HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1996-06-24
6-17-96 I 6-24-96
ADJOURNMENT _
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to
adjourn the meeting until Monday, June 24th at 5:30 p.m. for
further budget review and to meet in Closed Session if deemed
necessary. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 8:00
p.m.
I
Approved:
~'I_ /OZ.. J___L' -'.
Mayor .,
Attest:
Seal Beach, California
June 24, 1996
The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular I
adjourned session at 5:30 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the
meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Forsythe
Councilmembers Brown, Campbell, Fulton,
Hastings
Absent: None
Also present: Mr. Till, city Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to approve the order of the
agenda as revised to consider the personnel matter first, the
public employee performance evaluation of the City Manager
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, then the other items
identified on the agenda, anticipated litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(b), and a conference with the
city's labor negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6 with regard to Non-represented employees and the Orange
County Employees Association, and a budget discussion.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
I
CLOSED SESSION
The Mayor announced that the Council would meet in Closed
Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda. It was
the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn
to Closed Session at 5:35 p.m. The Council reconvened at 6:54
p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. The city
Attorney reported that the Council gave direction with regard to
I
I
I
I... . .
.,
I ..,' ." ~ t
6-24-96
the items identified on the agenda, an no other action was
taken.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council to
adjourn the meeting at 6:54 p.m.
lerk and ex-off
of Seal Beach
Attest:
Seal Beach, California
June 24, 1996
The city Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular
session at 7:05 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to
order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Forsythe
Councilmembers Brown, Campbell, Fulton,
Hastings
Absent: None
Also present: Mr. Till, city Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development
Services
Mr. Badum, City Engineer/Director of Public
Works
Mrs. Stoddard, Director of Administrative
Services
Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Hastings requested that Item "G" be removed from
the Consent Calendar for separate consideration, and Mayor
Forsythe requested that Item "P" as well as Item "G" be removed.
Brown moved, second by Hastings, to approve the order of the
agenda as revised.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
PRESENTATION.- McGAUGH SCHOOL STUDENT AWARDS
Councilman and Mrs. George Brown presented a certificate of
commendation to Kirsten Kutz for her essay that recently won the
American Legion Award in Orange County, the essay now being
forwarded to the State contest.-
6-24-96
Councilman and Mrs. Brown presented certificates of commendation
to Brandon Kou and Kayla Ewell for having been chosen citizens
of the Year for which they too received awards from the American
Legion.
Mayor Forsythe presented certificates of commendation to the 4th
and 5th grade students for their accomplishments in a recent I
speech contest: "
Stephanie Nichols and Joe Rokicki receiving 4th Grade first
place awards, the subject of their speeches on 'being an author
and doing things through the magic of books' and 'being a super
hero' respectively; 4th Grade second place awarded to Annaliese
Ross for 'being an author'; and 4th Grade third place awarded to
Scott Mendonza for 'being a famous author,' describing the kind
of humorous books he wrote; 5th Grade first place award to
Nicole Hammersla for 'being an architect, how she got there, and
how she designed her house'; 5th Grade second place was awarded
to Chera Tribble, and 5th Grade third place was awarded to Ciara
Vesely however they were not present. Congratulations was
extended to all of the award winners.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Bruce
stark, Seal Beach, commended Mayor Forsythe for her efforts
towards developing a use for the Hellman property, likewise
Councilman Brown for his expressed attempts to bring private
businesses to the City that would generate sales tax revenue,
however he expressed regret that it is the Los Altos shopping
area that has reportedly attracted Circuit City and Sears stores
that will generate considerable revenue to Long Beach, and
claimed that they could have located in Seal Beach along Seal I
Beach Boulevard with more than ample land remaining. He
criticized staff for not pursuing such businesses to locate in
this community. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe
declared Oral Communications closed.
APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Archaeoloaical Advisorv Committee
Ms. Genevieve Price and Dr. Gilbert Unatin, District Two
appointees, Ms. Joan Ellen Goldberg and Ms. Jean Frietz,
District Three appointees, Mr. Bruce Fitzpatrick and Ms. Moira
Hahn, District Four appointees, and Ms. Shirley Benjamin, a
District Five appointee, were recommended for reappointment to
the Archaeological Advisory Committee for the full term of one
year. The two District One and one District Five positions were
held over.
citizens ParticiDation Committee - HICD proiects
Councilmember Hastings reappointed Ms. Seretta Fielding as the
District One representative to the Citizens Participation
Committee; Councilman Brown reappointed Ms. Phyllis Solomon as
the District Two representative; Mayor Forsythe reappointed Ms.
Jane McCloud as the District Three representative; and
Councilmember Campbell nominated Mr. Richard Hauser, Fir Avenue, I
as the new District Four representative. All of the above
appointments are for the full term of four years, expiring July,
2000.
Parks and Recreation Commission
Councilmember Hastings reappointed Ms. Mary Johnson as the
District One representative to the Parks and Recreation
Commission, and Councilman Brown nominated Ms. Lisa ChattIer,
Harvard Lane, as the new District Two representative, both for
the full three year term expiring July, 1999. The "District Five
vacancy was held over until the next meeting.
I
I
I
.. .''''
6-24-96
Pro;ect Area Committee
Mayor Forsythe reappointed Ms. Carla Watson as the District
Three resident member and Mr. Joe Kalmick as the District Three
business member. The Council accepted the reappointment of Ms.
Laura Alioto by the Seal Beach Historical Society, Mr. Terry
Barton by the Friends of the Library, and Mr. Gordon Shanks by
the San Gabriel Parks Society. All reappointments are for the
full two year term expiring July, 1998.
