HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1997-07-14
6-23-97 I 7-14-97
Attest:
I
Approved:
Seal Beach, California
July 14, 1997
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
adjourned session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling
the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Hastings
Councilmembers Brown, Campbell, Forsythe,
Fulton
Absent:
None
Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, city Attorney
Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk
I
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve the order of the
agenda as presented.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communications.
CLOSED SESSION
By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session
at 6:31 p.m. 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 terms of
possible transaction for 3900 Lampson Avenue, public employee
employment of the Chief of Police pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957, and a conference with the City's labor
negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 with
regard to management and mid-management employees. The
Council reconvened at 7:07 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling
the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council
had discussed the first item listed on the agenda, no action
was taken, and that the remaining two items may be discussed
at the conclusion of the regular meeting.
I
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:09 p.m. by unanimous consent
7-14-97
until the conclusion of the regular meeting, approximately
9:30 p.m.
I
CLOSED SESSION
By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to the Closed
Session of the 6:30 adjourned meeting at 10:12 p.m. The
Council reconvened at 10:25 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling
the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council
had met in Closed Session to discuss items two and three as
listed on the 6:30 p.m. meeting agenda, with respect to item
two, public employee employment pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957 with regard to the Chief of Police, the Council
authorized the City Manager to enter into agreement, said
agreement now a public record, with regard to item three, a
conference with the City's labor negotiator pursuant to
Government Code Section 54957.6 relating to Management/Mid-
Management Employees, the item was discussed, no action was
taken.
ADJOURNMENT
By order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
Approved:
I
Attest:
a or
~._,~u
City Clerk
Seal Beach, California
July 14, 1997
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
session at 7:10 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling the meeting
to order with the Salute to the Flag.
I
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Hastings
Councilmembers Brown, Campbell, Forsythe,
Fulton
Absent:
None
Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development
Services
7-14-97
Mr. Badum, City Engineer/Director of Public
Works
Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk'
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The City Attorney recommended that Item "K" be removed from
the Consent Calendar and acted upon after the Closed session.
Brown moved, second by Campbell, to approve the order of the
agenda as revised.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Hastings declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Bruce
Stark, Seal Beach, made reference to a comment at the last
meeting as to how someone can serve the City in any capacity
without being accused of special privileges, to which he said
the answer is to treat everyone alike. He charged that the
Council is about to grant a special privilege, said there was
no notice of the Planning Commission consideration of the ZTA
relating to 206 Ocean, no notice for this meeting, months ago
considerable steel work was done at that property, including
that for a five foot overhang, therefore the owners knew
there would be approval, a special privilege. Mr. Stark
professed his interest in ridding Old Town of illegal units,
then pointed out approvals that he said have been given
without any problem. He said people can serve the City, many
do, some are on committees, some do charity work, some help
others yet are never recognized. As to a recent news article
Mr. Stark made reference to a Council recall effort and the
reported referral of the recall notice thereof to the City
Attorney, to which he questioned why the people should pay
for the time of the City Attorney in that effort. With
regard to the Bixby MOU item Mr. Stark stated his opinion
that the developer should be treated the same as anyone else,
everyone treated the same, and free speech protects the
information you don't want to hear. Mr. Phil Chapirson,
Aster Street, directed his comments to his Council
representative, stated he had no vendetta, anger, or
hostility towards the representative, however asked for
leadership or direction to heal the rift in their community,
with so many negative statements people believe there is
opposition to everything, and it is not known if the
representative is for or against commercial, residential, a
mixed use plan, or something in between. Mr. Chapirson said
to most people their homes are their greatest investment and
they will fight to keep their property from being devaluated,
that meetings and discussions are needed to seek an agreeable
development plan for the area, and asked that the Council
representative be open and let her position be known to her
constituents. Ms. Jean MacLyman, Goldenrod Street, read the
Notice of Intent to Recall. Ms. Linda Thomason, College Park
East, said she was speaking for the citizens seeking recall
of their Council representative, their concerns do not relate
to past Council elections rather since then, the non-action
of the District representative, a perceived lack of
I
I
7-14-97
I
leadership, failure to listen to opposing views, the lack of
holding forums on issues vital to community interests, and
not playing a roll to bring the community together to seek
reasonable solutions. She said although they are perceived
to be the majority on a number of issues vital to College
Park East, their group has been described as persons who
never accepted the results of the March, 1996 election and
whose allegations are ridiculous, offered that it is
disheartening to be brushed aside by the person elected to
represent all of the people, therefore the recall must
proceed. Mayor Hastings urged that there not be comments
relating to the recall, a Council meeting not the proper
venue. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, noted comments with a
reference to Old Town and the Hill, suggested that there are
some that do not understand the democratic process in Seal
Beach where there are five Councilpersons representing the
five districts yet represent and vote on issues citywide, the
districts are not isolated islands. With regard to remarks
that the development proposed for the Hellman property is
doing well, Mr. Shanks reminded that more than ten years ago
Ponderosa proposed nine hundred homes for that land, that did
not go forward due to the economy at that time, then there
was the Mola project that was very divisive, the initiative
proposed by the developer was defeated, therefore the
upcoming Hellman project did not just happen overnight. Mr.
Shanks expressed his belief that the District Four
Councilperson has done what she said she would when elected,
and asked that the people not rip the City apart. Ms.
Dorothy Whyte, College Park East, took exception to the
request that there be no comments relating to the recall
effort, pointing out that the comments are made under oral
communications. At the request of Mayor Hastings, the City
Attorney explained that legally people can comment on most
anything they wish, and although the City has had a long
standing policy to keep politics out of the Council Chambers,
the Brown Act amendment of 1994 allows comments on anything.
Mayor Hastings extended an apology to the speakers, stating
she had not been aware that the City policy regarding
political comments had been overruled by the Brown Act. Ms.
Whyte claimed that prior to the March, 1996 election the
PROBE group was allowed to speak at length whereas her group
was limited to the five minutes, and inquired as to who is
responsible for adherence to the meeting rules set forth in
Council Resolution 4001, claimed that the meetings have been
run politically and the people have the right to speak. She
said the recall is not personal against the Councilperson,
the people have only asked her to do what she promised since
the election, to hold a meeting at which College Park would
discuss and choose what is desired on the Bixby property, yet
on this agenda is a Memorandum of Understanding with Bixby.
Ms. Whyte claimed that College Park will never have the
opportunity to choose as the Council is now choosing. Mr.
