of the capital
replacement projects. The Manager stated that of the $2.2
million, if the sewer and water enterprise funds are taken
out it would be about $1.5 million and that is approximately
what the City anticipates in new sales tax revenue, therefore
in order to tackle the backlog of sewer projects that have
accumulated over the years there needs to be about $.5
million per year of additional funds to address the backlog
otherwise the City will continue to barely make ends meet in
the operation costs each year. The Manager noted'that there
is now a draft of the Sewer Master Plan and Rate Study for
presentation.
I
The Director of Public Works offered an overview of what has
been found to date, delay in bringing this issue forth has
been due to looking further at the rates and consideration of
how this can work, the estimate of $.5 million holds close to
the original estimate, this draft report is preliminary
information to get a feeling as to what direction the Council
may desire. He noted that a substantial grant was received
to repave Seal Beach Boulevard however beneath the Boulevard
is a sewer force main that is in need of work, if the
repaving project is to move forward certain decisions will
need to be made.
The Assistant City Engineer commenced presentation of an
overview of the sewer system:
* What does the system basically consist of - the system
was built between the 1920's to the 1960's, forty to
sixty years old - about thirty miles of pipe ranging
from six to twenty-four inches in diameter - about six
hundred thirty-three manholes - about nine pump lift
stations throughout the town;
I
*
That system basically serves Old Town, Marina Hill,
College Park East areas - the majority of Leisure World,
Surfside and College Park West are not on the City's
system;
* Photo was shown of the condition of a forcemain pipe
that was removed from Seal Beach Boulevard during a
construction project whereby the pipe failed and caused
a sinkhole;
11-8-99
*
Diagram was shown of the system serving Old Town and
Marina Hill, pumped through a forcemain that flows to
the Orange County Sanitation District pump station and
then goes to the transmission lines for treatment -
Sunset Aquatic Park too is pumped back to that one
line - College Park East goes through Lampson Avenue to
another transmission line on Seal Beach Boulevard,
ultimately to the pump station at Westminster/Seal Beach
Boulevard - the City transferred the treatment process
in about 1972;
* Noted that on the east coast the sanitary system is
shared with the sewer system, in California there are
two separate systems;
I
* Where does the sewer system go - sewage is processed at
the Orange County Sanitation District, they treat all of
the City's sewage, once treated, that is what is pumped
out into the ocean;
* With regard to the ten year capital needs replacements -
there are about $10 million of improvements identified -
the Seal Beach Boulevard manhole replacement, the Seal
Beach Boulevard forcemain replacement, improvements in
College Park East, many Old Town sewers, constructed in
the 1920's, need replacement, that coincides with grant
funding that is coming from the Orange County Sanitation
District to reduce infiltration into the system;
Most of the pump stations are nearing the end of their
useful life - the Boeing station pumps back into the
Boulevard line that goes to the Orange County Sanitation
District line - there is a Lopez Drive pump station -
pump station number 35 is one of the most important, it
pumps the majority of the sewage, if it were to fail
that could be serious to dire consequences, that Station
located at the end of Electric, about twenty-six years
old, it is believed that about 1972, when the City had
its own treatment plant, the City received EPA funding
to build that Station and forcemain, a station also
located in Sunset Aquatic Park;
*
I
* Immediate needs - the manholes on Seal Beach Boulevard,
the cost estimated between $350,000 to $450,000, that
project currently out to bid, the Seal Beach Boulevard
forcemain, about $1.3 million, the design of which is
nearing completion, photos of the forcemain were shown
that failed during the railroad track removal project;
Why now - the manholes are rapidly deteriorating because
of long time exposure to sulphide gas, that project
being pushed to avoid failures in the public right-of-
way, the Seal Beach Boulevard forcemain, why can't the
condition of the pipe be seen, the line that serves the
majority of the City, there is no knowledge as to when
it was designed, there are no manholes along that line
so it is not possible to see the condition of that line,
a camera can not be put through it nor can it be seen,
the only knowledge would be from the area that
previously failed, it is believed there is a probability
of complete failure;
*
I
*
There is a federally funded project on Seal Beach
Boulevard for paving, those monies are to be expended
this fiscal year, the consequences of delay of the
I
I
I
11-8-99
forcemain, if that work is not done before the overlay,
there is going to be a cash problem, the Boulevard would
be paved then it would cost about $180,000 extra to come
back and tear out and replace an entire lane, by cutting
into that lane it will reduce the new pavement life by
about five years, as studies show, if the forcemain is
prolonged the City would actually be managing by
incident, reacting on an emergency basis, waiting for
the event to happen, it is also a public health, safety
and welfare issue, if that forcemain were to go down
somewhere in the middle and it backs up at pump station
35 there is nowhere for the sewage to go, the water can
not be shut off because it is needed for fire services,
thus there would be leakage into the Bay and surrounding
areas, there would be a monetary issue as well in the
form of fines from the State, every time emergency
repairs are needed the costs are double to triple the
original cost;
*
How is this going to be paid for - funding capacity for
the system, there is water entering and leaving ones
house, water costs are based upon usage, currently there
is an approximate $7 charge for capital improvements for
the water system, for the sewer the charge is twenty-two
percent of the water bill however there is no capital
charge for improvements, current revenue does support
operating costs but does not support the $10 million of
replacement and the $1.2 million for immediate needs for
the Seal Beach Boulevard forcemain, the City is spending
more and more on emergency repairs as the system
degrades due to deferred maintenance;
*
Question was if the City has a capital facilities
connection charge - the response was that the only
charge at present is to the Sanitation District, there
is no capital charge however that should be looked at as
part of the rate study, especially since there may be
new home construction in the future, there is no
connection charge yet the fee structure is such that it
is full cost recovery for plan review, plan check, etc.