Brown moved, second by Campbell, to accept and confirm all
appointments and reappointments to the above Boards and
commissions for the stated terms.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, FUlton, Hastings
None Motion carried
RESOLUTION NUMBER 4469 - MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS
Resolution Number 4469 was presented to the Council entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE MAYOR OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO VARIOUS BOARDS, AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS,
ASSIGNING CERTAIN DUTIES TO COUNCILMEMBERS AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NUMBER 4389." By unanimous consent, full reading of
Resolution Number 4469 was waived. Hastings moved, second by
Brown, to adopt Resolution Number 4469 as amended to reflect
Mayor Forsythe as the representative to the Sanitation District,
Councilman Brown as the alternate, Councilman Fulton as the
representative to the West Orange County Water Board, Councilman
Brown as the alternate, Councilmember Hastings as the
representative to the Southern California Association of
Governments, Mayor Forsythe as the alternate, Councilmember
Campbell as the representative to the Orange County Division of
the League of California Cities, Councilman Brown as the
alternate, and Councilman Fulton as the representative to the
Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency, Councilmember Campbell
as the alternate.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
It was noted that appointments to the Orange County Fire
Authority were not included in the annual Mayoral appointments
as the term for those positions is four years.
with regard to the current incompatibility of office scenario
for councilmembers to serve as representatives to the Vector
Control District, it was the consensus of the Council that
former Councilman Frank Laszlo continue to serve as the City'S
representative to the Vector Control District for at least the
remainder of the current term ending December, 1996.
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "c" thru "a"
Brown moved, second by Campbell, to approve the recommended
action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except
Items "G" and "P", removed for separate consideration.
C.
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.
,
D. Approved regular demands numbered 12784 .
through 12922 in the amount of $286,301.61,
6-24-96
payroll demands numbered 17279 through
17465 in the amount of $263,909.83, and
authorized warrants to be drawn on the
Treasury for same.
Received and filed the staff report relating
to Orange County Projections - 1996, a
comprehensive update of projects to the year
2020 for population, housing units and
employment in orange County, and instructed
staff to forward same to the Planning
Commission and Environmental Quality Control
Board for information purposes.
F. Received and filed the staff report regarding
the receipt of Responses to Comments from
the County of Orange reo "Recirculated 1996
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for
the Bolsa Chica Project", and instructed
staff to forward same to the Planning
Commission and Environmental Quality Control
Board for information purposes.
E.
I
H. Approved joining an Amicus Brief on behalf
of the city of Agoura Hills relating to cities'
abilities to regulate certain types of signs,
at no cost to the City of Seal Beach.
Received and filed the staff report regarding
the Measure M TOM (Transportation Demand
Managell!ent) Application - "Strategic Program
for EV Infrastructure Installation", instructed
staff to prepare additional status reports as
appropriate, and to forward this item to the
Environmental Quality Control Board and
Planning Commission for information purposes.
1.
I
J. Approved the renewal of the Agreement with
the County of Orange for Animal Control and
Shelter Services for the fiscal year term
commencing July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997,
and authorized the Mayor to execute same on
behalf of the city.
K. Approved the renewal of the Letter of Agreement
between the Grace Community Church and the City
of Seal Beach for the use of the 8th/Central
municipal parking lot for the six month term
commencing July 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996.
L. Accepted the resignation of Mr. Arden (Ace) Yeam
from the Archaeological Advisory Committee, a
District Five appointee, and declared the position
to be vacant.
Formally disbanded the Seal Beach Administration
Building Authority in that the debt service and
interest on the Revenue Bond Issue for the Seal
Administration Building was paid in full in
fiscal year 1994/1995.
N. Approved a City Council policy relating to priority
processing of electrical permits for installation
of electric vehicle charging equipment in a
residential structure within seventy-two hours
of permit application, received and filed the
staff report with regard to the AQMP Application
M.
I
I
I
I
'-1
'.: oJ,~..~ : ti. ...,
~:. . (' ,~ -'
,,' :..-:
6-24-96
O.
"Quick Charge Program Proposal", instructed staff
to prepare additional status reports as appropriate,
and to forward this item to the Environmental
Quality Control Board for information purposes.
Adopted Resolution Number 4481 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH AND THE ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES'
ASSOCIATION" and
adopted Resolution Number 4482 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN,
INCLUDING SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT,
CONFIDENTIAL AND NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES."
By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolutions
Numbered 4481 and 4482 was waived. '
Q.
Adopted Resolution Number 4483 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS
FOR ANNUAL LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS AND ORDERING
THE PREPARATION OF AN ENGINEER'S "REPORT" FOR
A STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT",
adopted Resolution Number 4484 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENGINEER's
"REPORT" FOR PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNUAL LEVY OF
ASSESSMENTS IN A STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT" and
adopted Resolution Number 4485 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION
TO PROVIDE FOR AN ANNUAL LEVY AND COLLECTION OF
ASSESSMENTS IN A STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR
PUBLIC HEARING." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolutions numbered 4483, 4484 and
4485 was waived.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM "G" - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1405 - DISPLAY STANDARDS - TEMPORARY
ADVERTISING BANNERS
Councilmember Hastings said her understanding was that 'the
period in between the display of a banner had been changed from
six days to fourteen days, Councilmember Campbell noted that
provision for a six month review was not set forth in the
Ordinance, and the prohibition of DayGlo colors was mentioned as
another change that had been made. The Director of Development
Services apologized in that the Ordinance in the agenda packet
was an incorrect version and suggested that second reading could
be held over until the next meeting. The city Attorney noted
that all of the provisions mentioned had been discussed at the
last meeting therefore the second reading of the Ordinance could
be held if desired.
Brown moved, second by Fulton, to hold second reading and adopt
Ordinance Number 1405 as amended 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
ARTICLE 18, ,SIGN PROVISIONS, TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS. FOR THE
DISPLAY OF TEMPORARY ADVERTISING BANNERS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES
6-24-96
(ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 95-1)." By unanimous consent,. full reading
of Ordinance Number 1405 was waived.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
ITEM "P" - MEASURE M - LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDING PROGRAM -
1996/97 ELIGIBILITY APPLICATION
Mayor Forsythe inquired as to the process to have a project
placed on the eligibility list. In the absence of the city
Engineer, the Director of Development Services responded that
such a process does exist through the Measure M Technical
Committee, a group comprised basically of city engineers
representing the cities in the County. Mayor Forsythe reported
that the intersection location is Pacific Coast Highway at 12th
Street/Balboa Drive where improvements need to be made by means
of freeway signals or whatever in view of the amount of cross
traffic, history of accidents, a fatality, etc. The Director
said he could see no reason why staff could not be requested to
add a project to the list, cost estimates will be compiled,
justification for the improvements will be prepared, however
noted that there could be a period of time before funding is
realized given the number of competing projects countywide.
