Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1997-12-08 11-24-97 / 12-8-97 I World could in fact pullout of the cable company right now, get cable service at a lesser rate than from Comcast, five companies have approached Leisure World proposing to serve the entire area with a dish, an approximate charge of $10 per unit for eighty-six channels, yet Leisure World has chosen to support the City by using Comcast. The Mayor inquired as to the affect on PEG funds if Leisure World were to drop Comcast, to which Councilman Brown noted that the contract is based on so many homes, if one-third of those were gone there would be an impact. It was pointed out that Leisure World is under separate contract with Comcast, and again, if Comcast does not perform people will be opting for satellite dishes. Mayor Hastings made reference to the recent Readers Digest article entitled 'How To Master Your Moods' in which local resident Dr. Robert Thayer is quoted several times. She also announced her recent attendance at a celebration at the Rossmoor Elementary School in recognition of the School having been named a National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. Councilmember Campbell mentioned that of over eighty thousand schools that apply for that award, two hundred eighty five receive it, and it is understood that the High School and McAuliff have made application. At this time of Thanksgiving, Mayor Hastings expressed her thankfulness for the right of freedom of speech. I ADJOURNMENT Councilman Brown suggested that the meeting be adjourned to 6:00 p.m. on December 8th to allow a period for Assemblyman Baugh to address the City Council. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned until December 8th at 6:00 p.m. as requested, and to meet in Closed Session thereafter if deemed necessary. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 8:31 p.m. a Attest: t;y Clerk and the City of Approved: &:1 I Seal Beach, California December 8, 1997 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Hastings Councilmembers Brown, Forsythe, Fulton Absent: Councilmember Campbell 12-8-97 Mrs. Campbell joined the meeting at 6:08 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Brown moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Campbell Motion carried I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications presented. , DISCUSSION - CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT I REGULATORY ORDINANCE ~ Mr. Mahrer, Cable Foundat~on member, questioned the purpose of this meeting inasmuch ~s a motion at the last meeting was to refer the cable issue ~ack to the negotiating committee, the response was that it was felt that all members of the Council should be present 'to hear the discussion, this session to further review :and make comments for consideration relating to the agreement :and ordinance. It was confirmed that all members of the cable review committee were present at this session with the ~xception of Councilmember Campbell at this time, to which the Mayor requested a consensus of the Council that this session Iwill serve as the meeting of the committee. It was pointed out that this session may alleviate some of the conqerns or questions of members of the Council, this type of session one of the few ways all of the Council can meet without ~iolating the Brown Act. Mayor Hastings moved that this session serve as the committee meeting as was authorized:by the City Council. Councilmember Forsythe seconded the mot~on. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings , None campbell Motion carried It was noted that former Foundation member Mr. Arnold was I . present, as was Mr. Anninos and Mr. Mahrer, current members, as well as members of thelaudience. Mr. Mahrer again objected to this session, ,also claimed that the Cable Foundation has not been given the opportunity to discuss the cable franchise as a body! I Councilmember Campbell artived at 6:08 p.m. I ; For the record, Mr. Arnold conveyed appreciation for the comments of councilmember!Forsythe at a prior Council meeting where it was said it is the community who is paying for public access and PEG fee~, yet unfortunately no one listened. Mr. Arnold said his understanding is that the City will receive five percent[of the franchise fee, PEG will get $75,000 per year, $150,000, the first and last years, to be paid up-front, he would urge a memorandum of understanding or some other form of docume~t that provides assurance that the $75,000, plus the $150,000, and the current bank balance of about $200,000, are retairted for PEG. The Manager countered that those monies can only be used for that purpose under federal law, to which Mr.:Arnold requested some written document to reinforce theluse of those monies. Mr. Anninos mentioned that Comcast islsupposed to be paying $75,000 annually under the existirtg contract for PEG support, actually due in March how~ver due to the month to month extension of the current ~ontract the payments were to be I 12-8-97 I divided up in some manner, yet during discussion between the Foundation and the Comcast representative that individual would not comment on the issue, indicating that it would be brought up during the negotiation process, the opinion of the Foundation was that that was not a matter of negotiation rather what the current contract requires, yet it is understood that only $56,250 has been paid, the balance still due. The Manager stated a letter could be prepared specifying that the $75,000 is designated for PEG programming, to which he explained that those funds are paid to the City, the Council then determines how they are allocated. In response, comment was made that Council approval has not been the policy in the past. The Manager noted that considerations by the Council have been further clarified, in the past the Council has opted to make the appointments to the Foundation, that Board then makes recommendations to the Council as how the monies should be spent, the proposal is that the Foundation develop some long range plans with regard to PEG, a studio facility, a budget, etc. He confirmed that cable monies are required to be kept in a separate fund. Mention was made that a concern of the Foundation is also to maintain their autonomy, the Board is uncertain at this point as to how the City will choose to delegate the funds, of concern is will the Foundation receive $75,000, there is nothing to say that future staff or Council could choose to retain and use those funds for other purposes, also, given the manner in which the Foundation was initially established the Foundation and any PEG productions are a separate entity, relieving the City of any potential liability, a concern as well that at some point in the future the cable company, in submitting the $75,000 to the City, could determine that to be in addition to the five percent, then retract the $75,000, and an offer was made to provide the City with any paperwork or budget information desired. I I Mr. Friedman, an associate of the cable consultant, pointed out that the agreement is between the City and Comcast, there are no other parties to the agreement, that does not say that a separate agreement could not be negotiated, explained page B-5 which states that the $75,000 shall be provided for PEG access support, if used for other purposes the terms of the contract would be broken, under federal law if the money is used for non-PEG access