there is no reinvestment into the capital system, there
is no capital charge to the rate payers as well;
* The need is for revenues up front because money needs to
be raised for these projects either through bond
financing or a dramatic raise of rates through a pay-as-
you-go system;
*
Options for revenue streaming to finance bonds, an
increase percentage based on usage - a fixed
capital charge like the water system per meter, or
a do nothing alternative, if nothing is done the
risk is public health, ocean quality, and the
fiscal health of the City with the monetary
consequences;
*
Increase based on usage - preliminary numbers have
been heard, a potential increase from twenty-two
percent to about fifty percent of the usage to
cover the needed improvements;
* Fixed capital charge - unlike the water system
there is no mechanism for saving money for capital
replacements for the sewer system;
11-8-99
*
The typical residential cost to fund a capital
replacement fund and meet immediate needs would be
approximately $8 per month per meter, that would be
about $96 per meter per year, that would be for the
typical residential, commercial and other high
users would be higher fees, a projection of the
time frame for such increase would be a ten year
plan, a capital charge that would go over that time
frame, the reason for proposing to bond for the
money is because the City is behind, there is the
forcemain that needs to be repaired, there is not
enough cash to take care of that problem now, a
bond sale would give the program a kick start, the
capital charge would be consistent throughout the
period, about thirty year bonds, if, after the ten
year improvement program another program were to be
adopted for additional work that would be dealt
with at that time~
I
* Question was posed as to how this would compare to
surrounding communities - the response was that it
is hard to make such a comparison, every agency
does things a little differently, because someone
has a lower charge does not necessarily mean they
are taking care of business, Garden Grove just did
a substantial increase, Seal Beach is somewhat out
front in looking closely at this~
*
The ARM consultant noted that Garden Grove has four
hundred miles of sewers, the sewer forcemains failed
several times and the sewage actually ended up in
Anaheim Bay~
I
* with regard to bond financing, question was posed
if this would be meant for sewer only or water and
sewer, all inclusive financing for a number of
public improvements or specifically the sewer
system - the response was that this is specific to
the sewer system, the water issue has not been
looked at that closely, it is felt to be better
off, the storm drain master plan was presented to
Council, obviously there is a considerable
shortfall there, however the Strategic Plan showed
that it is possible to put money into the other
areas except for the water enterprise fund given
the possibility of a sales tax increase, other
financing is not proposed at this time~
*
Noted that the majority of the line for College
Park East is in Lampson Avenue, it is scheduled for
2004, would that line be done prior to repaving of
Lampson, response was that the problem is not that
great in Lampson, the greatest problem in College
Park East is velocity, the speed of the affluent in
the pipe, accumulations, etc., most of those
improvements would occur within the neighborhood
local lines, certainly improvements in Lampson
would be looked at prior to its repaving~
. Request is conceptual approval of implementing a
plan for a capital charge to fund the
recommendations of the Sewer Master Plan, to
approve a plan to obtain bond funding for immediate
needs in the ten year Sewer Capital Improvement
Program, direct staff to bring the finalized Master
I
11-8-99
Plan and Rate Study before Council, and to direct
staff to initiate the sewer rate revision process.
I
The Manager noted that this program is tentative, however the
desire was to inform the Council and the public of upcoming
potential problems, the costs are estimates only at this
point, and financing options will be developed. A comment of
Council was that there is no doubt that the sewer system has
problems, it is important that this be taken care of.
Question was raised as to the meaning of the term 'balloting'
prior to any future rate changes, it was explained that that
term was used to make people aware that a rate would not be
imposed without public awareness and input, at this point it
is uncertain if sewer infrastructure would fall under State
fee regulations even though it is a health and safety issue.
It was mentioned that to impose a per meter fee will likely
require a public hearing but not necessarily a vote of the
people. With regard to the recommendations, Councilman Boyd
said it is presumed that conceptual approval to pursue
implementation of a capital charge would exempt Leisure
World, Surfside, and College Park West, the response
clarified that that recommendation is conceptual only as to
the idea of a capital charge, the rate proposed may change,
etc. Councilman Boyd said he felt all of the recommendations
were sound, his preference would be to expand them, noted the
capital facilities and improvement plans that were reviewed
earlier in the year in the amount of $39.5 million, that
basically a strategic plan for replacing all of the needs in
Seal Beach, the City has traditionally had an aversion to
financing such things, rather doing business on a pay as you
go basis, the consideration to do bond financing is something
that should not be taken lightly however be given
consideration. As to approval of a capital charge and/or
bond issue, the City Attorney said those would most likely
require a public hearing, mayor may not require voter
approval, nonetheless assured that there would be compliance
with all laws, if the Council determines to approve the
concept staff will look at the next step. It was mentioned
that in most instances an issue would go to ballot if a
charge is proposed that is above and beyond what is
customary, in this case it is hoped that no new charges would
be attached but that it be paid from General Fund or new
anticipated revenues, suggesting that the bonding be
explored, maybe consult with a bond counsel, also, develop an
all-encompassing plan in that there are facilities that are
deteriorating, the larger the financing the greater
opportunity for a better rate, the $10 million over ten years
is a good idea but expanding the amount should be looked at.