Dennis Sandler, College Park East, noted his previous request
of the Council to do whatever possible to prevent the
Marriott Corporation from building one hundred sixty
apartments at Basswood and Aster, there was no response, he
then sought opinions of other residents, and the
Councilperson continues to say she can do nothing because of
I
I
7-14-97
the Brown Act. He read a section of the Brown Act with
regard to the rights of people to attend open meetings, noted
his comments at prior meetings, a newspaper article reported
Council authorization during a Closed Session for the City
Manager to pursue negotiations with Bixby, and a notice was
then received on City letterhead that on June 9th and 23rd
the Bixby development was discussed in Closed Session which
he claimed is a violation of the secret meeting law. He said
he was not opposed to City staff talking to Bixb~ yet people
should be aware of such talks, also, there is now animosity
between College Park residents and the north and south of the
City. He recalled attending a meeting at the residence of
the Councilperson in February at which time she provided
options for the Bixby property, it is now realized that it
must have been known what would be developed, the options
should have been provided to all College Park residents so
they would know what to do. Mr. Sandler said if, according
to the prior Councilperson, the noise is so loud over his
home the value is thirty thousand dollars less, to which he
questioned what the property value will be with the
development of one hundred and sixty apartments and a less
than desirable hotel within a few blocks. As a point of
clarification, the City Attorney explained that pursuant to
the Brown Act the City Council can not hold closed meetings
with certain exceptions which allows such meetings for real
property negotiations, three or four types of litigation, and
personnel matters. He noted the closed sessions being
referred to relate to real property located at 3900 Lampson
Avenue, which qualifies for closed session discussion. There
being no further comments, Mayor Hastings declared Oral
Communications closed.
I
I
COUNCIL ITEMS
BOARDS and COMMISSIONS - APPOINTMENTS
Civil Service Board
Mayor Hastings reappointed Mr. Shawn Boyd as the District One
representative for the full term of six years expiring July,
2003.
Environmental Qualitv Control Board
Mayor Hastings reappointed Dr. David Rosenman as the District
One representative for the full term of four years expiring
July, 2001.
Parks and Recreation Commission
Councilmember Forsythe reappointed Ms. Carla Watson as the
District Three representative, and Councilman Fulton
reappointed Ms. Cecelia Aaron as the District Five
representative, each for the full term of three years
expiring July, 2000.
I
Planninq Commission
Councilman Brown stated he would make an appointment for
District Two at the next meeting, and Councilmember Forsythe
reappointed Dr. Paul Yost as the District Three
7-14-97
representative for the full term of four years expiring July,
2001.
I
proiect Area Committee
Mayor Hastings reappointed Mr. Clifford David as a resident
member and Mr. Sam Roberts as a business member, and
Councilmember Forsythe reappointed Ms. Loydean Lazich and Mr.
John O'Neil as resident members, each for the full term of
two years expiring July, 1999.
Archaeoloqical Advisory Committee
Archaeological Advisory Committee appointments were continued
to the next meeting.
Brown moved, second by Fulton, to confirm the appointments as
stated, and pursuant to Government Code Section 54973, adopt
the local appointments list, and designate the Mary Wilson
Library to receive a copy of said list.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
I
SEAL BEACH SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM - FUNDRAISER
Mayor Hastings announced Sunset Harbor Cruises on the Captain
Jacks sixty-five foot catamaran on July 16th and August 27th
to benefit the Senior Volunteer Program, the donations to be
used for needed equipment for that program.
RESOLUTION NUMBER 4545 - PARKING - DISABLED PERSONS
In response to public comments made before the Council some
weeks back, Councilman Brown noted he had reviewed the
information provided by the speaker, reviewed the ADA
regulations and California Vehicle Code as it relates to the
beach parking lots, nothing in the Vehicle Code requires that
that parking be made available free of charge in the lots
however if there were meters spaces would be required at no
charge, the results of a survey of other communities showed a
variety of handicapped parking provisions, some are free,
some are half price, and some are full price, Seal Beach is
currently charging half price however said if there are four
handicapped spaces in the beach level lots they should be
accessible.
I
Councilman Brown moved to adopt Resolution Number 4545
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SEAL BEACH
AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 4494 TO PROVIDE FREE PARKING TO
DISABLED PERSONS AT THE FIRST, EIGHTH AND TENTH STREET OCEAN
FRONT MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS" provided the individuals have
the proper handicapped identification. Councilman Fulton
seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
Councilman Brown directed that staff post the parking lots
for handicapped parking, which they currently are not as that
is a violation of the Vehicle Code.
7-14-97
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "D" thru "p"
Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve the recommended
action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except
Item "K", removed for separate consideration.
D.
Approved the waiver of reading in full of
all ordinances and resolutions and that
consent to the waiver of reading shall be
deemed to be given by all Councilmembers
unless specific request is made at that
time for the reading of such ordinance or
resolution.
I
E. Approved the minutes of the June 23rd,
1997 regular adjourned and regular meetings.
F. Approved regular demands numbered 16320
through 16460 in the amount of $211,897.34,
payroll demands numbered 22629 through
22840 in the amount of $355,320.93, and
authorized warrants to be drawn on the
Treasury for same.
G.
H.
Authorized the City Clerk to set a hearing
date for an appeal to the decision of the
Police Chief to deny a massage technician
permit (Davis).
I
Approved renewal of the Agreement with the
County of Orange for Animal Control and
Shelter Services and authorized the Mayor
to execute said Agreement on behalf of
the City.
I. Approved renewal of the License Agreement
with the Southern California Edison
Company for the Beverly Manor bicycle
trail for a period of five years from
July, 1997 until June 30, 2002, and
authorized the City Manager to execute
said License Agreement on behalf of the
City.
J.
Received and filed the Orange County
Council of Governments Draft Report on
Regional Performance Indicators, instructed
staff to forward same to the Planning
Commission for information purposes, and
to provide additional status reports as
appropriate.
I
L. Received and filed the annual Single Audit
of Federally Assisted Grant Programs.
M. Adopted Resolution Number 4547 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED
AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT
7-14-97
#673, CITYWIDE PAVEMENT RESURFACING 1996/97,
CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN R. J. NOBLE,
CO. AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By
unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution
Number 4547 was waived.
I
N.
Adopted Resolution Number 4548 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
PARTICIPATION IN SUBMISSION OF A GRANT
REQUEST FOR PROJECT DESIGNATED AS SERIOUS
HABITUAL OFFENDERS PROGRAM." By unanimous
consent, full reading of Resolution Number
4548 was waived.
O. Adopted Resolution Number 4549 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE/EMPLOYEE DISHONESTY
INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CITY OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES UNDER ONE MASTER BOND." By
unanimous consent, full reading of
Resolution Number 4549 was waived.
P.
Received and filed the staff report
regarding the 'Final Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact - Backfilling Decommissioned UH-1
Helicopters With C-12 Fixed-Wing Planes,
Armed Forces Reserve Center, Los Alamitos',
and instructed staff to forward same to the
Environmental Quality Control Board and
Planning Commission for information purposes.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
I
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - BIXBY RANCH DEVELOPMENT
The City Manager commenced his report regarding this item by
stating that contrary to recent published reports there has
been no deal reached on the disposition of the Bixby
property. For consideration is a Memorandum of Understanding.