support, the company could not stop paying the amount however could credit it against franchise fees, technically, the way federal law is written, if used for anything other than PEG access equipment it could be credited against franchise fees, yet in this case the company agreed to waive its rights, even though there is one legal action on the issue, in effect they will not object if the monies are used for non-capital expenditures and they will not credit same against the franchise fees. In his opinion, Mr. Friedman described how the money can be used, how it will be obtained, how the City allocates the money is a different issue and is not a matter for the agreement between the City and Comcast. It was noted that the agreement provides for the City Council to determine how much money will be forwarded to the Foundation annually, to which the response was that the Council could likewise allocate an amount for another PEG purpose. Comment was made that if a budget is desired from the Foundation it is necessary to have knowledge of the amount of funding forthcoming, there may be considerable expenses upcoming in the future, to the references to $200,000 in the bank it was stated that is likened to an endowment, those monies are on deposit to earn interest as annual expenditures are generally more than the 12-8-97 $75,000. Mr. Arnold made reference to the prov~s~on of the agreement that provides th~ City with three channels~ yet in turn it states that if the, three channels are not be~ng used then Comcast can use them,'to which he stated his feeling that it is imperative that: the City own and operate a channel twenty-four hours a day, that is not provided in the contract. Mr. Friedman made reference to page B-4 and stated , it reiterates federal law,igrantor and grantee shall establish rules and proced~res for scheduling in accordance with Section 611 of the Cable Communication policy Act of 1984, etc. Mr. Arnold sai~ he then misinterpreted the language, however expressed his opinion that a headend or cable casting facility fori at least one channel should be moved and established withl a new character generator in half of the existing constructe~ area of the breezeway, which is now an office, that space originally designed for an editing bay for the Foundation then given back to the City in good faith for storage at the t~me the Foundation enclosed the breezeway for the facilit~ upstairs. Mr. Friedman responded that what is requested is ponsistent with the provisions of the agreement which provi~es funds that can be allocated to obtain a character genera~or so there will be a two-way connection. Mr. Arnold a~ked if the cable company would provide a modulator, inst~lled upstairs, for the City or PEG to operate a channel twenty-four hours ~ day. Mr. Friedman again responded that City ;Hall is a priority location, the way the agreement is writ~en is that the City will provide its own modulator, the Ci~y Manager added that it was decided to obtain the money then determine how it will be spent. To this issue reference was ~ade to the final amendments to the franchise agreement, pageIB-3, governmental, educational, access channels, Mr. Anninos suggested that the words "up to" be deleted and revised tolread "upon the effective date of this agreement grantee sh~ll continue to make three video channels available exclus~vely for PEG access use", and the subsequent Section B-4, "upon completion of the system rebuild the 760 MHz chann~l capacity, grantor may request and grantee shall be providedla total of one additional channel for PEG access use." Mr. !Friedman said he believed the thinking is a contradiction, it says these channels, meaning the three channels provid~d, shall be dedicated for the term of the franchise renewal provided the grantee shall utilize any portions of these channels any time they are not scheduled for PEG access Jse, that again is a reiteration of federal law, in turn, if there were character generated programs twenty-four hour~ a day then there would be no time when it is not scheduled for PEG access use. Question was raised with regard to emergencies. Mr. Arnold suggested the City construct a headend, Inot what the cable company has, staff it, and use it thirty minutes a day, his concern is where the headend will be! Emergency broadcast is provided in Section 4.4 and is a federal mandate. Question raised also if the City has a channel for exclusive use, would the . I. c~ty then have to battle to put someth1ng on that channel, to that, it was alleged that!City Council meetings have been preempted. Nothing will guarantee that there will not be a program switch no matter the location of the headend. with reference to B-4 and B-5,iMr. Arnold suggested that the words "good faith" be deleted as they are meaningless. Mr. Arnold stated that the future is:an imperative as an opportunity for the city, that because the City has not utilized PEG, the , City must help the Founda~ion, take charge, try to build its own studio facility, possibly a site behind the Police Department, let the variobs departments/functions use it, as an example, questioned the City's experience with workers I I I 12-8-97 I comp claims, the City's own facility would allow the opportunity for anyone in Orange County to come to the facility and tape a keynote speaker for staff development, make copies, and provide them to other agencies, also, the Board must be expanded, appoint a police representative, a staff representative, develop a real, viable PEG Board, not just appointees of the City Council. It was clarified that the City has first rights to the access channel, also to the comments of Mr. Arnold, staff stated the intent is that they be the next step. Mr. Arnold said for the past fifteen years he has observed the City sit back and not utilize the PEG opportunity, urged that the City look at the alternatives and opportunities to save money, that requires an investment in the future and a look long-range. Mr. Arnold requested clarification as to whether any monies from the franchise in Leisure World goes to PEG, the amount or percentage. The consultant said he believed it is included in the $75,000. The question of Mr. Arnold was then the differing rate schedules for Leisure World versus the remainder of the City, his desire would be to see a check or the company records, to which Councilman Brown acknowledged that the Leisure World rate is less per month, the lower rate the result of a single billing. To this discussion, Mr. Anninos spoke in support of establishing an office of telecommunications, subscribers paying their monthly bill to the City as is done with the water bills. The Mayor explained that that would be unacceptable as the City does not want to be in the business of bill collection, an independent agency could be an alternative. It was noted however that the savings could be substantial. Councilmember Forsythe expressed concern with awarding a ten year contract to a cable company where there is no assurance that they are going to perform any better than they have during the past fifteen years, it is an antiquated system, old equipment, etc. Councilman Brown said the company is in a mode of competition, it is that competition that will cause them to upgrade and improve their performance, if they do not, they will no longer be in business. There were further critical comments as to the past performance of Comcast Cable, countered that