Question was posed if any unknown factors have been included,
to that the Public Works Director explained that the
estimates are felt to be somewhat generous, for a number of
issues the consultant needed to look at the big picture yet
be somewhat conservative, in some cases the worst case
scenario which it is hoped it will not be, all of the
estimates have a substantial contingency. Councilman Boyd
said again that if the financing of public improvements is
going to be looked into that as many projects as possible be
done at once, that to get ahead, pay the bonds off, hold
monies in reserve for some liquidity. Mayor Yost said that
would be fine as long as it can be done legally. The Manager
mentioned that a factor is how does one payoff the bonds,
the current situation is at a critical point with deadlines
as to the paving project, the sewer improvement would be an
enterprise type operation generally paid for by user fees, in
the case of Seal Beach that is a percentage of the actual
I
I
11-8-99
water expense, the other items, the storm Drain Master Plan,
Pavement Plan, and street and Sidewalk plan all need to come
from the General Fund with the exception of grant monies. In
the months to come more will be known about how much bonding
can be afforded, and concurred that it would be best to
consolidate as much as possible in any financing effort. The
Mayor mentioned, as an example, that it is felt the recent
water quality problems in Huntington Beach were related to
aging infrastructure. With regard to the capital improvement
phasing Councilman Boyd noted the plan ranges from year 2000
to 2010, recalled approving bids for the Main/10th Street
alley replacement project, and inquired as to its status.
The public Works Director explained that that project has
been put over until spring as there was concern with the
ability of the contractor to complete the job before the
holiday and rainy seasons, however the funding is in place.
Yost moved, second by Snow, to approve in concept the
financial plan to implement a capital charge to fund the
recommendations of the Sewer Master plan, to approve in
concept the financial plan to obtain bond funding to advance
the Sewer Force Main project and the ten year capital
improvement plan, direct staff to proceed with the
finalization of the Sewer Master plan and Rate Study for
Council approval, and that staff initiate the sewer rate
revision process, the funding concept to include other
potential capital improvements, all subject to future report
to and approval of the Council.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
I
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1454 - URGENCY - UTILITY USERS TAX EXEMPTION
The City Manager recommended that of the three options
presented in the staff report the Council consider one of two
options, one, that the senior citizen exemption of the
utility users tax be modified to conform substantially to the
existing California Senior Citizens Property Tax Assistance
Program, that that Assistance program be provided now rather
than postponing until July 1, 2000, or, make the existing
senior citizen utility users tax exemption effective now
rather than wait until July 1, 2000. As a point of
background, the Manager explained that in 1993 the utility
users tax provision was amended, that during the period that
local tax monies were being taken to balance the State
budget, the City responded by increasing the utility tax to
address the local financial crisis, at that point the Code
stipulated that any individual sixty-five years or older
would be exempt from the utility users tax if their household
income qualified for the California Senior Citizens property
Tax Assistance, the maximum income allowed to qualify was
$13,200 per year. Effective January 1, 1999 the State
legislature changed the income guidelines to $33,132, however
it is important to note that the State program, which Seal
Beach is indexed to, does not provide for exemptions for
property tax, rather, reductions of property tax, so the
greater ones income the less property tax relief, and over
$33,132 one is not eligible for any tax relief. He noted
that the State has a sliding scale for its tax relief program
where the City of Seal Beach, since 1993, has allowed either
a complete exemption or no exemption, however mentioned that
since 1982 the City has provided exemption in both ways, a
phased or varied exemption for income up to $12,000. Upon
review of the records from 1993 it is not certain that the
City anticipated circumstances such as these where there is a
I
11-8-99
I
two hundred fifty percent increase of the eligible income,
and to that it would be fairly simple to amend the Code to be
consistent with the State index, the effect of that would be
to provide a minimum reduction of a four percent exemption
and a maximum exemption of forty-one percent, and the
continued complete exception for persons having an income of
$13,200 or less, between the $13,200 and $33,132 it would be
a sliding scale. The Manager noted that policy questions are
whether it was ever intended or contemplated that the income
level would be at $33,132 versus the poverty level of
$13,200, also, whether it is equitable to shift tax burdens
in this manner, another consideration is that this program
has been widely publicized as a complete exemption from the
utility users tax, the residents being led to believe that
they are eligible immediately, yet it was not until October
25th that the City received the legal opinion that unless the
Code were amended the exemption would be granted in July,
2000 rather than now, this was the result of further review
of the Code, when the index changed, and the timing. The
Manager said he wished to correct a published statement that
the City Manager of Seal Beach without attribution is seeking
to postpone the tax exemption until July, 2000, stating that
he has not privately or publicly advocated July, 2000, if the
desire is to go forward with the complete exemption of up to
$33,132 then it should be done now as has been advertised or
as an alternative it could be tied to a new index. As to the
fiscal impact it is based on estimates because there is no
prior experience, certain assumptions as to average utility
bills have been prepared for the use of gas, electricity, and
telephone, the figures averaging single and two person
households, those felt to be a typical senior citizen
household, for about fifteen hundred exemptions, the annual
revenue loss is predicted to be between $115,000 and
$177,000, if complete exemptions were granted now a loss of
about $90,000 could be realized for this fiscal year however
the City should get by due to some improvement in the
property tax, thus it would not be necessary to reduce
services or tap reserves this year, however over time this
could result in a loss of about a quarter million dollars
with the potential of a half million in five or so years,
therefore it is felt that some preparations need to be made
for such loss in future years. The Manager mentioned the
future potential loss of property tax revenues, inasmuch as
that is under State control, as well as vehicle in-lieu
revenues and other revenue sources controlled by the State
rather than Seal Beach places a greater emphasis on revenues
that are under the control of the City, future mandates for
the public employment retirement system and collective
bargaining are very likely to offset any increases in
property taxes that are currently being seen, there is
uncertainty too with regard to future income from the Bixby
Towne Center, therefore the City remains in a precarious
financial condition, the infrastructure backlog has been made
known, they are all considerations that the Council needs to
weigh and at a time when there is considerable uncertainty.
The Manager reviewed again the options for Council
consideration.