He offered that getting to this point basically started with
the Bixby Company withdrawal of the forty-five acre mixed use
residential/commercial project and the notification to the
City in the Spring of 1996 of their intent to sell, for
commercial development, the three separate parcels that total
twenty-three acres, zoned commercial, the tennis club site,
the parcel at the southerly corner of Lampson and Seal Beach
Boulevard, and an approximate ten acre parcel north of
Lampson, where development could take place by means of over-
the-counter approval provided the proposed use meets the
requirements of the Zoning Code, however a conditional use
permit would be required for restaurant, hotel, or the
Marriott Senior Care facility use. When the intent to
demolish and develop the tennis site was learned, various
residents of College Park East were called to come together
7-14-97
in an attempt to reach some compromise solution that would
satisfy the immediate objective to prevent the demolition and
development of that site, meetings were held for
approximately six months with the participants having varying
viewpoints, however an agreement was reached to present a
request to the Bixby Ranch Company via the City Manager I
inviting Bixby to present to the City a modified residential/
commercial mixed use project, yet a constraint built into
that concept was to keep the residential portion of the
project completely out of the seventy-eight acre site that
was previously leased to the AFRC. The Bixby Company
responded that they could design a mixed use project
different from the previous proposal however ~hey could
reduce but not stay completely out of the seventy-eight
acres. That concept did not gain a consensus from the
discussion group, and shortly thereafter Bixby announced they
had entered into contracts with Marriott, Extended Stay
America Hotels, and Arco for a service station and mini-mart,
those contracts between the land owner and the user set the
terms of sale for the tennis site and parcel at Lampson and
Seal Beach Boulevard, and at that point Bixby indicated their
intent to move forward as quickly as possible with their
applications to the City. The Council recognized that timing
was becoming critical and authorized the City Manager to
enter into some dialogue with Bixby with the basic question
being what would it take to preserve the tennis club site, it
was also conveyed to them that additional goals of the I
Council were to lock in the golf course use for a minimum of
thirty years, and to relocate all commercial development away -
from College Park East residential to the north across from
the Rossmoor Center, additionally, rather than have a default
development plan presented to the City in piecemeal fashion
without any quality control devices available to the City,
the desire was to have a planned development process with
some certainty as to what was planned to be developed on the
property, a final disposition of all of the Bixby property
holdings. In response to the question as to what would be
necessary to not demolish the tennis facility, the response
of ~ixby was not a proposal, development plan, or
application, rather a development concept with certain
basics, they agreed to downzone and dedicate the tennis club
property to the City, they would convert the ten acre
commercial triangle shaped site at the far north to a buffer
type use such as a church, small private school, or other low
impact use, the buffer between the commercial development and
the Rossmoor Highlands neighborhood, Bixby also said the
parameters would include consolidating three commercially
zoned sites or portions thereof into a twenty-three acre site I
on Seal Beach Boulevard north of St. Cloud Drive, possibly a
driving range on the recreation golf zoned parcel just below
that area, also agreed to secure the golf course use through
a recorded covenant for a minimum of thirty years. For any
of this to occur Bixby would need to submit a formal
application subject to public review and comment, an
environmental review, etc., to consider such application the
City would.incur costs to process therefore it is desirable
to have an agreement in place for the reimbursement of such
costs. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding would not
~ r
7-14-97
I
bind the City to any decisions specific to any development,
and rather than the tennis facility being demolished and
allowing Bixby to submit a development application, it
indicates that the City is receptive to the submittal of a
development proposal that would meet the basic goals as
described. The Manager emphasized that there has never been
a totally residential plan, the mixed use plan proposed homes
as well as substantial commercial, without the commercial the
project would not have been financially feasible from the
City's standpoint, the mixed use plan withdrawn in November,
1995 proposed a one hundred eighty unit hotel, one hundred
twenty-five unit low/moderate income component, that in
addition to the ninety-eight single family homes, increasing
as well the commercial acreage at the corner of Lampson and
Seal Beach Boulevard. He emphasized that the Bixby Company
has made it clear to him and the City that they have no
intention of resubmitting a mixed use plan, a residential
component type plan, and Bixby has emphatically stated their
belief that a mixed use plan would not receive approval. The
Manager noted that the options at this point are 1) decline
to enter into the Memorandum of understanding, the document
that would reimburse City expenses, notification to Bixby
also that the City is not interested in further discussions
regarding the objectives, then await hearings to begin
tentatively in September regarding the Marriott project, with
an anticipation that applications would follow for the hotel
and Arco facility at the Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard
site, to then be followed by applications for the northerly
commercial property I 2) decline to enter into the MOU yet
notify Bixby that the City continues to be interested in
discussing ways to save the tennis court site and meet the
other objectives, to this Bixby has strongly expressed that
they need some indication early in the process that the City
wants them to submit an alternative development proposal once
again, some type of agreement that the City will at least
consider their concepts I 3) Modify the MOU as desiredl or 4)
enter into the Memorandum of Understanding as presented.
I
I
Councilmember Campbell said she has made the statement that
she would like the tennis court facility to come to the City
in the form of tennis courts or as a park as that area is the
doorstep to College Park East, she understands that as the
desire of the residents, however has asked how much the
people are willing to pay for it. She said this is an
attempt to save the tennis courts, and noted that one of the
things that came out of the discussion group was the idea of
swapping zoning, if the tennis facility were rezoned R/G,
then swap the commercial zoning on Seal Beach Boulevard,
seven acres each. Councilmember Campbell stated her desire
for as little development as possible, there are concerns
about traffic, keeping development off of Lampson. Avenue, if
there has to be development keep it on Seal Beach Boulevard,
Lampson and the Boulevard is not far enough away, it would
need to be further north as there is a problem with that
intersection and its integrity needs to be preserved, it was
also realized during the June, 1995, hearings before the
Planning Commission, subsequent to the January flooding, just
how critical that intersection is to the College Park
7-14-97
community, given there are only two ways into and out of that
area. She again pointed out that the MOU proposal is a means
of saving the tennis courts and places development as far
from the residential area as it can be, to which she
emphasized that this is not a project, merely ideas, noting
that anything proposed by Bixby will need to be considered by
the people of the College Park area. Councilman Brown noted
having had the opportunity to speak to people outside the
discussions relating to Bixby and found that there was
agreement on nothing but saving the tennis facility, that was
of prime importance to nearly all, the proposal under
consideration is an effort in response to requests from
College Park residents for assistance, the desire being to
save the tennis courts and the golf course use and with as
little traffic on Lampson as possible. Noting this effort to
save the tennis facility, the golf course and clubhouse,
Mayor Hastings expressed a concern as to how the City will
support it given the limited sources of revenue, the
alternative is to place some retail on Seal Beach Boulevard
to generate sales revenue to support the tennis club and
courts. She commended the efforts of Councilmember Brown, the
City Manager and City Attorney for discussing this issue with
Bixby representatives, and although Bixby does have control
of the commercially zoned parcels, this provides the City
some control over the property. Mayor Hastings asked that
people not look at this matter as a north/south issue,
rather, it must be looked at as a City as a whole and what is
best for everyone concerned. Councilmember Forsythe said she
believed the message from the College Park residents was to
keep Lampson a low traffic roadway, described as a country
drive, and by losing the tennis facility and with a more
intense development at Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson, it
was being lost. Councilmember Forsythe emphasized that with
the previous mixed use plan, the only way it was financially
feasible was with the commercial component, and under that
plan, development of the corner of the Boulevard and Lampson
went from 5 acres to 13.56, and looking back at that
footprint the traffic impact would have been worse than the
present Level F. She noted that Bixby is presently operating
the tennis facility in the red, they can not make it run at a
profit, thus to take money from the General Fund would be a
taking of monies from other areas of the community, there are
no other funds available, therefore there needs to be a
component of a plan that generates revenues for the recurring
debt that the tennis facility creates. Councilmember
Forsythe stated the MOU will allow discussions to take place,
the City Attorney has reviewed the document a number of
times, the MOU does not bind the City to anything, merely
allows discussions to find a means to maintain the
personality of College Park East. Councilmember Campbell
recalled the public forum held some weeks ago where people
were upset that the Council took no action, to which she
pointed out that Bixby has nothing before the City, people
asked that the Bixby plan be placed on the agenda, the City
can not force Bixby to make application, Bixby must do that,
however this is an attempt to save the tennis courts and have
a lower impact development.