Forsythe moved, second by Brown, to approve the updated Measure
M Capital Improvement Program, certify the City's updated
Pavement Management Plan, affirm the City's Maintenance of
Effort, and directed staff to submit an eligibility application
to OCTA by the June 30th, 1996 deadline in order to preserve the
city's funding eligibility status under the Measure M program.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - ORANGE COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
This item was continued to a future meeting as requested by
staff.
PUBLIC HEARING - MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN
Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider the
Main Street Specific Plan Revision, Negative Declaration 96-1,
General Plan Amendment 96-1A and 96-1B, Main Street Specific
Plan Revision 96-1, Zone Text Amendment 96-1 and Zone Change 96-
1, Background Studies - Main Street Specific Plan Report, and AB
1600 Report. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public
hearing was advertised as required by law, notices mailed as
well, that within the area of 5th Street to 12th Street from
Ocean to Pacific Coast Highway to residents, occupants, property
owners and merchants, and reported having received
communications from Joan McEvoy Storms in opposition to in-lieu
parking fees, from Renee Bursinger in opposition to a parking
structure, from Shirley Barash in opposition to a parking
structure, a petition from James Cook and others requesting one
hour parking from 6:00 a.m. until midnight on 8th Street between
Electric and Pacific Coast Highway, from Dorothy Nescher, owner
of Johns Food King Market, through her attorney, in opposition
to parking meters, from Bruce Van Natta and Carolyn and Eldon
Alexander in opposition to a parking structure, copies of which
have been provided the Council, and a communication received at
this meeting from Dr. and Mrs. Myron Varon also opposed to a
parking structure.
The Development Services Director presented the staff report,
noted that the Specific Plan process has been on-going for about
eighteen months with the involvement of the Council and Planning
Commission in joint study 'sessions, the consultant then
incorporating information from those sessions into a draft.
document that was felt represents the concerns of the-community,
I
I
I
. ,\ " .... '~..' . ..... ,I I,
... tL!I'(:.'-.~.J,..~~ Ii
. I' 'f ~ ~ " "1 I' .
6-24-96
I
public hearings were held before the Planning Commission with
their recommendations and final actions taken on April 17th. He
pointed out that a Specific Plan currently exists, adopted in
1976, which is basically a public works improvement plan, it
does not deal with appropriate land uses in the area, design
standards, off-street and on-street parking and how utilization
of that parking could be made more efficient and effective for
the community.
The Director commenced with a summary and visual presentation of
the Planning Commission recommendations and findings regarding
the Main Street Specific Plan. He explained the Negative
Declaration as a document required by the California
Environmental Quality Act to be prepared by a city when, after
evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of a project,
there has been a determination made that there is no substantial
evidence that approval of a project will have a significant
effect on the environment, noted there were very few comments
during the Planning Commission hearings as to the adequacy of
the environmental review, and the Commission recommended its
adoption in compliance with CEQA and the local CEQA Guidelines,
this action preliminary to further actions to approve or deny an
application thereafter. As to the General Plan Amendments,
Amendment 96-1A amends the Land Use Element and Amendment 96-1B
amends the Housing Element, the Planning Commission determined
that those proposed amendments 1) will not be detrimental to the
short term or long term goals of the City of Seal Beach, is in
the interest of the public health, safety and welfare; 2) will
amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to amend several
goals, policies and issues to reflect proposed revisions to the
current Main Street Specific Plan, and to have conformity
between the Land Use Element and the Specific Plan, amends the
Summary Table of Existing and Proposed Land Uses in Acres by
creating the Main Street Specific Plan Zone to reflect the
redesignation of areas currently classified as Service
Commercial, General Commercial and Public Land Use in this
designation; 3) will result in an increase of 14.8 acres of Main
Street Specific Plan Zone, and a decrease of 8.0 acres of
Service Commercial, 0.4 acres of General Commercial, and 6.4
acres of Public Land Use designated within the City; and 4) will
amend the Housing Element of the General Plan, Table 16, Seal
Beach Acreage by General Plan Land Use Designation to conform to
the proposed redesignations of land use categories for the Main
Street Specific Plan area. He explained further that the laws
in the State of California require conformity between the
various Elements of the General Plan and conformity between the
General Plan and its implementing documents which could be a
Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, etc., the Specific
plan Zone basically includes all of Main Street from Pacific
Coast Highway to Ocean Avenue, Eisenhower Park, the 8th and 10th
Street public beach parking lots, the 8th and Central lot, the
Fire Station and the City Hall property. He stated the Specific
Plan is meant to basically update to current desires of the city
the goals for the Main Street area, revises the provisions of
the Plan and provides means to implement whatever measures are
felt to be appropriate to maintain the character and identity of
Main Street, pointing out that one of the major focuses before
the Planning Commission and from the viewpoint of staff is that
there appears to be a general consensus that the current
condition of Main Street is desired to be preserved, not an
expansion of buildings, increase of size or heights, also, the
type of mix of land uses seems to be one that is likewise
generally desirable. The Director advised that the Planning
Commission determined the revisions to the Specific Plan to be
consistent with the General Plan as proposed to be amended.. He
noted that.the existing twenty year old Main Street.Specific
Plan does not.address some major issues such as incompatible.