I
I
with regard to the sliding scale of the State Tax Assistance
Program, Mayor Yost inquired if persons would need to reapply
each year, the Manager responded that that would be at the
discretion of the Council however current Code calls for a
one time only application, the reliance is with the people to
notify the City should their income rise above the cap, the
recommendation would be that they not be required to reapply
11-8-99
annually. Councilmember Campbell noted that for the School
District Mello Roos exemption a reapplication form is sent
out each year, that could be a means of verifying those
persons who are no longer eligible for the exemption.
Councilman Boyd inquired as to when the State Property Tax
Assistance cap is published. The City Attorney said it is
uncertain how it is transmitted to the public, it is a rather I
obscure index, it is not certain why it is used or if other
cities use it, the current Assistance cap however became
effective January 1, 1999, their firm became aware of the
revised cap subsequent to a news article, about two months
ago. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, requested clarification
that an individual makes application based upon their own
word, their is no income tax review, to which explanation was
made that application for the exemption is made, reviewed by
staff, and that no reapplication is required unless the
person changes residence, the income is based upon the income
of the household. Mr. Shanks offered that the ethics of this
is not whether the City needs the money, the response of the
Council should be whether it is ethical and fair, people who
make more money pay more income tax, below a certain amount
one pays none, people who make more are used to paying more,
in his opinion the only way to try to protect the services
the people want is to go with the sliding scale, everyone
needs to pay their share. He noted that he did not care for
the sixty-five and over exemption from the school tax in that
someone else paid taxes when his children were in school, it
is now his turn to do the same. His understanding is that
Seal Beach has the second highest rents in the County, people
who live in this City receive a lot, if people earn $24,000
or $30,000 they should be able to afford to pay a percentage I
of the utility tax. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, said she was
present when the exemption was passed and was assured it
would apply to all low income people, that was the intent,
there are now low income seniors and low income persons, the
intent did not carry through to the final ordinance, that
should be researched. She claimed that the wealthiest class
of people in this City are in Leisure World, people having
large savings yet low income, said she is not against
providing the exemption, this is just not an equitable way of
doing it, also, this issue was not handled well, the
applications were not timely processed, there is a lack of
credibility and contradictory comments in the press. Ms.
Corbin said her prior statements with regard to the audit
were true and she would speak to that later. Dr. David
Rosenman, 8th Street, agreed that this was not handled well,
someone issued a press release without first talking to the
City Attorney and staff, people do not need to be blindsided,
he offered that the people in Leisure World already get an
exemption on the school bonds, so applying the utility tax
reduction on a sliding scale would be the most equitable, his
concern would be with what happens in future years when there
is a shortfall.
Councilman Snow said he agreed with the previous comment that I
there was not enough planning by the Council and staff when
this exemption was noticed. Councilman Snow offered for
clarification the position that Seal Beach Leisure World is
in, they pay a water bill of $430,000 to the City each year,
the City spends no money on Leisure World street maintenance,
Leisure World pays for the use of the City street sweeper
each month, they contract for all of the landscaping, there
are sixty-two miles of sewer pipeline in Leisure World
ranging in size from eighteen to eight inches, not to mention
what is underneath the apartments, that is cleaned each year
11-8-99
I
but not by City maintenance, they also pay for street
lighting, clubhouse lighting, all electricity is paid by
Leisure World, refuse pickup is by contract paid by Leisure
World. Councilman Snow stated that people do not understand
that Leisure World does not cost the City any money, that is
the reason why so many have applied for the exemption, there
are very few that understand the condition of people residing
in Leisure World, physically, financially, and in other ways.
Involvement with the Police Department is seldom, only in the
event of accidents or a crime. Councilman Snow suggested
that the exemption continue to be given in the same manner as
it has been, his personal opinion is that there be no
substantial increase of applicants, and although he concurs
with certain things in the City Manager report his belief,
from the standpoint of the elderly citizens, is that the
utility users tax exemption continue as it has.
Councilmember Campbell agreed, however noted that those who
have applied have not yet received the exemption, the
applications need to be processed, as to the sliding scale
said $30,000 does not go far in this City, the savings of the
senior citizens is to carry them through their retirement
years, there is a moral and ethical obligation to provide
this exemption and now. Councilman Boyd responded to a prior
comment that he did not believe he blindsided anyone by
publishing the provisions of the City Code, apology would be
in order that this did not have weeks of prior notice in that
the exemption took effect in January of 1999, the increased
income threshold was discovered in May, in his opinion less
taxation is best, that implementing the exemption now is the
correct thing to do, although concerned with the loss of
revenue it is certain other revenue sources will be found to
make it up. Mayor Yost sought comments with regard to
persons of low incomes yet under sixty-five years.
Councilmember Campbell spoke for limiting the exemption to
retired persons given their limited ability to earn a regular
income, Councilman Boyd added that it is assumed that people
of age sixty-five or over no longer intend to seek gainful,
full time employment, rather part time or whatever, sixty-
five seems to be a benchmark, if there were a desire to
extend that further to persons of low income the County scale
could be used. While expressing respect for the opinions of
other members of the Council, Mayor Yost said he was somewhat
dissenting on this issue, it posed difficulty when this was
announced in the papers before review by legal counsel,
difficult for staff in terms of having enough personnel to
take care of the number of applicants, difficult too to
provide accurate information and respond to the public. He
said he was sensitive to the responsibility to retired
persons and those on fixed incomes yet there is also a
responsibility to the other members of the public who also
pay taxes and may need to assume additional responsibility,
in his opinion the sliding scale is a rational method.