I
I
I
7-14-97
I
The City Attorney offered that although this item is not a
public hearing the Council can allow public comments if
desired, also noted that there are some changes to be made to
the Memorandum of Understanding. It was the consensus of the
Council to postpone this item until later in the meeting
pending reproduction and distribution of copies of the MOU
for information of the public.
I
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1416 - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 97-1 - REAR YARD
SETBACKS - PERMITTED INTRUSIONS - RLD ZONE - PLANNING
DISTRICT 1
The Director of Development Services noted that this item had
been considered under public hearing on June 9th and 23rd
based on a recommendation of the Planning Commission to
modify the current encroachments at the roof level for
balconies and eve overhangs of a roof structure along the
Gold Coast. He explained that current Code allows a roof
level balcony to extend ten feet past the required setback as
an encroachment into the beach rear yard setback, also a two
foot roof overhang to encroach into the setback area, the
rear yard setback is ninety-six feet. He noted the
Commission recommended a change of Code to require both roof
level balconies and eves to extend only five feet past the
rear setback line, the Council held the public hearings, on
June 23rd the matter was referred back to the Commission in
accordance with the provisions of the Government Code for the
Commission to consider an option of requiring all of the
balconies that may exist on homes on the Gold Coast to reduce
their balconies from ten to five feet in consideration of a
roof overhang extension from the two feet currently allowed
to five if someone desired. The Commission considered the
referral on July 9th, provided a report back to Council
suggesting instead to allow any persons having a ten roof
balcony that encroaches into the setback area to keep the
pre-existing legally constructed roof balcony if they also
desired to construct a roof overhang to the five foot point.
The Director noted that there has not been staff available to
survey the entire Gold Coast area, however a review of
current active building permits in that area shows two
residential locations proposing construction of a ten foot
balcony into the rear yard setback yet at the second story,
not at the roof level, and in accordance with the Council
referral those would be required to be cut back to five feet
if the five foot roof overhang was applied for, the property
at 206 Ocean has indicated a desire for a five foot overhang,
when those plans were approved the five foot roof overhang
was marked off, the approval was for a two foot overhang, the
property at 104 Ocean has not proposed to expand the roof
overhang to five feet at this point, yet if they wanted to
change the overhang to five feet in the future that property
would be impacted. He pointed out that there are a number of
other properties along the Gold Coast that do have balconies
at the second floor level that project ten feet and again, if
in the future they desired to construct a five foot roof
overhang pursuant to the Council suggestion the balconies
would need to be reduced in size. Considerable staff time
was spent discussing with the City Attorney's office the
legal rights of the owners of those properties since they
I
7-14-97
were built in accordance with City standards, those standards
in place since about 1974 and allows the ten foot
encroachment into the setback, prior to that, between 1963
and 1974, the City standard allowed a structure to go eighty-
one feet into the setback in that the City standard was a
fifteen foot setback at the beachline, changed to ten feet in
1974 for an eighty-six foot clear area. The City Attorney had
concern with requiring pre-existing balconies to be reduced
in consideration of some future construction proposal,
instead possibly utilize an amortization period for a
specified period of time, and at that point the property
owner would be required to reduce the balcony based upon a
write-off of the cost of construction, the ten foot balcony
properties would fall within the legal nonconforming status.
The Director noted that the recommendation of the Commission
was that if there is no roof line balcony and a property owner
wishes a five foot overhang that can be done through an over
the counter building permit, yet if a property has a roof
balcony of more than five feet the Commission is recommending
that it be allowed to remain as a legally constructed
structure however becomes nonconforming and then require a
minor plan review for architectural compatibility of the new
roof overhang in conjunction with the roof level balcony.
The Director reviewed the options before the City Council as
1) concur with the current recommendation of the Planning
Commission, hold first reading of the Ordinance, allowing a
ten foot roof balcony to remain, if a five foot roof overhang
were desired that would require a minor plan review before
the Planning Commission; or 2) concur with the original
Commission recommendation, the Ordinance having had first
reading could be adopted, which allows a roof overhang at
five feet and require any balcony to be reduced to five feet
at the roof level; or 3) require roof level and other
balconies to be reduced to the five foot point, and in that
case an amortization schedule would need to be developed.
I
I
To questions posed by Councilman Brown relating to the most
recent recommendation of the Planning Commission, the
Director confirmed that a five foot roof overhang would be
allowed where it is currently two feet at the roof level, a
ten foot roof balcony is currently allowed and at this point
also requires a minor plan review as established in 1974.
Councilman Fulton expressed concern with persons having to
cut back something that exists, yet concern also with one
property having the benefit of something that someone else
can not, however if one wants a five foot roof overhang then
it seems the balconies should be reduced to five feet. Mayor
Hastings summarized that if someone has a ten foot balcony
and a two foot overhang and if adopted they could extend the
overhang to five feet, however when building a new residence
only a five foot balcony would be allowed if a five foot
overhang is desired, yet for those having existing ten foot
balconies a five foot overhang could be granted without
requiring reduction of the existing balcony, the dilemma
seems to be to keep those that are presently building from
being the beneficiary of this amendment in order to have a
five foot overhang. The Director clarified that for a
property that does not have a ten foot balcony, if the
I
7-14-97
amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission is
approved, future construction would only allow a five foot
balcony and a five foot roof overhang, a ten foot balcony
would no longer be allowed unless requested by variance
before the Planning Commission.