it is believed that the agreement and ordinance as written provide for future assurances and system upgrade by June, 1998. Comment was also made that Comcast should first be required to fulfill their obligations under the existing contract, suggested too that if the rates were lowered by about $15 that could be some guarantee that subscribers would remain with Comcast, possibly a survey to determine if other cities act as a sole billing source for their cable, the response to that being that no other city does. Comparison was made to the Buena Park contract where the system was built first, monies were then not forthcoming, the opposite is true for Seal Beach, in fact the Seal Beach system is currently in the process of being rebuilt, to that, complaint was made that the Public Works Department needed to close down the work by the company for lack of permits, incorrect trenching, asphalt repair of sidewalks, no submittal of plans, etc. The consultant confirmed that their services are to assist the City with its renewal of the cable franchise contract, that does not include monitoring of the company's construction, to that, question was raised that if the situation with the company is as bad as reported, why would the City wish to renew its contract. The consultant explained that negotiations have been proceeding under Section 66 of the 1984 Cable Act, generally known as the renewal procedures, the informal process, copies of those guidelines provided the Council some time back, which includes negotiation, an I I 12-8-97 attempt to come to agreement on terms, which he said the terms have basically been ~greed upon. Under the formal procedure the cable company is requested to present a best and final offer which the City can then either accept or reject for anyone of four! reasons established by federal law, which are quite specific, and to his knowledge none of those reasons exist in this case, the City could be placed in I the position of being forc~d to renew the franchise, which could be part of their proposal if the agreement does not go forward as negotiated at this point, in other words the company has indicated thatl if anything is changed from what has been negotiated they intend to proceed with the formal process, therefore the $751,000, connection of public buildings in addition to the schools, etc. will be off the table and the company will~ come back with a counter proposal that will fulfill the minikum requirements under federal law. The consultant made referepce to the provisions for non- renewal, the cable operator has substantially complied with the material terms of the ~xisting franchise within applicable law, the law r~quires that there be a record of the failure to comply wit~ the existing franchise, they must be given the opportunity ~o cure, that there be a continued and repeated pattern of ndn-compliance before this applies, to his knowledge no such ~ecord exists in this City, the second relates to quality pf the operator's service including signal quality, response to consumer complaints, billing practices, but without regard to the mix or quality of cable services or that other sei:vices provided over the system has been reasonable in light qf community needs, again there must be a documented history o~ formal actions indicating non- compliance, failure to comply, and continued non-compliance, I there is no such record, rtext is whether the operator has the financial, legal, or techrtical ability to provide the services, facilities, and!equipment as set forth in the operators proposal, in this case that would be difficult to argue, lastly is whether the operator's proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable related needs and interests, taking into ac~ount the cost of meeting such needs and interests. The consultant explained that a great deal of time was spent discussing ,I those issues, what has come out of the negotiating committee and is now before the Council, believed to be reasonable, if the Council feels it is not reasonable the cable company has indicated they will pull back everything that is ort the table, will most likely move into the formal process, the $75,000 could then become as low as $20,000,.the burden woJld then be placed on the Council, if the renewal is denied because it was believed the proposal was not reasonable or for I another reason, proof of reasonable costs given the community needs and interests, the City would then end up in a situation of litigation should the renewal be denied, and noted thatlthe City can only deny on those four reasons. To the statement that it is not denial if a contract is extended on almonth to month basis, the consultant pointed out th~t that can only be done if both I parties agree, the franch~se is not exclusive, another company can make application to the City at any time, under federal law it must be cortsidered, under renewal pursuant to I federal law the process for the Comcast renewal must be completed, inCluding judicial review before the City can accept competitors for th$ Comcast franchise, a second, third or more competitor can bel accepted at any time. He emphasized that there is ~o history of non-compliance with this franchise, a suggestion therefore that a separate review board be established acco~plished by means of an addendum to the ordinance, with refer$nce made to such board in the City I 12-8-97 I of Santa Ana. The Mayor noted that suggestions being made are apart from and not applicable to the contract under consideration, an action is timely, and called for a commitment on the part of the Council to meet with the Foundation regarding their budget, etc. in the future. The consultant made reference to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which states that no State or franchising authority may prohibit, condition, or restrict a cable companys use of any type of subscriber equipment or any transmission technology. Comment claimed that the contractual agreement is hollow, the guarantee to upgrade is stated 'as appropriate', the service is not good now yet the City is looking at committing to another ten years of service that is no better. Mention was made that Comcast is providing the studio for three years however if another location is found during that period the City will receive monetary assistance in a like amount for the balance of the three years, and requested that that be specifically spelled out. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Council to meet once again to discuss this matter before the end of the year, and chose Thursday, December 11th at 5:30 p.m. for such meeting. This meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. Attest: clerk I Approved: Seal Beach, California December 8, 1997 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:08 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 I Absent: None Also present: Mr Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Badum, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Chief Sellers, Police Department 12-8-97 Captain Maiten, police Department Mrs. Beard, I Recreation and Parks Director Mr. Dorsey,:Assistant to the City Manager Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA I A member of the audience requested Items "0, L, M, and P" removed from the Consent C~lendar, a member of the audience was advised that he could ~peak to Item "Q" under Oral Communications, Councilmember Campbell requested Items "En and "H" removed from the cbnsent Calendar, and councilmember Forsythe requested Item "Fr' removed. Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve the order of the agenda as revised pursuant to request. ! I Brown, camp~ell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried I AYES: NOES: PRESENTATION - TWENTY yEARI SERVICE AWARDS Chief Sellers presented Se~l Beach commemorative tile plaques to Officer Castagna and Sergeant Zanone in recognition of their twenty years of ser~ice to this City. Officer Castagna and Sergeant Zanone accep~ed with appreciation. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS , Mayor Hastings declared O~al Communications open. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, made Ireference to the proposed adoption of Ordinance Number 1419. I He stated the intent does not require property owners tq comply with building codes, the ordinance allows Planning Icommission approval of requests for structures of up to twent~-nine feet tall being built to the property line while houses in the area are limited to twenty- five feet in height, it provides no means to prevent further skyward construction once I decks are permitted, precedent suggests that decks, rega~dless of height, can be enclosed to the full height allowed fqr houses. He spoke of the potential for constructiori of living space under a deck, the lack of regulations to require the inspection of concrete footings, criticized the qrdinance for not requiring compliance with the Building Code, rather, that the Planning Commission yield to the whims of the homeowner. Mr. Clewley asked that Ordinance 1419!be tabled, that the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of ZTA 96-1 be dismissed by reason of insufficient grounds artd that an enforcement action be undertaken with regard toiillegal structures. Ms. Carla Watson, Catalina Avenue, made reference to past support of the city to ensure safe c6nditions for the residents, examples being sand for the beach, the groin, water quality, flood control, etc., along the same line of thinking children have been given the opportunity for low cost swim lessons at the McGaugh School pool facility. Ms. Watson appealed to all residents, especially tho~e who have had the advantage of property tax savings for a number of years, to donate to the Save Our Pool fund raising effort for the refurbishment of the Seal Beach pool and tne water safety of children, the goal being $125,000. Mr.!Ace Yeam made note of the on going rhetoric in College Park East primarily related to a mixed use plan or a commercial plan, to which he requested the Council place an advisory!measure on the March 24th election ballot to allow the people their choice of plans, the most popular vote would then bting about a close to that issue. Ouestion was raised as tolwhat impact that would have on the Bixby MOU, also, a comment was made that preference would be to seek the input of voters of the entire city. Mr. Yeam I I I 12-8-97 I countered that there is no impact on other areas of the City, it would be an advisory question only, opinions of those in the neighborhoods that would be mostly affected by the development. With regard to the Bixby MOU, the City Attorney advised that the document would need to be reviewed, it would be necessary to seek input from Bixby, also, if the Council were desirous of considering such measure the issue of presenting a ballot question to just one district would need to be reviewed, as well as the time frame to do so for March 24th as set forth by the Elections Code. Dr. David Rosenman, 8th Street, extended seasons greetings to the Council and staff. To the request for an advisory measure, Dr. Rosenman stated his belief that if the measure were submitted to only one area of the community the other districts would be upset, and he does not appreciate those who would fragment the community. Dr. Rosenman said he does not understand how the mixed use plan would ever have been approved if people are desirous of saving the golf course, tennis courts, swimming pool, etc. because it does not pencil out, he has yet to hear numbers to the contrary except for the commercial plan that makes financial sense. There being no further comments, Mayor Hastings declared Oral Communications closed. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "B" thru "p" Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except for Items "D, E, F, H, L, M, and P", removed for separate consideration. B. Waived 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. I C. Approved regular demands numbered 17838 through 17994 in the amount of $1,209,743.11, payroll demands numbered 24840 through 25014 in the amount of $258,084.54, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. G. Adopted Resolution Number 4593 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM IN COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4593 was waived. I I. Bids were received until December 1, 1997, 10:00 a.m. for Project Number 675, 1997/98 Concrete Maintenance Repair, at which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: Nobest, Incorporated Ranco Corporation Damon Construction Sample Job Bid Comparison Amount $ 14,321.25 16,350.00 17,110.00 12-8-97 J. K. N. O. AYES: NOES: Awarded the bid to the lowest responsible , bidder, Nobest, Incorporated, in the amount of $80,000, with the possibility of up to three years extension ~pon mutual consent, and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. , Authorized the p*rchase of a 1998 right-hand drive Subaru from Irvine Subaru by the Police Department to bel used as a parking enforcement vehicle for the total capital outlay amount of , $19,106.00. , I , Received and fil~d the staff report relating to a proposed Ma~ine Corps Reserve Center at the Seal Beach Weapons Support Facility, and instructed staff; to forward same to the Planning Commiss~on, Environmental Quality Control Board, and the Archaeological Advisory Committ~e for information purposes. , Approved the specifications for Marina Tennis Court Rehabilitation, authorized a budget amendment' in the amount of $10,000 for same, and authorized staff to initiate the public contr~ct bidding process. (Res. Bids were receiv.ed for the purchase of one (1) one ton, four by four truck for the Public Works Be~ch Crew as follows: 4595) . I I Newport Au~o Center , $23,327.87 , Awarded the bid Jto the sole bidder, Newport Auto Center, in ,the amount of $23,327.87 for the purchas~ of one (1) one ton, four by four truck. I Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None I Motion carried I ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "D" - RESOLUTION NU~ER 4592 - DECLARING SUPPORT - HELLMAN RANCH DEVELOPMENT 'PLAN Resolution Number 4592 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF/SEAL BEACH DECLARING SUPPORT OF THE HELLMAN RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4592 was waived. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, notedla comment within the Resolution that the Hellman Developm~nt Plan received unanimous approvals at all levels of local government, to which she stated her understanding that the EQCB did not approve the Plan. The Director of De~elopment Services clarified that the Environmental Quality!control Board does not vote on the project, rather, that Boafd provides a recommendation as to the adequacy of the EIR, in this case the recommendation was a vote of three to two detlaring the adequacy of the EIR, the proposed Resolution makes I reference to the approvals of the project, that is by the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. Corbin questioned 1.8iacres of Redevelopment Agency land that she claimed was giver away, said Hill residents may not be aware of the impacts of a golf course, quality of life issues such as lights, alcoholic beverages, gambling, and questioned if taxes from the development will go to the I 12-8-97 I Agency or City. The Director of Development Services explained that the City did not give away any Agency property, the City approved a project which allows Adolfo Lopez Drive to be built across that portion of the property onto the Hellman land, the City and Agency retain ownership, it merely allows the roadway to be built across that parcel, the location at the end of Lopez Drive near the Animal Care Center. To the question of tax revenues, it was explained that monies generated from Agency property will go to the Agency, not the General Fund of the City, approximately fifteen or sixteen homes adjacent to the Hill area are within Agency boundaries, as is Gum Grove Park, about thirty-five percent of the golf course, a majority of the wetlands, any revenues generated from those properties must go to the Agency for Redevelopment Agency projects and twenty percent of that is required to be used for low and moderate income housing in accordance with State law. Ms. Corbin inquired about a pending legal action relating to the Hellman property, and was informed that it would be inappropriate to comment on that issue at this time pending its resolve. To recollection of a prior meeting where a speaker announced publicly that a legal action had been served on the City with regard to environmental issues, the Attorney advised that that issue has no affect on the Resolution under consideration. I Councilmember Forsythe read Resolution Number 4592 in full, pointed out that to have a development proposal go through the process with only a couple of negative comments is phenomenal, that greatly due to the involvement of the people in developing this proposed plan while addressing past concerns, the only contact with Coastal Commission at this point is by the people who have filed the legal action, that action based on environmental issues that have yet to be addressed. The Resolution conveys to the Coastal Commission that this community is in support of the nearly eighty percent open space development proposal, this is the only time that this City, with this property owner, is going to have the opportunity for such a proposal as the property owner is the only one that could afford to develop this plan. She explained that once the archaeological research commences, and should there be a significant finding, that will need to be addressed, of concern is that there is a legal action pending against the City and the Council that will use the financial resources that could otherwise be used to improve the property. Forsythe moved, second by Brown, to adopt Resolution Number 4592 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried I ITEM "E" - PROPOSED AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS - AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Councilmember Campbell noted this item relates to overflight zones and as an Airport Land Use Commissioner said she wished to make a statement, first reported having no financial interest in the Airport Land Use Commission. Councilmember Campbell noted recent press with regard to the move by the ALUC to include overflight zones in their AELUP, stated this will ultimately lead to real estate disclosure with regard to existing overflight zones, of concern is that this disclosure will lead to a decrease in the value of properties that lie under the overflight zones. She reported working for some 12-8-97 months to remove the 1994 excessive noise contours from the west end of College Park, with the move in the industry for full disclosure the westeriy portion of College Park land values will be adversely affected, in fact, the homes in the westerly portion could not have been built if these noise contours had been in place'at the time of construction. It is of concern that this important issue has been lost during the election campaign to try to bring back the mixed use plan, that plan or any pla~ of similar use will lock in the fate of her constituents, their property values will decrease if the excessive noise contours are not removed, and Bixby is aware that if these contouks are moved from over the homes back onto their land Bixby will not be able to develop their property. With regard to her position on the ALUC, stated her first allegiance is to the people of College Park East and the City of Seal Beach,. Councilmember Campbell said it appears that there are other cities that have concerns with regard to the ALUC extending its authority into aviation easements, research and de~elopment overflight areas, etc. The Mayor suggested that possibly this item should be held over for further study to allow the Council to provide its recommendation on the issue, to which Councilmember Campbell noted that the Director of Development Services has prepared a letter setting forth the points that would affect Seal Beach. The Manager clarified that given the information provided, in essence the ~etter states that the City can not support the amendments in 'their present form. I Brown moved, second by Fulton, to receive and file the staff report, authorize the Mayor to sign the response letter opposing the proposed overflight zones, and instructed staff to forward this item to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. Mr. Harold Norton, College Park East, read a communication he had prepared for presentation to the Council some years back that spoke of his past association and involvement with the Los Alamitos Air Station, a pilot there until active duty, returned in 1956 as an air traffic control officer, etc. It was suggested that Mr. Norton provide the Council with copies of his communication for historical purposes. I AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried ITEM "F" - SCOPING MEETINGS - ROUTE 22 FREEWAY IMPROVEMENTS For the purpose of public I information, Councilmember Forsythe reported the Orange County Transportation Authority and CalTrans are looking at m~ans to improve traffic flow on the 22 Freeway, most likely widening, and announced that there will be upcoming scoping ~essions regarding same, the closest will be in Los Alamitos oA December 11th. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to receive and file the staff report and instructed staff to forward same to the Environmental Quality Control Board and Planning Commission for information purposes. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried I , ITEM "H" - DRAFT EIR - MARINA SHORES - LONG BEACH Councilmember Forsythe no~ed this item relates to a proposed development north of the San Gabriel River bridge on Pacific Coast Highway, a property'that is thought to be a former chemical plant site, to which she stated that some of the mitigation measures offered to alleviate the traffic concerns 12-8-97 I affect Seal Beach such as removal of some turning lanes on Bolsa and Pacific Coast Highway. She recalled that when there was a similar threat from the south the City looked into what Laguna Beach had done to prevent losing turn pockets, etc., the concern is that this community does not want to widen Pacific Coast Highway through Seal Beach, and inquired if the Council had taken some past action to prevent this, possibly a requirement to have parking along both sides of Pacific Coast Highway, Coastal Commission public access requirement or similar thereto, to which she suggested that something similar be incorporated into this response letter. The Director of Development Services offered to research any past action and incorporate same. She noted this large development proposal is for a sizeable market, retail, a restaurant, and hardware facility across the street, this a concern in that this community is prudent in its development so as to not impact local residents, provide open space, yet there are impacts on this City from both sides. The Director of Development Services clarified that the EQCB has not reviewed the draft EIR, rather, the notice of preparation of a draft EIR, pointing out that the comment period on the draft ends December 26th and if the Council chooses to hold a second meeting in December this matter could then be reviewed by the EQCB. I Councilman Brown moved to approve the forwarding of the response letter with any additional information as requested by Councilmember Forsythe, if possible. Councilman Fulton seconded the motion. The Mayor requested that an argument be made to the comment of 'a market demand for the planned grocery store,' specifically given the number of existing large grocery facilities. The Director responded that an attachment to the letter requests a copy of the marketing report for review and preparation of comments regarding that proposed land use prior to their City taking any action on the project. Pointing out that there are only four entrance and exit points to Seal Beach, a member of the audience questioned how people would be able to get in or out of the community in the event of an emergency if massive development continues along these passageways that are relatively narrow. The Mayor requested that the impact on Marina Drive and the existing residential areas be looked at as well. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried I ITEM "L" - AGREEMENT EXTENSION - LURASCHI - KRENWINKLE HOUSE Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, stated her surprise to see that the Hellmans intended to pay $15,000 to move or refurbish the Krenwinkle house, and questioned being told that discussion of the disposition of this house has taken place for years. She suggested that a cost estimate be done with regard to the moving and operation of the house before it is considered. The Mayor explained that there have been past discussions as to possible uses for this historic dwelling, and by annual agreement with the Luraschi family the dwelling has been allowed to remain in tact until a decision has been reached, also, the Hellmans would like to relocate the house to the State Lands site, use it as a museum, there could possibly be meeting rooms, all open to the public. Councilmember Forsythe advised that as part of the Hellman Specific Plan proceedings the Krenwinkle house has been designated to be moved to the State Lands parcel, that part of the development agreement, the Hellmans agreed to fund the move, the Historical Society could possibly place some of their 12-8-97 materials there, etc. Ms. Corbin reiterated her request for a plan as to the use of th~ house and source of funds to operate it. The Mayor explained again that $40,000 of subdivision park fees have!been designated for the Krenwinkle House. At the conclusion of discussion, Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve Amendment Number Two of the Agreement with the Luraschi Family for the Krenwinkle House. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried I , ITEM "M" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4594 - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 308 OCEAN AVENUE - STEFFENSEN Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, requested an explanation of this item. The Director of Dev~lopment Services advised that the request is to combine two side-by-side parcels into a single lot to allow a large home to be built on the property along the Gold Coast, noting that the Planning Commission has approved the plans for the,home, this was a condition of their approval as one can not build across a property line. Brown moved, second by Fulton, to adopt Resolution Number , 4594 entitled "A RESOLUTIO~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL-97-4, FOR PORTIONS OF LOTS 3, 4, 17, 18, 5 AND 16 OF BLOCK 03 OF TRACT NO.2, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 3 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, ALSO KNOWN AS 308 OCEAN AVENUE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution'Number 4594 was waived. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried I ITEM "p" - RRM DESIGN GROUP - CONTRACT AMENDMENT Ms. Corbin, Seal Beach, sa~d upon reading the staff report it appears that the contract is to be amended to include additional services, thus bosts, the contract seeming to be . I . open ended, suggest~ng tha~ there should poss~bly be a maximum amount. It was explained that the additional services are on a time and material basis, if the City had a larger staff possibly some of the work could be accomplished in-house, there is not, therefore is contracted out. Ms. Corbin again suggested a limit to the amount. Hastings moved, second by Campbell, to approve the amendment to the RRM Design Group contract ;as presented. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1419 - ZTA 96-1 - DECK STRUCTURES The Director of Development Services stated the proposed Ordinance is felt to refl$ct the most recent direction of Council with regard to th~ issue of non-permitted decks on lots that abut the Gum Grove Park or Hellman Ranch, the ordinance also reflects tqe determination of the Planning Commission at the conclusion of their hearings. He explained that the ordinance would ~equire those properties that have a non-permitted existing deqk structure within the setback area to come before the Planning Commission for a minor plan review, the minor plan review is not a public hearing item however is a noticed matter to properties within one hundred feet of the subject prope~ty and if there are objections to recommended conditions the item would be removed from the Consent Calendar and a public hearing scheduled, if no objection to the conditiorts there would be no public hearing. He noted that for persons:who propose to build a new deck within the setback area, those would require the conditional I 12-8-97 I use permit process with notice to properties within three hundred feet of the subject property. To the understanding that some type of inspection of existing deck structures would be conducted, the Director confirmed that an inspection will be part of the minor plan review process, if there are major violations of Building Code provisions as far as stability of the structure, etc. the approval would be conditioned, estimated the number of such structures as probably less than ten or eleven, and that it will be the responsibility of the individual property owner to make application to the City, there is a twelve month period to submit an application for the minor plan review, if they do not the issue would then be discussed with the City Attorney. The City Attorney clarified that this issue has been the subject of public hearings in the past, the public has had considerable opportunity to comment, therefore no further hearings are required. Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve the introduction and first reading of Ordinance Number 1419 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING SECTION 28-401 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO CONDITIONALLY ALLOW DECK STRUCTURES IN REAR-YARD SETBACKS IN PROPERTIES IN THE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, DISTRICT V, WHICH ABUT THE HELLMAN RANCH OR GUM GROVE PARK." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 1419 was waived. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4596 - CIRCULATION ELEMENT - GENERAL PLAN - NEGATIVE DECLARATION 97-4 I AMENDMENT 97-2 - STREET VACATION Mayor Hastings declared the public hearing open to consider the Negative Declaration and Amendment 97-2 to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law and that there have been no communications received relating to this item. The Director of Development Services explained that the recommendation of the Planning Commission was to approve the subject Negative Declaration and the amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, the subject street right of way was dedicated to the City by Rockwell in 1985, a strip of land that has not been improved from the end of Alolfo Lopez Drive, north to Westminster Avenue just east of the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin, this roadway was included in the Circulation Element at the time the seven hundred seventy- three unit housing project for the Hellman property was under consideration and at that point the First Street extension to Lopez Drive was part of that process as was this extended roadway to Westminster Avenue. As part of the recent Hellman Ranch Specific Plan approval process, one of the amendments to the General Plan was to delete this roadway from the Circulation Element, this particular roadway had initially been missed from that implementation plan. He explained that this roadway deletion will make the Circulation Element consistent with the approved Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, the Resolution makes reference to the response to comments regarding the Negative Declaration, there were two, the Southern California Association of Governments indicating that the project is not regionally significant therefore they had no comment, the other from CalTrans, Orange County Region, indicating it does not impact their roadways therefore they had no concern. I 12-8-97 Mayor Hastings invited me~ers of the Council to speak to this item if desired. Mr. Reg Clewley, Catalina Avenue, inquired as to the value of this land to the City now or in the future, and why the City is giving it away. The Director again responded that this land was dedicated to the City, it has never been improved, if vacated the property would revert back to what is now Boeing) and in the future if Boeing were to develop their property further and would necessitate a public roadway, that wou1d'be considered at the time of considering their proposal, therefore it is not seen as losing any rights that the, City now has. There being no further comments, Mayor Hastings declared the public hearing closed. I I Fulton moved, second by Brown, to adopt Resolution Number 4596 entitled "A RESOLUTIO~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 97-4, ADOPTING AMENDMENT 97-2 TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE SEAL BEACH , GENERAL PLAN, AND APPROVING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF THE SUBJECT STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 4 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CPDE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA." By unanimous consent, full, reading of Resolution Number 4596 was waived. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried CITY MANAGER REPORTS The City Manager offered ~hat he and Mayor Hastings attended a presentation of the newIy formed West Orange County Judicial District in Westminster, had the opportunity to meet several of the judges, and reported that the arrangement that will be in effect as of January 1st is that small claims, civil claims, and criminal matters will be heard in Westminster for Seal Beach residents rather than in Santa Ana. Mayor Hastings noted there will be fourteen judges and two commissioners serving,' the Superior Court judges will be available and capable of hearing all cases thus the calendar can be moved along more qtiickly. It was also announced that Seal Beach has done well during the recent rains. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Hastings declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Reg Clewley, Catalina Avenue, :made reference to Resolution Number 4592 in Support of the Hellman Development Plan, stated the language was in error as the Environmental Quality Control Board and the Archaeologi~al Committee did not unanimously approve the Plan. Mayor Hastings explained that those committees act only as advisory bodies to the Planning Commission and City Counc+l, the City Attorney added that those committees consider'the environmental aspects only, they take no action on the merits of the project, the Resolution reflects that the bodies that considered the merits of the project vot$d unanimously in support, the EQCB merely makes a recommendation with regard to the EIR. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, made mention of hearing that police in Orange County, possibly throughout the State, are not ticketing people thatido not have insurance as that in turn creates an additional fee on cities, and asked if that issue was brought up when meeting with the judges of the new judicial district, or are1the cities in Orange County taking any action regarding this matter. The Manager responded that it was not discussed, however recent correspondence on the subject indicated that the issue has been resolved. Mr. Ken Kroft, Crestview Avenue, inquired about a notation in the I 12-8-97 I recent Recreation brochure that indicated construction on the Hellman property could possibly commence as early as this summer. The Mayor responded that the project will be going before the Coastal Commission in February. Mr. Kroft then surmised that that could be a projected schedule barring other delays. He noted the prior comments relating to the Krenwinkle house, the houses in the Redevelopment Agency area adjacent to Crestview whereby tax monies derived therefrom would need to be expended in the project area, possibly the Krenwinkle house on the State Lands property, to which he suggested that priorities might indicate that existing infrastructure should be dealt with first rather than new expenditures, noted that historically Gum Grove has not been well tended, in communications to the Council he has suggested that the entrance to Gum Grove should be enhanced, it is unknown where that stands, however it is hoped the Council would take his comments into consideration. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, made reference to the roadway vacation, said even if there is no title change that land could be purchased or there could be an exchange in consideration, just because ingress and egress is needed for trucks that does not mean the City needs to provide a roadway, that land should be sold or subdivided for houses. Ms. Corbin stated her understanding that Hellman owns Wells Fargo Bank, then asked why the City would fund their roads, she had assurances that would not be done, many people want to rid the City of redevelopment, loans to the Agency, etc. is why there are no curbs, it is understood too that Hellman would only be required to notify home buyers of one contingency, that would be a Mello Roos, yet said there are thirty hazardous zones that people should be aware of, the Newport-Inglewood will become active before the San Andreas, it is overdue, the epicenter was off of Newport when it destroyed Long Beach, when purchasing on the Hellman property the people need to be notified of all hazards, too, the City needs to be open about what is intended for the Krenwinkle house, the infrastructure needs to be taken care of before luxuries for the elite. She claimed that the water rate increase is not allowed under Prop 218, however was informed that the water rates merely reflect the pass through costs of the commodity, then Ms. Corbin read the Council the preamble to the Brown Act. Ms. Carla Watson, Catalina Avenue, offered that her attachment to the Old Yellow House is historical based upon her travels, that people save middle class homes, not just palatial estates, because those homes are history and say much for the town, in Seal Beach there are few wood frame houses left or reminders of the turn of the century, the Yellow House is indicative of what one family lived through, World War II. She stated it is important for children to remember, to know, to have a sense of touch of what it was like to live in this small community by the beach, it is to be seen if people will rally around this Yellow House in upcoming months, it was a touchstone of this community, said she does not speak on behalf of the elite, rather the citizens who lived in this town in a different time, when values were important, these people were willing to sacrifice their house for a cause that was bigger than they were. There being no further comments, Mayor Hastings declared Oral Communications closed. I I COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilman Fult9n praised the Holiday Parade that was held this past Friday, commended the organizers, participants, and attendees, and expressed thanks that the wet weather held off until the Parade was concluded. Councilmember Campbell noted a recent newspaper comment that there is a division in the 12-8-97 community, acknowledged that there is however people need to realize who has caused the:division, the recall supporters have purposely created an ~tmosphere of confusion and distrust as a result of false accusations, directed not only to her but the entire Council, citing as an example approval of the proposed Bixby project which is untrue. Another being questions as to why the Council approved the Bixby Memorandum of Understanding, that has'been answered a number of times, it clearly states that it approves no project, does not even endorse a project, it prov+des for reimbursement to the City, etc., to imply that the MO~ approved a development is a misleading political ploy. She said the Council is committed to ensure that the Bixby proposal is processed properly and all will have their opportunity to be heard. Councilmember Campbell announced that the Orange County Metropolitan Ballet Company, housed in a studio in the Rossmoor Center, will be performing the Nutcracker at Wilson High School in Long Beach on December 19, 20 and 21, a performance well done by the children as well as adults, her daughter one of the participants. Councilman Brown pointed out that the City managed to escape the first El Nino fury, to that a meeting will be held with County F~ood Control to discuss what, if, and what should be done in preparation for the next storm. He described the STATS store now open in the Rossmoor Center as a winter wonderland and suggested a visit by all. Councilmember Forsythe noted the trash and debris that washes down the rivers with every rain, cleanup becoming the responsibility of the City', to which she suggested that the refuse needs to be documented, possibly staff or members of the public could take photographs, if all of the beach cities were to compile such docum~ntation possibly some financial aid from the State could be forthcoming. Mayor Hastings recalled that the former Manager had sent letters to all cities upstream as far as Coyote Creek, it is uncertain whether any responses wer~ ever received, her suggestion would be to compile the actual cost of cleanup and sanitizing, then bill those upstream cities. Councilmember Forsythe reported also that there are improvements scheduled for Gum Grove, the Hellman Development Agreement provides that the Gum Grove Park G~oup will be given $25,000 for improvements, which includes new incremental plantings throughout, part of the asphalt parking area will be removed and landscaped, and a pictiic area will be developed that will overlook the golf course. : Councilmember Forsythe commended Mrs. Watson for addressing the Council in her logical and sensible way that is so clear and optimistic. Councilmember Campbell reported public inquiries about an area at Aster and Almond where a cellular tower was erected and there is no grass on the slope, to wh~ch she asked if Bixby will be planting the area, the cortcern is with erosion with the heavy rains. The Director of Pdblic Works responded that that is the responsibility of who~ever erected the cell tower, noted that the City is holding ~ $10,000 deposit which will not be released until the sloped:area is taken care of. Mayor Hastings read a letter frqm Mr. and Mrs. Ayres requesting that sign regulations be qeveloped for the City-owned building at the corner of:8th and Central, this in response to a sizeable real estatelsign presently on the building, such regulations would assure that present and future signs would be tasteful and in *eeping with the historic nature of the building and the surrounding neighborhood. The Director of Development Services explained that sign regulations relating to that property:currently exist, and suggested a report be forthcoming to the Council for review. I I I J 12-8-97 I 12-11-97 I ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the Council determined to adjourn the meeting until Thursday, December 11th at 5:30 p.m. for continued discussion of the Comcast franchise renewal, and further, that the regular meeting of December 22nd be canceled. The meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair with consent of the Council at 9:12 p.m. Attest: (1 C' Clerk and the City of \l ~\(~ g~ "5a~. '- r Ci ty Cler "--- clerk Approved: Seal Beach, California December 11, 1997 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 5:30 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. Dorsey, Assistant to the City Manager Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Brown moved, second by Hastings, 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. DISCUSSION - CABLE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1418 - FRANCHISE REGULATIONS Mayor Hastings requested that speakers limit their comments to five minutes, the intent of this meeting is primarily to bring forth new information for consideration, as this subject has been reviewed and discussed in depth a number of times.