Councilman Doane made reference to the last meeting and his
discussion with the Assistant City Attorney as to the
interpretation of the tax eligibility established in a
calendar year to then take effect in the fiscal year, said
his argument would be that even though the Code describes the
fiscal year as July 1st to June 30th it does not say it must
be an entire fiscal year, therefore he would like the Code
wording clarified so that it is clear that this does not
require an entire fiscal year, rather, the fiscal year that
it is applied for, as an example, someone who becomes
eligible for the exemption should not be required to wait
until the full fiscal year to apply. His request was
clarified as allowing application for the exemption upon
I
I
11-8-99
becoming eligible with the financial eligibility based upon
earnings of the previous calendar year applicable to the
current fiscal year.
Doane moved, second by Campbell, to approve option two, that
the exemptions be implemented now, that the Council enact an
ordinance amending the Code to implement the complete I
exemptions immediately with the utility companies having up
to sixty days to remove the tax from their billings, and
adopted Ordinance Number 1454 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING SECTION 22-61.1 OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING THE UTILITY USERS TAX SENIOR
EXEMPTION AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF." By unanimous
consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1454 was waived.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow
Yost
Motion carried
By unanimous consent, the Council declared a recess at 9:02
p.m. and reconvened at 9:12 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the
meeting to order.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4765 - NEGATIVE
DECLARATION 99-1 I GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY - SEAL BEACH
BOULEVARD/I-405 FREEWAY OVERCROSSING WIDENING PROJECT
The City Attorney noted that there had been certain comments
made at the first portion of this public hearing, City and
legal staff have reviewed those comments. He explained that
as a threshold issue, with respect to the Negative
Declaration there is no requirement under CEQA to respond to
comments as there is with an EIR, however given the
thoroughness of staff they looked at each of the issues
raised, responded to those comments, and made the point that
the Mitigated Negative Declaration had already considered all
of the comments that were made at the public hearing. He
mentioned too the receipt of another letter bearing todays
date, this from Mr. Christopher Caldwell, the attorney for
the City of Los Alamitos, reiterating his earlier comments,
also claiming there was another issue regarding construction
related traffic impacts, to that he reported that issue too
had been addressed in the Negative Declaration, reflected on
pages forty to forty-two of the Initial Study with a
mitigation measure recommended by City staff on page forty-
eight for the preparation of a traffic management plan for
the short term impacts during construction. The City
Attorney noted that the resolution proposed has been revised
to reflect the additional comments received this date from
Mr. Caldwell.
I
Mayor Yost invited members of the audience wishing to speak
to this item further to come to the microphone and state
their name and address for the record. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal
Beach, claimed that this project is being handled piecemeal
as part of the Bixby project, that is not acceptable under
CEQA, a contention of the Los A1amitos attorney. She noted
the attendance of Native Americans at the last meeting, they
could not wait for the opportunity to speak at the public
hearing, the lateness of hearings is denying the right of
speech, also mentioned a letter in the agenda packet from the
Navy where they purportedly state the widening project is
within their easement, that the National Preservation Act is
not being addressed as there are archaeological remains both
north and south of the 1-405, there needs to be tribal area
monitors present, there is a most likely descendant, and the
monitor is the only one that has the authority to stop the
I
11-8-99
I
work when remains are found. Ms. Corbin claimed that Bixby
will be paying only a small percentage of the overpass
widening, Measure M a portion, asking where is the rest of
the money coming from. It was confirmed that the issues
raised were responded to in the document entitled 'Comments
and Responses.' Councilmember Campbell inquired if a copy of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration had been forwarded to the
Armed Forces Reserve Center. The Director of Development
Services responded that this was discussed with Mr. Hardin,
the AFRC Environmental Officer, a copy was sent, and no
comments were received by this date. The public hearing was
officially closed.
~
Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4765
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 99-1, AND
DETERMINING CONSISTENCY WITH THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD/I-405
OVERCROSSING WIDENING PROJECT." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolution Number 4765 was waived.
I
Councilman Doane made reference to and read portions of a
letter received relating to traffic problems, partly
understood to be the result of work taking place on the 405
and where Seal Beach Boulevard is being suggested as an
alternate route, the author now unable to exit Leisure World
in early ~orning hours to safely enter the southbound lane of
the Boulevard to turn easterly on Westminster Avenue.
Councilman Doane asked if any part of this is due to the
bottleneck at the bridge or is it the freeway repairs. The
Public Works Director responded that some of the traffic that
is being experienced is due to the detour routes because of
the work on the mainline freeway, he noted too that staff is
in the process of looking at the intersection of Seal Beach
Boulevard/Westminster, it is anticipated there will be
considerable change of turn movements, a consultant has been
retained, using Measure M funding, to look at upgrading that
entire intersection, one hundred percent funding for that
project. Councilmember Campbell expressed her opinion that
the bridge widening is needed. Councilman Snow made
reference to the issue of detours which is partly the result
of work that is taking place on 7th Street, questions from
College Park West residents have been whether the police and
emergency services are aware of the work and the detour and
the fact that 7th can not be used to access College Park
West, the detour signs are not properly placed.
Vote on the motion to adopt Resolution Number 4765:
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
I
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING / RESOLUTION NUMBER 4757 - APPEAL -
VARIANCE NO. 99-2 - SUNROOM ENCLOSURE - 1307-1/2 SEAL WAY
Mayor Yost acknowledged the communication received this date
from Mr. Reg Clewley requesting that this item be continued,
and inquired of the appellant if Mr. Clewley was acting on
his behalf and if it was the desire to hold the hearing or
continue it. The appellant responded that Mr. Clewley was
acting on his behalf however he would prefer that this matter
be heard at this meeting. The Mayor indicated that the slide
projector would be used for the presentation of the
appellants representative as requested.
11-8-99
Mayor Yost declared the continued public hearing to be open.