I
I
6-24-96
land use, the relationship of residential and commercial uses,
the potential use of the beach parking lots and other off-street
parking potentials to alleviate some of the demand for
commercial parking on Main street, the proposed specific Plan
deals with those issues in greater depth, addresses the
appropriate land uses for the Main Street area, development and
sign standards, with the emphasis on defining the appropriate I
balance between resident serving and visitor serving commercial
uses, focusing on parking, parking management, and provision for
new spaces, as well as the establishment of an enforceable AB
1600 parking mitigation fee. He noted that, as recommended by
the Planning Commission, the proposal would place a numerical
cap on the number of off-premise licenses for alcoholic beverage
uses in the area, allowed only in conjunction with a market
which does currently exist, and allows for one additional
location for a total of two off-premise locations, the Plan does
not allow for the establishment of new liquor stores on the
Street, the two existing stores would be grandfathered so long
as they remain in operation, the hours of operation for the off-
premise establishments would be limited to 7:00 a.m. until 10:00
p.m. Sunday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. Friday,
Saturday and holidays, and a conditional use permit and public
hearing before the Planning Commission would be required to
establish such new use in the area. The two existing, licensed
bar operations would be allowed to remain as legal nonconforming
uses until such time as they may decide to close, and in that
case a new bar would not be allowed to be established at those
locations. The Plan establishes standard operating hours for
restaurants with alcohol uses in the Main street area, 7:00 a.m.
until 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, 7:00 a.am. until 11:00
p.m. Friday, Saturday and holidays, those hours applicable to
new uses, not existing establishments that may currently have I
different hours of operation, a new restaurant use would require
a conditional use permit, and explained that the Commission did
attempt to place a cap on the number of restaurant uses that
would be allowed on Main Street; however did not do so. All
references to a Business Improvement District have been deleted,
however Policies 16 and 17 encourages the local business
community to explore alternative ways to develop the processes
they would need to promote and improve their business
opportunities on a voluntary basis. The proposed Plan revises
the parking standards for various uses in the Main Street area
in an effort to encourage what is seen as resident serving
commercial uses to stay in the community, the hardware store,
the market, postoffice, theater, as examples, relaxing the
parking requirements thought to be one of the very few means of
doing that, however restaurant and visitor serving uses would
have a higher parking requirement. The Zone Text Amendment is
developed to be consistent with the Main Street Specific Plan,
the Amendment creates a new zone category, specifies the
permitted uses, which uses are subject to a conditional use
permit, provides for limitations on permitted uses, describes
general provisions for lot size, open space requirements, yards,
setbacks, etc., adds design provisions which no other zoning
category has, sets forth parking and loading space requirements
either by right or by conditional use permit, and screening I
provisions as is provided in all other zoning categories. By
creating that zoning category, amendments to other provisions of
the Code will be necessary, the sign code as an example to add
that category, a reference to the zone category in the non-
conforming section of the Code as well. The Zone Change
requires amendment of the zoning map, basically changes the
zoning of the property from service commercial, public land use,
etc. to the Specific Plan Zone, affecting about 14.8 acres,
again determined to be consistent with the Text Amendment, ....
Specific Plan and General Plan amendments as proposed. The
Director noted that considerable time was spent on the AB' 1600'
I
I
I
c.;.: ?~ ,:,... ~~ I~ ;,,: .Pi " .
.... r :" .
6-24-96
Report, largely based upon public testimony at the Commission
level, the basic purpose of AB 1600 is to develop a program for
which in-lieu parking fees can be determined for the Main street
Specific Plan in a manner that complies with the provisions of
State law, as new development will generate a parking demand and
in most cases, given the parking situations behind buildings,
there is an inability to meet that demand, and the imposition of
this program would generate a fee to the city on a per space
basis from the new use where additional spaces can not be
physically provided over what exists on the property. He
mentioned that the Planning Commission devoted considerable time
to develop options for programs and improvements for Council
consideration to be included in the Specific Plan as well as
funding mechanisms to cover the costs of the improvements. The
Director explained that the AB 1600 fee is derived by developing
two different programs, the first an improvement program with
estimates of cost, the second the revenue sources available to
meet the cost of the improvements, the shortage between the two
is the amount of money that would then be funded through the AB
1600 program. The Director described the various improvements
for consideration as 1) a ticket machine and equipment for the
beach lot, $60,000; 2) improved signage for the beach lots,
$10,000; 3) parking meters for the city-owned lots, Main Street
100 block and Electric at Main, $52,325; 4) beach lot amenities
and access, walkways, lighting, landscaping, restroom
facilities, etc., $165,000; 5) parking structure on 8th Street
lot, approximately thirty spaces, $440,000; 6) property
acquisition and improvements for a twenty-eight space parking
lot (including meters), vicinity of Central Avenue and Main
Street, $1,100,000; 7) parking meters for Main street, $107,785;
and 8) parking meters for the 8th Street lot, $19,840, totalling
approximately $2,004,000 if all improvements were implemented.
The revenues identified to offset the costs of the improvements
include 1) funds in hand or pledged as of November, 1994,
$219,046; 2) current fees based on the recommended $350 per
space per year for one hundred ninety-six spaces over a period
of eight years (an increase of the current $100 per space per
year), $548,800; and 3) parking fees from meters installed on
Main street and in all of the parking lots. The total of all
revenues about $1.6 million thus a shortfall of nearly $400,000
which, based upon the need for new spaces, would result in a new
in-lieu parking fee of about $5,197.62 per space, again, that
based on implementing all of the above mentioned improvements,
and should some of the improvements be deleted the per space fee
would then be recalculated. He noted the last action required
of the Council would be to receive and file the Background
Studies document. The Director introduced Mr. Paul Zucker, the
Council selected consultant to assist staff in the preparation
of the Main street Specific Plan.
Mayor Forsythe invited members of the audience wishing to
comment on this item to come to the microphone and state their
name and address for the record. Dr. David Rosenman, 8th.