I
I
Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, claimed that the Planning
Commission held a hearing on this issue without notice, this
meeting as well, the discussion refers to decks and
balconies, which he deemed to be different. He stated that
on the Gold Coast a property can be built from the street
back so far, leaving ninety-six feet to the rear property
line on the beach, the ninety-six feet can be encroached by
ten feet with a balcony on ground level, also if there is a
second story, and the provision has been for years that there
can be a two foot roof overhang, which is an architectural
amenity, over the balcony, when talking about a roof balcony
that appears to be something like the covered roof accesses
where one can go up another story with a viewing platform,
statements have been made for both five and ten foot
balconies, yet if it is ten feet that nullifies a two foot
and five foot overhang. He charged that the staff report is
confusing and the Council is likewise confused, therefore
something as confused as this issue can not be voted on,
should be sent back to the Planning Commission with proper
notice to allow people to attend and know exactly what is
being considered. As an adjacent neighbor, Mr. Stark said
that last fall steel was brought into 206 Ocean by crane and
mounted, outside his bedroom window there is a five foot
piece of steel therefore they must have known they were
getting a five foot overhang. He said 206 Ocean does not
have a roof balcony to his knowledge as yet, and since the
Gold Cost has lived for years with the two foot overhang,
there is no valid reason for coming out five feet other than
to spoil someones view, his view, and the neighbor's view, so
next to his property there is a large, ugly roof overhang
sticking out with bad taste green tile or cement blocks for
the neighbors to look at for time and memorial, and now they
are asking the Council to agree with what they put in place
last fall, that is why he considers this greased. Mr. Stark
said he was at a loss as to what he can do, does this mean he
can now have a ten foot roof balcony and then build a
stairway leading up to another story, or, can he keep his ten
foot deck, bring the roof out another three feet and spoil
someone elses view, or, if the roof is brought out to five
feet, three more feet than what exists, does that mean the
balcony must be cut back, no it is said, but you may have a
ten foot roof balcony, which then nullifies the five foot
roof overhang, which becomes a ten foot roof overhang, again
impacting everyones view. What has been mentioned is a
primary view, can it be believed the pier is not a primary
view but the oil island is. Mr. Stark said the staff report
should be refined to understandable language so that people
on the Gold Coast will know what they can and can not do,
again suggesting that this item be sent back to the
Commission for public hearing of something understandable.
Mr. Brent Sears, stated as an architect he worked on the
plans for 206 Ocean, attended both Planning Commission
I
7-14-97
hearings on this matter, noted that ten foot balconies have
been allowed since 1974 at what appears to be any level of
the home, however the discussion at the Planning Commission
revolved around the roof treatment. Mr. Sears showed a
diagram of a typical Gold Coast residence, typically two
stories from an Ocean Avenue view point, three stories from
the beach view, currently allowed is a ten foot balcony at
two levels with an option of a two foot overhang or a ten
foot roof balcony, however in his opinion the roof balcony of
ten feet is unattractive and would negate any two or five
foot overhang, staff agreed with that assessment, the ZTA
attempts to reduce the roof balcony to five feet. Mr. Sears
noted that a five foot overhang had been requested initially
for 206 Ocean, not entirely across the building but only over
a portion of the deck at the lower level, this intended to
block sunlight during certain months of the year. He
mentioned that somehow the discussion by the Commission was
if one wished a five foot overhang then an existing ten foot
deck would be required to be cut back to five feet, then
question was posed that what if someone had a roof level deck
and wanted a five foot overhang, in other words a top level
of half deck and half roof on the same level. Mr. Sears
stated his belief that none of the Gold Coast properties have
a roof balcony at the present time yet there are several
homes that have a roof overhang of much greater than five
feet, in his opinion it would not be preferred to have a ten
foot overhang of any kind at the upper, roof level, rather,
it is felt a five foot projection for either a deck or roof
would be reasonable, also it is not felt there is any view
concern. Staff confirmed that the ordinance having had first
reading accomplishes the intent of restricting an overhang,
balcony or deck to five feet at the roof level. The Mayor
requested clarification that the ordinance proposed would
preclude the construction of a ten foot balcony at the roof
level, yet would allow those having ten foot balconies I decks
at the first or second level to remain and the addition of a
five foot roof overhang. Staff clarified either a five foot
overhang or balcony at the roof level. Councilman Brown
questioned allowing a balcony of any size at the roof level,
rather, just an overhang.
I
I
Councilman Brown moved to concur with the original
recommendation of the Planning Commission, determining to not
recommend any provisions regarding legal, pre-existing
balcony structures, to allow a five foot overhang and not
allow a balcony or deck at the roof level, and that the
introduction and first reading of revised Ordinance Number
1416 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 28 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE
SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING SECTION 28-401(2)(b) TO
AMEND THE PERMITTED INTRUSIONS INTO REAR YARD SETBACKS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RLD) ZONE OF PLANNING DISTRICT I
(ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 97-1)" be approved. The Mayor requested
clarification again that this action would preclude the
construction of any roof balcony. In response, it was
confirmed that this would preclude a balcony at roof level,
however a deck could be build on the roof up to the ninety-
six foot setback and with a five foot roof overhang.
I
7-14-97
I
Councilman Fulton asked if the 206 Ocean home had been
designed with a five foot overhang initially. Mr. Sears
responded that it had prior to coming to the City, the City
in turn advised that only a two foot overhang was allowed,
that having been an error on his part. Councilmember
Forsythe seconded the motion.
I
The City Attorney advised that given the change, the
ordinance would receive first reading. He clarified that it
is not necessary to be referred back to the Planning
Commission, and in regard to public comments relating to
public hearings, he explained that Government Code Section
65857 provides that when hearings have been held by the
Planning Commission, then comes before the Council and there
are issues discussed that were not before the Commission, the
item may be referred back to the Commission without the
requirement for additional public hearing, with regard to
this item it is understood that the Commission did receive
further testimony, it is believed that the two persons who
spoke were present when the Council referred the item back.
To a question of the Mayor, the Director explained that the
amendment of Option One, as stated by Councilman Brown, would
basically allow only a five foot roof projection, no balcony
would be allowed at the roof level. To a member of the
audience it was again explained that a balcony would be
allowed only at the first and second story, none at the roof
level, only a roof overhang would be allowed at the roof
line, however a roof deck would be allowed only to the
ninety-six foot setback, not into the setback, a roof deck
requiring a minor plan review.
Vote on the motion:
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
The City Attorney stated that a revised ordinance would be
prepared for second reading consistent with the motion.
I
CONTINUED ITEM - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - BIXBY RANCH
DEVELOPMENT
The City Attorney noted that the City Manager had reviewed
the Recitals of the Memorandum of Understanding earlier, the
four items listed under Item C of the Recitals reflect what
Bixby has said they would like to develop on their property.