The Director of Development Services presented the staff
report relating to this appeal of the Planning Commission
denial of Variance Number 99-2, a request to permit a one
hundred sixty-nine square foot glass sunroom enclosure on top
of a roof deck that exceeds the height limit at 1307-1/2 Seal
Way. He noted that the Code does not allow that type of I
structure to be located where it now exists on the property,
behind the sunroom is a covered roof access stairway that
provides access to a roof deck, the sunroom enclosure is atop
the roof deck area. This property is located on the ocean,
is two thousand seven hundred square feet of ground area, is
non-conforming due to parking and density standards, the
sunroom would exceed the height limit by approximately four
and a half feet given the twenty-five foot height limit that
the Code mandates for residential structures. The Director
reported that a complaint was received in mid-July with
regard to this sunroom, an inspection was made and determined
that the room was nearly completed at that time, a stop work
order was issued, subsequently the applicant was informed
that under the provisions of the Code the only way to try to
maintain the structure would be through an approved variance,
the applicant then submitted the application for variance
consideration. Upon review, it was found that the existing
covered roof access structure received approval in 1995, a
condition of that approval was that there be no habitable
space at the top of the structure. The Director stated
Section 28-2317(4) defines what types of structures are
allowed above the height limit, they are called non-habitable
architectural features, and are subject to approval of a
minor height variation, they are spires, belfries, monuments, I
cupolas, parapets, domes, and covered roof stairwells to a
roof deck, it is felt this particular type of structure does
not meet any of those criteria. Councilman Boyd requested
clarification that a covered roof access is not to exceed
sixty-four square feet. The Development Services Director
explained that there is no specification in the Code however
the Planning Commission adopted a policy statement that sets
forth maximum areas for covered roof access stairways
depending on the configuration of the stairway, as an example
there is one size standard that applies to a circular
stairway, another for an 'L' shape, another for a straight
stair, three or four options. The Director explained again
that the height limit in this area is twenty-five feet, one
can only build higher on a thirty-seven and a half foot or
wider lot where a third story can be built on the back half
of the lot, for lots of lesser size the height limit is
twenty-five feet, in this case the sunroom is about four and
a half feet above the limit. The Director reviewed the
criteria for granting of a variance, in this case it is felt
there are no unique characteristics, most all of the lots in
the vicinity face the ocean, are twenty-five feet in width
and are subject to the same height limitations, it is felt
the granting of the variance would constitute a special
privilege, that being the conclusion of the Planning I
Commission as well inasmuch as the lots are all basically the
same as far as size, development standards, etc., the
recommendation of the Commission was denial of the variance
request for the reason that there is habitable living space
provided within the sunroom structure, the structure exceeds
the height limit which is prohibited by Code, approval would
be granting of a special privilege, and that there are no
unique characteristics of this property.
11-8-99
I
Mayor Yost reopened the continued public hearing. Mr. Teo
Albers, appellant, stated he is the owner of the property
located at 1307-1/2 Seal Way, requested that the Council
allow adequate time for Mr. C1ew1ey to speak on his behalf.
Mr. Albers said possibly putting this building up is a black
mark against him however it was done innocently, he honored
the stop work notice and has taken steps to remedy the
situation, he is yet to be told why this small building for
storage requires a permit, it is hoped there can be a
solution to this minor problem agreeable to both himself and
the City. He said this is actually a thirteen by thirteen by
four and a half foot piece of glass above the maximum height
limit, he did not feel the pictures depicted the room fairly
and it is hoped the Council has seen the pictures that were
submitted to the Planning Commission, it does not stand out,
it is attractive and in line with the rest of the property,
it has not been a negative problem for his neighbors or the
City, his belief is that there should be some storage area
given with every covered roof access structure, this is not
habitable, there is no plumbing, the drainage of the floor is
the way it is intended to be kept, this was built to protect
the house from the elements and for some storage space, he
pays taxes and would like to make full use of his property.
Mr. Reg C1ew1ey, Seal Beach, said he would not call for the
last three slides to be shown because he did not want any
broken equipment, offered that the first slide that was to be
shown was number four, at that point there was an attempt to
locate slides four, five and six. Meanwhile, Mr. C1ew1ey
stated that Variance 99-2 is consistent with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan, provides high density
residential designation for the subject property and permits
single and multiple residential family uses, to this he
agrees with staff. He said this property is dissimilarly
situated to the majority of properties in the Old Town area,
it abuts vacant land. Mr. C1ew1ey noted that the slide of
Mr. Albers house was not located, and confirmed to the Mayor
that the other slides do relate to the special circumstances
relating to the Albers home, abutting vacant land, the non-
conforming parking which is another special circumstance,
this property can expand up to four hundred square feet
despite any other problem with the legality of the property,
the height limit was a height variation that was allowed,
there are many similarly situated properties, the glass sun
enclosure is lower than other properties in the area, no one
is tearing down a three story structure which is above the
height limit, the architectural feature in question simply
encloses an existing and permitted sundeck, it did not worsen
the existing situation therefore is in substantial compliance
with Planning Commission Resolution 95-9, which called for
all construction to be in substantial compliance with plans
approved through height variation 95-2, this simply encloses
something that was permitted. Mr. C1ew1ey said in 1997
another property was allowed a structure in an area where it
should not have been built and in the course of that hearing
on July 28th a member of the public brought up the point that
the individuals would be allowed to enclose the deck once it
was allowed, that second story deck, if enclosed, would
obliterate the vantage of beach, although not what has been
referred to as the primary view, a similar proposal is
upcoming for the Surfside area. The Mayor questioned the
applicability of Mr. C1ew1ey's reference to a greenhouse or
enclosure on the roof of the subject property. Mr. C1ew1ey
made reference also to a gate installed due to special
circumstances where again the property abuts vacant land, the
gate is to be self-closing, it is not. The City Attorney
I
I
11-8-99
confirmed that with respect to the variance the only issue is
whether there is something special or unique about the
subject property, special circumstances can not relate to
other properties which are a distance away, the property
subject of the slide shown was not even in the vicinity of
this property, nor did it show anything relating to this
property, there needs to be something special about the I
subject property that deprives the property owner from using
his property as a single family residence. The Mayor asked
if there were slides of the subject property. The argument of
Mr. Clewley was that the subject property abuts vacant land
which much of the year is a slope, this has been found to be
special circumstances. The Mayor inquired about showing
pictures of a persons property that is not the subject of the
particular consideration. The City Attorney responded that
should the pictures show something that is not generally
visible to the public that could be an intrusion of privacy,
that could subject the person who took the picture to
criminal charges and if the City were to republish the
photographs there could also be a potential exposure, and
suggested that the slides be reviewed to determine if any
relate to the subject property or are relevant to the
application under consideration. Mr. Clewley was directed to
review the slides for any that relate to the sunroom being
over the height limit, to that he showed a photo of a
retaining wall that he claimed to be a series of retaining
walls over the height limit and compared same to the sunroom
of Mr. Albers. Council called for the presentation of Mr.