Street, said one of the issues that started the Specific Plan
process was the sometimes controversial issuance of conditional
use permits, noted there is some language relating to hours of
operation, with the exception of those that are grandfathered,
however given the absence of a cap, if a liquor serving
restaurant wanted to locate here they could, and the process
then has not changed. He noted that if a cap is included that
could potentially increase the value of those types of existing
businesses, however there are documents that show an. over
concentration of liquor serving establishments, and given future
changes of Commission and Council members it is likely nothing
will have been gained. Dr. Rosenman cited the mention of doing
a license plate analysis of Main Street parking.if parking
meters. are not approved for the Street, that program would
6-24-96
require some type of computer device however that cost is not
shown in the list of potential expenditures. He mentioned also
that the document makes reference to parking as being 'in
relative balance', however there is little reference to the on-
going conflict between residential and commercial uses on the
collateral streets, and as the parking provisions of the
document are refined the on-going competition for spaces needs I
to be looked at. He asked that attention be paid to whether the
waivers for a CUP are so vague that there could be potential for
litigation in the future, citing present language as not
providing much guidance. Mr. Charles Antos, 8th street, made
reference to the AB 1600 Report, the analysis indicating that it
applies to new projects which he deemed would be an
intensification or new use that does not meet parking
requirements, however the revenue figures referenced, current
fees of $350 per space per year, an amount slightly more than
$500,000, would be those persons who are currently paying $100
per space, and stated that if the AB 1600 is approved at this
meeting and given the fact that there was no such report for the
past in-lieu fees that have been collected, then arrangements
best be made to pay back the in-lieu fees that have been paid
over the years, clarifying that his recommendation is for in-
lieu fees imposed as a condition of approval, not through a
development agreement, traffic mitigation, or other legal means.
At the request of the council, the City Attorney confirmed that
the city had the means of collecting fees through development
agreements, as a condition of variances, traffic impact
mitigation fees, etc., however the comments made are to those
who have paid in-lieu fees prior to AB 1600 and to which he said
the opinion is that the pre-AB 1600 fees are still collectable,
noting however an uncertainty as to how many of the businesses
paying in-lieu are post-AB 1600. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, I
said his concern is with what is not in the document, recalling
a Specific Plan for the Mola development which prompted a
lawsuit because the Housing Element had not been approved, which
he claimed has still not been rewritten or approved. He noted
the shortfall of nearly $400,000, questioned whether the
property owner or the lessee will pay that shortfall, projecting
that it will likely be the taxpayer. Mr. Stark also said the
law requires that a refund is due where there is no demonstrated
need, claimed there have been three Main street parking studies,
each concluding that there is no parking problem, therefore
asked how the shortfall can be justified. He stated he has yet
to observe the 8th and Central parking lot full during the week
and it is nearly empty on weekends, yet there is a proposal to
construct a parking structure, and to that he added that the
environmental review claims there would be no impact, to which
he questioned the impact on the neighboring properties, a
structure that will house and promote crime, also complained
that there is no surveyor discussion of other cities that have
similar structures. The Director of Development Services
clarified that the city does have a Housing Element that was
approved by the Court of Appeals in about 1991. Mr. Brian Kyle,
Seal Beach, made reference to the 1984 Downtown Revitalization
Task Force that was composed of a wide range of people
representing residents, property owners, etc., of which he was I
one, and at that time a study was done at a cost of $75,000, the
reason for the study was that there was virtually no activity on
Main Street, shops were empty, windows were boarded, the Task
Force made recommendations and the Street has become healthy.
He noted that the in-lieu program was initiated as a result of
restaurants coming in and businesses trying to open, yet the
Coastal Commission would not accept in-lieu and stated there
needed to be actual spaces. He said in his case the beach lots
were restriped which created thirty spaces, he is being charged
for twenty-three more to which he claimed should only be
eighteen. He claimed that the 1984 report says basically the
..: IIf. I ,.1.,
. '1' . 1il,- lr. ,'.... ..~ ". 'II
.1 ".,' }.'r.' I't J .
6-24-96
I
same thing as the new report. with regard to what he felt is
needed on Main street, Mr. Kyle said he wanted to see the street
trees remain, suggested that Main street be bricked for easier
removal of roots from the trees, noted that he personally paid
for two street lights in 1984, and nothing has been done with
regard to lighting since then. He stated that not one resident
wants a parking structure, it should be deleted from the
improvement list, and said nothing should encroach the
residential neighborhoods. He offered that there is 235,000
square feet of retail, office and restaurant use on Main street
which requires 1,350 parking spaces, to which he suggested that
if the parking at the pier were opened, which is usually ninety
percent empty, and if those four hundred spaces were added to
the existing, the result is that there is a shortage of seventy-
four spaces. Mr. Kyle claimed also that it is not Main street
that brings people to Seal &each, it is the sun and the beach.
He again suggested that the parking structure and the property
acquisition, things no one wants, be deleted from the
improvement costs. Mr. Kyle noted that initially he was advised
that the total cost of a parking space would be between $1,200
to $1,800, which he has been paying on for several years, and in
turn he indicated support for expenditures relating parking
validation, improved signage, etc. Dr. Varon, 127 - 8th Street,
said he too is opposed to a parking structure in the lot
adjacent to the Fire Station, and as a neighbor cited his
observation of objectionable activities in that lot. He noted
his objection also to the extended hours until 10:00 p.m. for
general parking in that lot, and the accumulation of trash and
debris in the lot before trash barrels were placed there. Dr.
Varon said parking structures in other cities have turned into
minor disasters, and claimed these structures provide a safe
haven for crime and gangs and will pose a public safety problem.