He confirmed that this is not a committal on the part of the
City rather this is what the Bixby Company intends to submit
an application for. The Attorney explained that Item C-1
reflects a buffer area for a church or similar use on the
northerly most fifteen acres, Item C-2 is the commercial
retail development of twenty-three acres north of Lampson,
for further clarification identified as north of 'the
prolongation of St. Cloud', Item C-3 would be recreational
uses south of that extension, ten acres for which zoning is
in place, an example would be a driving range or similar use,
and Item C-4 would be the southeasterly portion of the
property at the corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson, a
commercial complex to include a hotel and a senior citizen
7-14-97
assisted living housing structure, the acreage for that
unspecified at this time. The Attorney explained further
that the four items listed under Item 0 are the offers to
mitigate the potential impacts, a three acre greenbelt in the
same area as the commercial complex of hotel and senior
housing structure, a zone change for the tennis club property
from the existing commercial designation to Recreational/Golf
and offer to dedicate to the City the tennis club facility,
and a covenant that would ensure the reconfigured golf course
site or open space would be assured for at least thirty
years. He noted the following Recitals reflect the City
procedures to process the Bixby applications in a timely
fashion and conduct public hearings in goof faith. As to the
provisions of the Agreement, commencing on page three,
Section 1) Bixby will submit an application for a development
agreement, Section 2) as part of its application Bixby will
offer to (a) dedicate a three acre greenbelt at Seal Beach
Boulevard and Lampson, (b) apply for zone change for the
Tennis Club to Recreational/ Golf, (c) dedicate Tennis Club
facility and underlying land to City at no cost to City, (d)
covenants to maintain golf course as such or open space
continuously for thirty years, (e) provide approximately one
thousand square feet of space for a police substation at a
location on the east side of Seal Beach Boulevard, and (f)
Bixby to fund all legally required mitigation measures. To
Item (e), the substation provision, the words "...or, if
acceptable to the City, at the Old Ranch Tennis Club..." were
deleted, the Council emphasizing that it is to be located
only within the commercial area north of Lampson. Section 3,
as well as other language, is key to the City, that this
proposal is "subject to change...is contingent upon having
public hearings and environmental review", this the first
paragraph that states the City is not making any commitments,
assuring that Bixby will get no vested rights to develop any
of its property through this agreement; Section 4 is a
standard cooperation provision; Section 5, it was noted that
a draft EIR had previously been prepared however was not
certified by the City, Bixby withdrew its application before
the City had the opportunity to act on that EIR, with that
there were studies and data that a consultant and staff can
review to determine if any of that information may be useful
to this project, recognizing that this project is different
from the prior, there will be further environmental review,
in the third line of Section 5 the word "shall" is changed to
"may" and "utilized" is changed to "considered"; Section 6
requires the City to process the applications in a timely
fashion and conduct public hearings in good faith, this the
only commitment on the part of the City; Section 7 provides
that by entering into this MOU the City is not agreeing to
any particular approvals or entitlements; Section 8 requires
Bixby to reimburse the City for all costs and expenses
incurred in connection with this Agreement and its
applications, a statement again that by entering into the MOU
the City is not obligating itself to approve any proposed
development, no vested rights or entitlements to Bixby;
Section 9 requires Bixby to indemnify the City against any
losses; Section 10 is standard and states that Bixby can not
assign this Agreement to another without the City's prior
I
I
I
7-14-97
I
written consent, Section 11 is also standard and provides
means for either party to cure defaults in the implementation
of the MOU, Section 12 allows Bixby the opportunity to
terminate this Agreement based upon the grounds set forth,
and Sections 13 through 17 are standard provisions for all
contracts.
I
Mr. Chapirson, College Park East, asked if his Council
representative was for this proposal. Councilmember Campbell
responded that if this will save the tennis courts and keep
commercial to the north end of Seal Beach Boulevard, yes,
this affords a means to keep commercial as far away from
College Park East as possible. Mr. Chapirson said he was
very much for residential, it should be realized that with
the MOU consideration of thirty-one acres or all residential
is being omitted, thus approving a commercial plan.
Councilmember Campbell responded that the City is approving
nothing, this is what Bixby has said they will submit, and
her prior affirmative response was to the MOU, not a plan.
Mayor Hastings stated everyone must understand that
regardless of what the mixed use plan was before it is no
longer viable, Bixby does not want to build houses and
informed the City Manager that the mixed use was not a
discussable option, the MOU reflects what Bixby has proposed,
the City is desirous of low impact, non-invasive development
in that area, to also have some control over their commercial
property where there is currently none, and noted that
whatever Bixby presents to the City must go through the
public hearing process. Councilman Brown said he believed
there are two options, let the tennis facility go and allow
it to be developed with whatever, or attempt to put a plan
together to save the tennis site, relocate commercial as far
away from College Park East as possible, and enhance Lampson
as much as possible. Mr. Chapirson expressed his desire to
save the tennis courts, this would do that however eliminates
any residential and is basically commercial. The Mayor noted
that with the mixed use plan there were many acres of
commercial/retail, this limits the commercial/retail at Seal
Beach Boulevard and Lampson, less intense on that parcel than
the mixed use proposal. Mr. Chapirson said his understanding
of the mixed use plan was ten and a half acres of commercial
and thirty plus acres of residential. Councilmember Campbell
suggested that he read the Planning Commission minutes of
June, 1995 for the public's comments to the mixed use plan.
Dr. David Rosenman, 8th Street, said he was pleased to hear a
clarification of how the previous studies/information would
be recycled, and inquired as to where the hotel and assisted
living center would fall in relation to the noise contours.
Councilmember Campbell said the contours were moved to over
College Park East. Councilman Brown acknowledged that there
may be a number of problems that will require mitigation, and
the noise issue could end up before the Airport Land Use
Commission. A lady from the audience made reference to the
various parcels identified in the MOU to which she inquired
if that is all of the Bixby property or are there other
sites. Council indicated their interest in the question, and
the City Manager stated one of the goals of the discussion
group was to identify and include all parcels in a final
I
7-14-97
disposition. The Mayor again assured of the Council desire
to keep the commercial development north of St. Cloud. It
was clarified that the parcel at Seal Beach Boulevard and
Lampson is proposed for a hotel and senior care facility, the
original mixed use plan was thirteen and one half acres of
commercial, in the most recent discussions Bixby proposed
development on a total of ten acres on that site, however by
the MOU the City is making no commitment. A question was
posed as to the disposition of the trees along the Boulevard.
Mr. Kime, College Park East, inquired of the City Engineer as
to how much land is going to be required at the corner of
Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson for future street widening
and how much land will be required to be taken from Lampson.
At the request of the Mayor, the City Attorney responded that
until it is known what the Bixby application will be it is
not known how much the City can require, State law requires
that there be a nexus between the development and impacts
thereof, the degree of street improvements, impact fees, etc.
is not known at this time. Mr. Kime disputed the answer, his
understanding is that a certain amount is being budgeted to
redesign that intersection, again asking how much land will
be required to widen the Boulevard bridge, the Boulevard, and
Lampson. The City Attorney noted that the question of Mr.