Clewley to be concluded. Mr. Clewley stated that the sunroom
has done nothing to harm anyone, it has not obscured the view
of the beach of a neighbor, that view was lost when the I
Planning Commission approved the covered roof access
structure greater than the horizontal dimensions set forth in
the City's policy statement, there is no loss of view. Mr.
Clewley said this issue can be resolved by the issuance of a
specially conditioned variance to provide for a window on the
south and north sides of the original enclosure so that the
view of the neighbor will be restored to the best of the
ability of the appellant, that would actually be an
improvement, or, by requiring Mr. Albers to provide plans to
the Council for the installation of a wheelchair ramp, that
would not mean that he would have to actually build it. To
that Mr. Clewley expressed his opinion that if someone were
to submit plans for a covered roof access structure that
includes a wheelchair ramp the City will be required to
approve it, and that may happen before long, such ramp
requires a 1/12 pitch unlike the stairs of a 5/12, it would
be a covered roof access structure that would encompass
hundreds of square feet by requesting access for a wheelchair
ramp, and, it can not be denied. It was confirmed that there
was nothing in the subject application relating to wheelchair
access. Mr. Clewley countered that if the appellant were to
submit plans he would not need a variance, he already has a
height variation for greater than the horizontal dimensions I
outlined in the policy statement of the City, this
application merely encloses something. He then referred to a
twenty foot fence in the front of a Crestview residence, yet
the City refuses to prosecute, and stated this was a honest
mistake. Mr. Jerry Anderson, Sandpiper Drive, said he was
present to merely be consistent, he has been involved in this
for ten years, his contention has always been the same, just
follow the Code, if one wants to go above the height limit
then change the Code through the public hearing process, if
something is in violation of the Code then it can not be
permitted to remain, such things do in fact set a precedent,
11-8-99
I
why would this be granted and not another, just be
consistent. Mr. Albers, appellant, said the fact is that he
made a mistake, he is willing to pay for that but there needs
to be some common sense, he did not intend harm, the sunroom
is not only for storage but also for protection from the
elements, possibly more planning should have gone into the
roof structure initially, the access door to the roof deck is
directly towards the ocean, that is being damaged, that is
the reason for the sunroom, stating also his disagreement
that it is habitable as it has no electric and no plumbing,
that was not his intent. There being no further comments,
Mayor Yost declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Campbell said she would support the Code and
the decision of the Planning Commission. Mayor Yost recalled
having considered a roof greenhouse request for a property on
Main Street, at that time Mr. Clewley spoke strongly against
the request, and questioned the speaker's support of this
request for above the height limit. Councilman Boyd said he
had the opportunity to inspect the structure, his belief is
that the appellant made an honest mistake, has spent about
$10,000, agreed with the appellant that it is not a habitable
structure, the Code specifies the height limit, the
dimensions for a covered roof access, yet stated he needs to
abide by the Code therefore would deny the appeal.
Councilmember Campbell noted that when considering variances
it is necessary to not only look at current use but potential
future use.
I
Boyd moved, second by Yost, to deny the appeal and sustain
the decision of the Planning Commission thereby denying the
request to allow an illegally constructed all glass sunroom
attached to a previously allowed covered roof access
structure in excess of the twenty-five foot height limit.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
I
The City Attorney noted that a Resolution had been prepared
for Council consideration, if considered at this meeting he
would recommend certain changes, Section 4, language added to
read "An appeal..... was timely filed, after the applicant
sought and was granted two continuances of the scheduled
public hearing, on October 25, 1999 the City Council held a
duly noticed continued public hearing...", and to Section 5 a
sentence added to read "The applicant failed to present any
evidence suggesting that there are special circumstances..."
The maker and second of the motion concurred with the
recommended language and further moved the adoption of
Resolution Number 4757 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH SUSTAINING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCE NO. 99-2, A REQUEST TO ALLOW AN
ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED GLASS SUNROOM IN EXCESS OF THE 25-FOOT
HEIGHT LIMIT (1307-1/2 SEAL WAY)." By unanimous consent,
full reading of Resolution Number 4757 was waived.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost
None Motion carried
The City Attorney advised that the applicant would have
certain rights to contest the decision of the Council in
court which is also reflected in the Resolution.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
No report was presented.