Ms. Diane Senyak, 7th Street, said she too was opposed to any
structure on the 8th Street parking lot, cited existing problems
created by persons littering and making noise, and stated that
the limited police force should not be burdened with such a
potential problem. Ms. Mona Babcock, she and her husband the
owners of Walt's Wharf Restaurant, said they conducted a survey
of their customers with regard to parking this past week however
the results have yet to be tallied. Also, they have observed
the beach lots on nine different occasions during the busiest
hours of the day and at least four times there have been over
three hundred empty spaces. She.said it appears the Specific
Plan is more focused on making money than how to solve solvable
problems, and that they agree with this and past Plans and
studies in that there is not a parking problem, rather a
management problem, and mentioned a number of variable solutions
through the utilization of the beach lots. Ms. Babcock
mentioned the possibility of a trolley, such as is used in San
Luis Obispo, which could even transport people across the
Highway. She stated at night and early in the mornings the
residential streets are fully parked therefore it appears that
it is the residents rather than the businesses that have a
parking problem, also recalled that a proposal of the
Revitalization Task Force was to utilize a portion of the
greenbelt for parking, diagonal parking another possibility, and
said until the city devises a way to better utilize the beach
lots to raise the in-lieu fees for businesses would be
ludicrous. Ms. Babcock mentioned that their business has paid
$55,000 plus interest into the fund over the past ten years, yet
there is still no adopted in-lieu parking program or plan for
expenditure of those monies, which she said they question if the
City has the legal right to collect those fees, and if it does,
she would request to be advised of the statute as well as an
accounting of the funds. Mr. Michael Via, legal counsel on
behalf of Walts Wharf, stated he wished to follow up on .
questions regarding the legal-authority of the city, to collect,
I
I
6-24-96
continue to collect, or raise the fees that are in-lieu as
compared to those persons who pay mitigation fees, etc. At the
request of Council, the city Attorney responded that apparently
there are eleven businesses that have been paying the in-lieu
parking fees, some have entered into development agreements
which is a contractual obligation to pay those fees, there are
also some who entered into an agreement with the city prior to I
1987 when AB 1600 went into effect, the City has and continues
to collect the fees from those pre-AB 1600 businesses, and any
new businesses will be subject to the fees pursuant to the AB
1600 study. Mr. Via clarified his inquiry was to the pre 1987
businesses. The City Attorney again explained that the pre AB
1600 are basically grandfathered, the city had the right to
collect those fees under the law at that time and to continue to
do so, that authority lies within the City's police power. In
reference to the $1.6 million estimated revenue, Mr. Via said
there are two primary components, the funds in hand or pledged
and the current fees projected over the next eight years if the
fee is increased for those who are currently paying the $100 per
space, to which he advised the Council that of that amount of
money he did not believe that the city has the legal right to
have ever required those fees, will likely have an obligation to
repay those fees, and most particularly does not have the right
to increase those fees. He concluded that the citizens and
especially the persons paying the fees should be advised of the
legal authority. Mr. Mike Justice, Seal Beach, said he liked
the intent of the Plan, the concept of keeping the home town,
friendly atmosphere, also appreciates the opinion of those who
feel that it is necessary to update what is perceived to be an
obsolete Plan. He stated however his opposition to a parking
structure and concern with the proposed substantially high
financial impact on just a few Main Street businesses in terms I
of the in-lieu fee, and questioned if the intent may be to allow
the least strong businesses to close and move out of town, to
which he asked that that impact be given due consideration. Ms.
Colleen Crossen, 8th Street, said she has seen a general
decrease in the quality of life on 8th Street just due to the
parking lot, reported having called the city on more than one
occasion for the removal of graffiti from the sign poles, more
walls would only increase that problem, from the revenue that
may be generated from the lot suggested that the City should
consider the cost to maintain the lot, which she deemed to not
be cost effective, and that the residents should be able to use
the lot during the day to free on-street parking. Mr. Dave
Duran, owner of Kinda Lahaina, stated the in-lieu fees were for
the intent to purchase land for parking, the restaurant has paid
its $1,300 for the required thirteen spaces during his three
year ownership, said he has received no notice of the purchase
of land or statement as to where the fees have gone, how much
money has been accumulated or how close the City is to acquiring
land, which to him seems to be an added tax without doing
anything with those monies. He said it is sensed that there is
a parking problem in the height of the summer yet asked if these
fees remedy that situation for the two month span of time,
stated he understands that the residents do not want to pay more
taxes especially if they can be passed on to the city or the
merchants, whenever that happens the city in turn passes the I
cost on to the merchants, and even if there were no businesses
there is still a pier and a beach and that is why people come
here, therefore the city should share the burden, not just
develop a Plan for the merchants to pay. Mr. Howard Brief,
resident, business and property owner for twenty-five years,
stated that in 1987 he remodeled 222 Main street, a condition of
obtaining a building permit was that the occupant and/or
property owner sign and record against the property the in-lieu
parking agreement prior to the issuance of the building permit,
yet. when seeking the required approval from the Coastal. "'~
I
I
I
J.. ~..t: 1~ i:...~l.~r~'"
, ,
6-24-96
Commission he was informed by them that Seal Beach had no in-
lieu parking program in place nor authority to collect the fees,
and they would issue their permit regardless of whether the City
wanted in-lieu parking or not. He said he met all of the
conditions of approval except for the agreement as the city
never prepared that agreement, which he claimed may have been
because there was no program in place that would authorize the
imposing of in-lieu parking or the fees, thus he said he has
never paid the fees. He expressed uncertainty as to whether the
city is astop from collecting those fees given the length of
time or have waived the fees, or even if there was a contract
the time frame to collect has since passed. Mr. Brief said for
those who have not paid the fees they will likely never be
collected, and further, for those who have paid there may be a
legal obligation to give that money back, nonetheless he
suggested that the numbers should be revised as he felt it will
be difficult to collect those monies and questioned if there has
ever been a right to do so. Mr. Stan Anderson, owner of Coaches
and President of the Business Association, advised that a couple
of years ago a study of parking was done, confirmed by the
Zucker prepared Plan, that parking is not the issue, rather it
is management of the parking. He said the most recent car show
even impacted the Seal Beach Center yet when the beach lots were
looked at it was determined that no one was going to pay $6 to
park there, therefore it is important to make sure that the
facilities that exist are utilized. He noted the mention of
parking on the greenbelt, it was to be designed like Sunset
Beach, yet the residents along Electric would object to parking
there, possibly the parklike frontage should be an assessment
for greenbelt upkeep. Mr. Anderson stated that additional
parking is available if it is utilized, suggested that the area
considered for purchase for parking purposes could instead be
leased, offered his opinion that to impose in-lieu parking fees
on the businesses is wrong. He said the 1984 Task Force brought
new life to Main Street, Main Street is much better now, there
is a new Community Safety Building, signs have been installed
directing people to parking areas, discussions have taken place
with regard to metered parking in the beach lots, the lot on
First Street is open, the parking lot fee was lowered this week,
if these and other things are implemented in turn the
residential streets will be less impacted. Mr. Anderson spoke
favorably of a validation program, better management of parking
facilities, and the opportunity for businesses to bring new
customers into town. Mr. Jim Klisanin, local businessman and
property owner, expressed his opposition to a parking structure,
and if it is built assured that property value& will
substantially decrease. He stated his experience of not
realizing great difficulties finding parking, and as a fairly
recent property owner on Main Street he realizes some financial
difficulties from time to time when there are vacancies, yet he
is being charged $63,000 for twenty-eight parking spaces for two
retail shops having no more than one or two people working,
persons in two of the office spaces ride their bikes to work,
yet the restaurant directly across the street that brings in a
large number of customers and utiltzes considerably more parking
spaces are being charged half of what he is, the formula used is
often based on square footage however it should be the use of a
building and the number of people that are frequenting the
business and utilizing parking. Mr. Ron Bennett, Seal Beach.