Kime was different as rephrased, yet clarified that nothing
is being required from Bixby until the specifics of their
application is known. The City Engineer responded that a
project is planned for sometime in the future to widen the
bridge overpass, there are Measure M monies to do that,
confirmed the correctness of the statement by the City
Attorney that there needs to be a nexus between the
development and what would be required at the intersection of
the Boulevard and Lampson, that to be determined during the
development process, as an example, access to that southerly
corner parcel may require adjustment of the width of Lampson,
may require turn pockets, at this point there is no way of
predicting what may be needed, the desire is three lanes in
each direction on Seal Beach Boulevard sometime in the
future, whether that would be a requirement of this project
remains to be seen, possibly the City would need to acquire
property at some point to accomplish that.
I
I
It was the consensus of the Council to postpone adjournment
to Closed Session until 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Kime referred to what he said is called an access or exit
ramp, to which he said he has no doubt that will need to be
widened, and when the roadways are widened, asked if anyone
has an idea how much land that will require. The City
Manager stated there are no answers to such questions at this
time. The Director of Development Services confirmed that
such questions can not be answered until an application is
submitted, until a traffic study has been done, until there
is an analysis, there will be hearings before the
Environmental Quality Control Board, Planning Commission,
Council, at this time there is no way of guessing what will
be proposed for the property or what the impacts will be.
Councilmember Forsythe said to her thinking there are two
options inasmuch as Bixby has laid the ground rules, either
I
7-14-97
.
I
the City does not agree to meet and discuss alternatives for
development and Bixby goes forward with what is called the
default plan where they can demolish the tennis court
facilities, put in place the Marriott care facility, five
acres at Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson that can be
developed immediately, another ten acres on the north site,
Bixby can do that if the City does not approve the MOU, if
the MOU is approved that tells Bixby that the City would like
to resolve the situation, go through the public hearing
process and through that process come up with uses for the
property in the form of a comprehensive development plan,
that instead of taking what Bixby proposes. The questions
being asked at this point can not be answered because some of
this may occur, none of this may occur, it is all unknown,
the MOU merely lets Bixby know that the City is willing to
consider an alternative development plan that is in the best
interest of that neighborhood and at that point all persons
can participate in the public hearing process. Councilmember
Campbell noted that Marriott has submitted an application for
a CUP however that has not yet come before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Carl Irwin, Hill area, said assuming that
discussions with Bixby will go forward, requested that a
business plan be developed at the same time for the tennis
site so that there can be a realistic understanding as to
what it is going to cost to operate. Councilmember Forsythe
said she understands the tennis facility has a significant
recurring loss at the present, that is the reason a retail
sales tax generating component is being looked at, she for
one is not willing to subsidize another recreational facility
with general funds, it can not be afforded, and if there is
not such a component that facility will likely not happen.
Mr. Irwin said his understanding is that the tennis facility
is about a $150,000 annual loss, there is need for $130,000
to repair the McGaugh pool, suggesting that there be an
evaluation of the impact of the tennis facility cost.
Council concurred with the suggestion, mentioning too the
need to institute repairs to other recreation facilities, the
recurring debt for the library, etc. Mr. Walt Horn, College
Park East, a participant in the discussion group, an effort
that was not successful, however commended the Manager for
taking the comments and concerns from those meetings and
compiling those into something that Bixby may wish to
present. Mr. Horn said ~e would personally be interested in
trading a couple more acres from the area indicated to be
twenty-three acres of commercial, expand that a little south
and east for twenty-five acres which would reduce the number
of acres required at the corner for roadway expansion, also
reduce the amount of commercial that will impact College Park
East. He encouraged the Council to enter into the MOU. Mr.
Ray Ybaban, College Park East, said the notion of an MOU is
good, the MOU embodies the arrival of something, the notion
that the City and Bixby are now discussing possibilities is
good, that is favorable. The MOU concept is fine and there
will likely be some support for it, however in looking at the
map reflecting the MOU concept he said he found it difficult
to understand the difference between this and the mixed use
plan, people will question why this is felt to be better,
opposition to it can be anticipated as there is more
I
I
7-14-97
commercial and it is not as appealing as the mixed use. The
one component that the Council is interested in is the
financial impact on the City, the citizens are too. He said
he too would support the preparation of a business plan, also
believes there should be some residential for consideration,
he is not convinced that it does not pencil out economically.
Councilman Brown responded that Bixby has said they will not
propose a plan with mixed use. Mayor Hastings reminded that
it was Bixby who withdrew their plan, confirmed the statement
of Councilman Brown that Bixby does not want to entertain any
residential development, they have indicated what they would
like to do, the City has indicated what it can and can not
accept, and confirmed that there is more commercial/retail on
the Boulevard yet far less at Lampson and Seal Beach
Boulevard than there would have been with the mixed use plan.
Mr. Ybaban claimed that there are people who believe that
Bixby has been essentially shut down in their discussions
with regard to a mixed use plan as a result of signals from
the Manager and Council that mixed use or residential is not
wanted, therefore if the MOU is going to be accepted as a
discussion document, residential has to be on the table
initially, then taken off the table as a consequence of
having no support. Councilman Brown responded that if mixed
use is included there will be no MOU, that had been made
quite clear. Councilmember Campbell noted that the Stanley
Hoffman financial analysis of the mixed use plan showed that
commercial completely carried the residential use,
residential makes no money, that was with the thirteen acres
of commercial at the corner, this plan is less. The City
Manager reported that Bixby specifically said that if this
MOU is not approved they would not submit a mixed use plan,
rather, they would move forward as quickly as possible with
the Marriott care facility and other projects for which they
are under contract, and ironically some of the people who
were previously supporters of the mixed use plan are likely
to become adversaries when the Marriott CUP application is
considered for the tennis club site. A member of the
audience asked why the City is so opposed to presenting the
mixed use plan to Bixby again. Councilmember Forsythe noted
that this meeting could go on indefinitely debating a plan
that does not exist, the intent is to determine if the desire
is that the City enter into discussions with Bixby to explore
a better development plan, or not approve the MOU and allow
Bixby to go forward with demolition of the tennis site. Ms.
Dorothy Whyte, College Park East, noted that her calculation
of the acreage set forth in the MOU is approximately forty-
eight plus. Ms. Whyte said she has heard that the Lucky
Market is contemplating moving to the easterly side of Seal
Beach Boulevard, questioned the northerly buffer area of
fifteen acres for a church or similar use which brings no
revenue, rather traffic and problems. She claimed that what
is being discussed is the default plan, the City is now doing
what CPE residents requested for years, to talk to landowner,
Bixby, asked why housing is going to solve the financial
problems on the Hellman Ranch, stated the driving range will
also bring traffic and although thought to be a recreation
use it is actually commercial, asked if the senior care
facility and hotel would eliminate the two golf course holes
I
I
I
7-14-97
I
at the corner site. Ms. Whyte read Recital Section D-2
relating to the rezoning and dedication of the tennis club to
the City, noted that in the mixed use plan this was to be a
recreation facility, it will now be just a tennis club. The
Manager noted that if the MOU is approved the City will then
move forward with a fiscal analysis, needs assessment, etc.