11-8-99
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
The City Attorney reported that the City has reached a
settlement with the petitioners in the Hotchkiss matter where
Hotchkiss and others contested the Environmental Impact
Report on the Hellman project, the trial court ruled in favor
of the EIR, finding it to be adequate, the appellate court
affirmed that decision and awarded costs to the City and in I
return for waiving costs the petitioners have dismissed their
action.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Yost declared Public Comments to be open. With regard
to bonding or a meter charge for improvements to the sewer
system, Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, noted that the present
charge is based upon water usage, those persons who have
large yards or a pool pay a greater amount than someone whose
lot is primarily built upon, therefore he would tend to agree
that a meter charge would be more acceptable than raising the
percentage based upon total water usage. He recalled that
more than a year ago there was agreement on how Council
meetings would be run, as the twenty-first century nears it
is seen more often that staff and project proponents are
using state of the art audio visuals, therefore it seems that
the public too should be allowed to bring their projector for
presentations and not limited to public hearings, it seems
there needs to be a policy on this as well. Ms. Sue Corbin,
Seal Beach, said she and Mr. Clewley had asked in a timely
manner to use the slide projector, Mr. Clewley was required
to submit his slides for review and approval, the pictures of
the subject property did not remain for the presentation,
that is not right. She mentioned that the photos she had I
planned to show was removed from the easel by the City
Manager, the cost of the photos was $9.53, and asked that her
photos and those removed from Mr. Clewley's presentation be
returned tonight, if the Manager thinks he has a claim he can
sue, if it is for liable and slander the defense to that is
the truth, the sideyard of the Manager's house was
photographed by a reporter, the area is a public nuisance, it
needs to be cleaned up, and she expects that the claim she
filed regarding that condition be followed up. Ms. Corbin
mentioned that nothing was said about increased water rates
for which there was no public hearing, that is important.
She demanded that the Council pay attention when the public
is speaking, in her case she does not say things unless the
information has been verified at least three different ways,
claimed again that a consultant had to make a trip from
Fresno because the computer system was not working, that
costs the City, questioned why the business cards for the
Acting Finance Director does not say Acting, said the State
is going to require the former Director be rehired so why are
applicants being sought for the position, again charged that
the auditing team was changed although from the same firm,
the auditors letters are public records and should be made
available, they have not been, temporary employees are
filling positions previously held by permanent employees, I
that is costly, as are the cellular phone bills. Ms. Corbin
said the method of applying the bed tax is antiquated,
claimed that the apartment complex on First Street is selling
rooms by monthly blocks, operating as a hotel and is subject
to the bed tax. There being no further comments, Mayor Yost
declared Public Comments closed.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Noting the public comment relating to water usage,
Councilmember Campbell mentioned that the primary water usage
11-8-99
I
for her family is showers and laundry rather than yards and
pools. Councilman Boyd offered that the presentation of a
Sewer Master Plan was timely and identified one area of the
City that is rarely discussed, the Sunset Aquatic park, and
suggested a possible staff presentation of the City
boundaries, locations of City property in that area, the
impacts of Aquatic Park in terms of public services and a
revenue assessment, from his personal knowledge luxury yachts
and associated businesses generate a fair amount of revenue,
it is likely Seal Beach does not receive all of the revenue
it should from the park, in addition, possibly a future
economic development plan, marinas are big business, in
demand, particularly in Southern California,.this could be a
means'of.bolstering the revenue potential, an occupancy tax
for those living on their boats would be an example. He
asked that the subject matter be agendized for January or
February. Councilman Boyd mentioned also the Department of
Water and Power property located on First between Marina
Drive and Ocean which is currently being marketed by a
commercial real estate firm, proposals being sought from
about twenty to twenty-five large hotel operators, this
property somewhat of a test case for the DWP surplus property
liquidation effort, it is listed as 8.8 acres and the asking
price is $3.5 million. He noted that some years back a
Specific Plan was adopted for the property designating
seventy percent for open space, passive recreation use
similar to the greenbelt on Electric Avenue and that thirty
percent of the northerly portion of the property would be
designated for a hotel, the initial designation was for three
hundred rooms, later downgraded to a one hundred'fifty room
facility with two hundred twenty parking spaces which would
require one or two levels of subterranean parking, maximum
height of thirty-five feet, an example would be approximately
one and a half the size of the Radisson. The Councilman
mentioned a petition being circulated in Old Town asking the
residents if they would favor residential use on the thirty
percent of the property with the remainder open space,
suggested that persons read the petition carefully if
residential may be considered as an option given the economy
of today, and stated his intent to bring this subject before
the Council in the near future. Council briefly discussed a
proposal to cancel the regular meeting prior to the
Thanksgiving holiday. Councilman Boyd said he could agree
provided that the monthly financial statement and balance
sheet, part of the monthly investment report, be forwarded to
the Council with the Manager's report. The City Attorney
advised that the Council could not cancel the November 22nd
meeting at this time, however if, on that date, there are no
items for consideration or no quorum the meeting would be
canceled, to that the Council determined to leave the
November 22nd meeting in tact at this time. The City Clerk
announced that the final date and time to file direct
arguments to the Bixby project referendum ballot question is
Monday, November 22nd at 6:00 p.m. and that rebuttal
arguments will be due ten days hence, Thursday, December 2nd,
the direct argument three hundred words, rebuttals are two
hundred fifty words, to be included in the Sample Ballot
pamphlet. To prior comments relating to presentations, Mayor
Yost again said he had no problem with multi-media
presentations provided there is no invasion of privacy.
Councilman Boyd noted that the City's Primary Election will
be held in conjunction with the statewide Presidential
Primary on March 7th, 2000, also, that the City will be
preparing its own separate sample ballot for distribution to
the voters. It was noted too that the vote count on election
I
I
11-8-99
day will be at the County Registrar of Voters office.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
I
Approved:
-R/'f
Mayor
Attest:
I
I