resident, spoke favorably of the Specific Plan and the work of
the consultant, the Background Study showing that everyone
basically wants the same thing, a small town dropped in from the
mid-west, the conclusion of the consultant was that there is not
a parking problem rather the parking spaces need to be better
managed, there is a need for better signage, stated that if the
beach lots are improved and a parking system installed, that
will make those lots better. .He recalled a comment tha~ parking
6-24-96
is worse in the residential areas than in the business area, an
example of that is the 1000 block of Ocean Avenue where, on the
south side of Ocean, there is one legal parking space yet there
are numerous units, most of which have one garage for a more
than one bedroom unit, and most units produce two to three cars,
therefore the cars park on the street, yet Main street does not
have that problem and it is not that difficult to find a parking I
space. With regard to the proposed in-lieu fees he suggested
that if the monies estimated for the acquisition of property and
for construction of a parking structure were deleted, which the
residents do not want, the amount would be reduced to
approximately $462,000, the existing facilities can then be
utilized properly, signage can be put in place, meter the beach
lots, and it would be his preference that the streets be metered
as well where about a half million dollars could be realized in
revenue, which he claimed to be a democratic form of taxation
because what is being used is being paid for. There being no
further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing
closed.
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council, to
declare a recess at 9:05 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:15
p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order.
Councilman Brown requested and moved to continue this item to
allow additional time to resolve certain questions and concerns.
Mayor Forsythe said she believed that the Council shares the
concerns expressed with regard to parking fees, the construction
of a parking structure, and acquisition of additional property
for parking purposes, therefore the intent is to request
additional information and revised numbers for consideration at
the next or a near future meeting. Mayor Forsythe emphasized I
that the city is not just looking to raise funds however Main
street does need improvements, staff is looking at some means to
improve the sidewalks, the lighting, develop a tree program,
etc. to attract people to walk the Street, frequent the shops,
all in all help the business community, and parking is only one
of the issues. She did request information relating to an
evaluation of providing more parking in the alleys, particularly
for use by employees of the Main Street businesses. Mayor
Forsythe seconded the motion to continue this item.
Councilmember Campbell clarified that the Planning Commission
had looked at the entire list of parking improvements and their
costs for the time frame of eight years, the in-lieu fee
developed taking into consideration all of the improvements with
the understanding that all of them may not be implemented, also,
the Commission did not feel it was within their discretion to
choose which improvement should or should not be chosen. The
Mayor invited members of the business community to contact the
Council and provide their input inasmuch as the goals and
objectives of the Council and the business community are the
same. The City Attorney inquired if the intent of the Council
was for staff to delete certain parking proposals and in turn
revise the in-lieu fee amount. After brief discussion it was
the consensus of the Council to delete the parking structure, I
the property acquisition, and the license plate analysis.
Councilmember Hastings suggested that the focus be on hourly
parking, parking validation, signage in the 8th Street lot to
allow weekend parking without citation, etc. Councilman Brown
requested further detail, explanation, and legal status of the
in-lieu fee. To a question as to whether the in-lieu fees could
be used to upgrade the parking lots, the access, landscaping,
lighting, etc., the City Attorney advised that those fees are
restricted to improving parking, and offered to look into
whether they could be used for a small trolley. councilmember
Hastings inquired if there are any problems anticipated from the
'"rt
. .....1.,
I'
" .',
6-24-96
Coastal Commission, the Director of Development Services
responded that that may depend on which programs the Council
chooses to implement, there could be some difficulties in that
Coastal Commission parking standards are different from those of
the City. Councilmember Hastings recalled that the Commission
had indicated that a trolley would help the parking situation.