Ms. Whyte said she understood that many of the questions are
difficult to answer, that is why a forum was requested a
number of times to allow public input, the residents have
been excluded while the City holds discussions. She asked
why action is necessary at this meeting. Members of the
Council explained that questions can not be answered until a
proposal is submitted, a proposal may be developed through
discussions as a result of the MOU, thereafter public input
will be received under public hearings, the MOU speaks in
terms of generality, not specifics, also this provides the
City with some control as to what goes on the Bixby property.
Ms. Audrey Kime, College Park East, asked if it is necessary
to include the thirty year revestment clause in the MOU; the
response was that Bixby wants an assurance that their
donation will be used for what the intent was, not converted
to another use, commercial as an example, or leased, sold, or
whatever. Ms. Kime said the MOU seems to be an attempt to
discuss with Bixby the possibilities for the area and comes
as close to meeting the needs of everyone who has expressed
their preferences over the years, including the tennis club,
even though it will not satisfy everyone. Ms. John Unrath,
College Park East, basically said that the MOU is bogged down
with detail, too many pages, just sign it, start discussions
with Bixby, and move on. A lady from College Park East
expressed her amazement and amusement with the discussions
that have taken place during the past year. She said the MOU
seems to say that negotiations are already under way, the
various use options talked about for months, yet the Council
representative states she knows nothing about any plans, the
MOU may be a start, and she does not believe that Bixby has
totally put aside a mixed use plan, they likely have no other
choice, so they will do what they can do to develop their
land. The lady noted the newspaper account that the District
Four Councilperson, with the help of the City Attorney, would
be preparing a point by point reply to the recall effort,
which she said her research has shown that the City Attorney
can not be involved in a political dispute. Councilmember
Campbell responded that the City Attorney did not write her
reply, she did, that was an error of the newspaper.
With the understanding that the City is not locked into
anything by doing so, Councilman Brown moved to approve and
enter into the Memorandum of Understanding to negotiate with
the Bixby Ranch Company. Councilmember Campbell seconded the
motion. The City Attorney again read the changes to the
document as set forth in Recital C-2, Agreement Sections
2(e), and 5. The changes were accepted and included by the
maker of the motion and the second.
I
I
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
7-14-97
CLOSED SESSION
By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to the Closed
Session of the 6:30 adjourned meeting at 10:12 p.m. The
Council reconvened at 10:25 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling
the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council
had met in Closed Session to discuss items two and three as
listed on the 6:30 p.m. meeting agenda, with respect to item
two, public employee employment pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957 with regard to the Chief of Police, the Council
authorized the City Manager to enter into agreement, said
agreement now a public record, with regard to item three, a
conference with the City's labor negotiator pursuant to
Government Code Section 54957.6 relating to Management/Mid-
Management Employees, the item was discussed, no action was
taken.
I
The 6:30 p.m. adjourned meeting was adjourned and the regular
meeting was reconvened at 10:27 p.m.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM "K" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4546 - COMPENSATION PLAN -
MANAGEMENT I MID-MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES
Hastings moved, second by Brown, to adopt Resolution Number
4546 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING A COMPENSATION PLAN, INCLUDING
SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT AND MID-MANAGEMENT
EMPLOYEES AND REPEALING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE SPECIFIED, ALL
RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH." By unanimous consent,
full reading of Resolution Number 4546 was waived.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING - NEGATIVE DECLARATION 97-1 - BEACH
REPLENISHMENT PROJECT
Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider
Negative Declaration 97-1 relating to the Beach Replenishment
Project. The City Clerk certified that the notice of public
hearing had been advertised as required by law and that no
public comments were received. There being no comments from
the audience, Mayor Hastings declared the public hearing
closed.
Brown moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Negative
Declaration 97-1 and instruct staff to file the appropriate
documentation with the County of Orange, and to proceed with
further investigations and negotiations with the appropriate
agencies and contractors.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4550 - COMPREHENSIVE FEE
SCHEDULE
Mayor Hastings declared the public hearing open to consider
the Comprehensive Fee Schedule. The City Clerk certified
7-14-97
I
that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as
required by law and reported no communications received. The
City Manager presented the staff report of the Director of
Administrative Services, noted there have been no changes to
the fee schedule since 1992, during that period the Consumer
Price Index has increased, in the aggregate, 12.29 percent,
therefore the General Fund is subsidizing these fees for
goods and services. It was noted these are not taxes subject
to Proposition 218, rather fees for goods and services.
There being no comments from the audience, Mayor Hastings
declared the public hearing closed.
Fulton moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Resolution Number
4550 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING THE RATES AND AMOUNTS OF FEES AND
CHARGES FOR GOODS, SERVICES AND FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND SUPERSEDING INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS OF
RESOLUTIONS 4195, 4234, 4250, 4442, 4494, 4499, 4519." By
unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4550 was
waived.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
I
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
The City Manager reported rece1v1ng a letter from the County
Librarian advising that the funding allocation for the Mary
Wilson Library has been increased to $211,605 from $187,192
last year, and staff recommendation would be that those
monies be used for a fifth day of operation each week, thus
relieving the Friends of their fund raising efforts. Mayor
Hastings praised that action, suggesting that the focus can
now move towards the refurbishing of the McGaugh pool through
public donations.
I
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Hastings declared Oral Communications open. Mr.
Charles Antos, Seal Beach, made reference to earlier comments
relating to the Brown Act, noted the reasons given for the
holding of a Closed Session were litigation, personnel items,
and real estate, to which he said the real estate exception
does not apply to just any property. The City Attorney
concurred, real estate can be discussed if the intent is to
acquire property, in this case, as identified on the agenda,
it is consideration of accepting the tennis court property.
Mr. Gordon Shanks, 215 Surf Place, announced the July 19th
reopening of the Red Car Museum by the Historical Society,
and invited all to attend. There being no further comments,
Mayor Hastings declared Oral Communications closed.
COUNCIL CONCERNS
Councilmember Campbell submitted her response to the Notice
of Intent to Recall to the City Clerk, noting that copies
were also available for the press. Mayor Hastings urged
people from all areas of the community to purchase a ticket
for the July 16th boating fund raiser in support of the
Police Department Senior Volunteers.
7-14-97 / 7-28-97
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council to
adjourn until Monday, July 28th at 6:30 p.m. to meet in
Closed Session if deemed necessary. The meeting was
adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:42 p.m.
Approved:
I
Attest:
ayor
~a~7>>J
City Clerk
Seal Beach, California
July 28, 1997
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
adjourned session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling
the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
I
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Hastings
Counci1members Brown, Campbell, Forsythe,
Fulton
Absent: None
Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Fulton moved, second by Brown, to approve the order of the
agenda as presented.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
I
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communications.
CLOSED SESSION
The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in
Closed Session to discuss the three items identified on the
agenda, a conference with the City's labor negotiator