II Vote on motion to hold this item over:
I
I
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING - 1996/1997 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
The City Manager reported that the proposed 1996/97 budget is
balanced, there are no service reductions, and addresses the
City's capital replacement needs over upcoming years, and
although balanced the tone is cautious optimism. The General
Fund revenue projection for the upcoming fiscal year is $12.5
million, that figure considered to be flat in that property
taxes are anticipated to decline slightly through reassessments,
some decrease of sales tax, and the absence of several one-time
revenues that occurred during 1995/96. He said there is effort
to contain costs for the upcoming year such as the consolidation
of police dispatch services, improved efficiency of services
provided, a flat budget reflecting $12.1 million. He pointed
out that reserves continue to be a major concern, the liability
reserve as an example should be $900,000, no set aside for
compensated absences, nor is there a $1 million uncommitted cash
reserve as required by the City Charter, and until these
situations are resolved it can not be said that the City is in a
sound financial condition. As directed by the Council, he
stated th~t revenues that are a burden on the taxpayer were
looked at, most specifically the utility users tax, however upon
thorough review it was determined that neither elimination or
reduction of the utility tax could be recommended at this time
given the existing financial deficiencies. He noted however
this budget proposes a set aside for the liability reserve,
compensated absences, and cash reserve of approximately one
third of the goal, which is accomplished by basically
eliminating all of the otherwise unobligated reserves that
should be reflected in the fund balance, and once these legal
and Charter obligations are accomplished then an emergency/
contingency reserve can be established. The Manager called
attention to the lack of long range funding for critical
infrastructure, storm drains, water and sewer systems, streets,
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, City buildings, etc., those things
that must be funded to meet the true cost of operating a
municipality. He pointed out the establishment of a five year
capital improvement program, divided into general, special and
enterprise funds, the format identifying funds to be expended in
a specific fiscal year otherwise to be set aside for a future
project or purchase, this program a means of addressing some of
the deferred maintenance items. with regard to the enterprise
funds, water and sewer, he noted that the recently completed
water study identified approximately $1.5 million of capital
improvement maintenance projects to maintain the water system in
its current state, concluding that a $300,000 per year shortfall
needs to be addressed, identifies projects that need immediate
attention either this year or during the upcoming four years,
therefore the water fees, the standby, etc. needs to be looked
at to develop a fair and equitable funding mechanism. Noting
that the water study is nearly complete, the Manager stated that
the same type of study needs to be done for the sewer system to
assure that the basic infrastructure needs are being met. The
Manager reported that organizationally the budget includes
changes in the area of recreation, reinstates. the position of
Recreation Director, reassigns some duties for.the. immediate,
6-24-96
future, also establishes a management structure for the
Lifeguard operation. He stated that this budget addresses
certain legal mandates, incrementally at least, is a cautious
budget, vulnerable to legislative decisions, and pointed out
again that some of the deferred maintenance problems need.to be
addressed, which this budget does. The Manager complimented the
Director of Administrative Services for the budget preparation
and the City Engineer for the capital improvement program.
Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open. The city Clerk
certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised
as required by law, and reported no communications received
relating to this item. There being no public comments the Mayor
declared the public hearing closed.
I
RESOLUTION NUMBER 4486 - ADOPTING 1996/1997 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
Resolution Number 4486 was presented to Council entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 BUDGET, SETTING
APPROPRIATION LIMITATION AND AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS BY
FUND." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number
4486 was waived. Brown moved, second by Fulton, to adopt
Resolution Number 4486 as presented.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
CE SPORTS - SKATEBOARD/INLINE/BICYCLE EVENT - JULY. 1996
The City Manager requested that this item be continued inasmuch
as negotiations have not been completed. He explained that this
pertains to a request from Destination Extreme, an ESPN sports
Network event for skateboard competition in the lOth Street I
beach parking lot, however one of the competition days is July
20th on which the Lions Club Fishfry and the Rough Water Swim is
also being held. He noted that parking is the main challenge,
there will be at least three shuttles between Rockwell, the
First Street lot and the beach to accommodate the Rough Water
Swim participants. He offered that if agreement can be reached
it should be a positive for all events, the Fishfry especially,
and a criteria of allowing the event is that all City costs must
be covered, plus the applicable fees for the use of city
facilities, etc., a sizeable amount in that they will be in the
community for about six days. The Council indicated a consensus
for the City Manager to continue negotiations for this event
with the presumption that all costs will be covered, the parking
will be resolved, etc., and it was requested that the parking
arrangements be advertised for information of the public.
SITE LEASE AGREEMENT - COMMUNICATIONS EOUIPMENT -
COX CALIFORNIA - 2300 BEVERLY MANOR ROAD
The City Manager reported this to be a request to place cellular
phone communication equipment on the freeway side of the city
reservoir at 2300 Beverly Manor Road. He noted the Agreement
provides for a monthly rental of the site as well as $10,000
which was proposed to be used for city entry signage however may
be necessary to complete the City Hall clock tower repairs,
confirmed that the lessee will be providing trees for I
landscape/screening purposes as well as the paving of the access
roa~way. Hastings moved, second by Campbell, to approve the
Site Lease Agreement with Cox California PCS, Inc. for the
period of five years with the option of five five-year
extensions, and subject to language clarifying that the lessee
is responsible for the paving of the entry roadway and
landscaping as noted in the staff report.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
I
I
I
. - c-
6-24-96 / 7-8-96
COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Campbell made reference to a letter to the editor
published last week with regard to trash collection which she
deemed in need of clarification and facts. She read her
response which explained that she, along with-the other members
of the Council, voted for residents of the Hill, College Park
West and College Park East to receive additional trash bins for
greenwaste, not just College Park East; Leisure World has their
own recycling program; the State has mandated that all cities
reduce their trash by fifty percent by year 2000, separating the
greenwaste from the regular trash will allow that to be met; Old
Town has never refused to participate in recycling, Old Town has
a high number of multi-unit dwellings with large trash bins that
has made the development of a recycling program difficult,
however Old Town will soon begin a recycling program; Old Town
is not participating in the greenwaste program because that area
has very little greenwaste; there will not be a charge for the
new greenwaste container and no change in the rates; many other
cities have these three large containers for trash; the
greenwaste containers will be delivered the first or second week
of August, and if one wants a smaller size, call before that
date.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Via,
legal counsel for the Babcock's, apologized to the city Attorney
for misstating his name, also stated that Walts Wharf has always
been a friend and wants to work with the City.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of
adjourn the meeting
Closed Session. By
at 10:02 p.m.
the Chair, with consent of the Council, to
until July 8th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in
unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned
fl
Approved: _ ~,_ /nZ ;, . /0
- 1llayo
Attest. c;l~4<d ~ , vf1
"CJ.ty Cle f
Seal Beach, California
July 8, 1996
The City Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular
adjourned session at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the
meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Forsythe
Councilmembers Brown, Fulton.
-,-