Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1997-02-24 2-10-97 / 2-24-97 Director explained the projects consisted of the widening of the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge over the 405 Freeway, $3.3 million, half funded through Measure M, other projects were an overall multi-jurisdictional signal interconnect from the 405 to Pacific Coast Highway, intersection improvements at Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster, and at PCH and Seal Beach Boulevard, some widening of Seal Beach Boulevard in the vicinity of the drainage I ditch where the shoulder and bike trail is missing, the only project removed from the list was the intersection Pacific Coast Highway and Balboa. councilmember Hastings expressed appreciation to members of staff for their efforts. Councilmember Hastings said she understood that Interval House is losing some of their grant monies, asked that that be looked into, and if so the City may need to reevaluate its Housing/Community Develop grant application. With regard to the fund raising effort for the Mary Wilson Library, Mayor Forsythe reported the donation thermometer was install last Thursday showing a little less than $30,000, and suggested that the location of the thermometer be moved to the southwest side of Electric Avenue at the Library for greater visibility. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, February 24th at 6:30 p.m. to meet in Closed Session if deemed necessary. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjou d at 8:34 p.m. I Approved: d../~.~v~. - ayo Attest: Seal Beach, California February 24, 1997 The city Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the I 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 I I I 2-24-97 APPROVAL OF AGENDA Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the City Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss an item of anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code 54956.9(b)(3)(c), Walter and Mona Babcock. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:32 p.m. and reconvened at 6:52 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the item previously identified, and based upon the urgency of another item that came to attention after the posting of the agenda, the Council discussed a personnel matter, no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 6:53 p.m. the Approved: _~. /~~"7":;t-",. M or Attest: Seal Beach, California February 24, 1997 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:02 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 None Absent: Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Badum, City Engineer/Director of Public Works Ms. Beard, Recreation and Parks Director Ms. Yeo, city Clerk 2-24-97 APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Campbell requested that Item "E" be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration, said she wished to pose a question relating to Item "L", and Councilmember Hastings requested that Item "F" be removed from the Consent Calendar as well. Fulton moved, second by Campbell, to approve the order of the agenda as revised. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried I PRESENTATION Mayor Forsythe read in full the proclamation designating March 20th, 1997 as "Absolutely Incredible Kid Day", sponsored by the Orange County and City of Long Beach Camp Fire Boys and Girls. Camp Fire Girl Alisha Freer accepted the proclamation with appreciation"on behalf of the Long Beach Council. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Theresa Tamas, Crystal Cove Way, recalled a meeting held some months ago with the Mayor, city Manager, and the owners of the vacant lot at Marble Cove and Crystal Cove Way with regard to the appearance of an unsightly wire fence on the vacant lot also with regard to the intentions of the owners of that property. She said at that time the owner stated there was no intent to sell the property and that they would work with the neighborhood and City concerning the lot and fence, now, in five months, the lot is for sale, the fence remains, and the lot is overgrown with weeds. Ms. Tamas inquired if the fence is permitted, her understanding was that it is not and is illegal due to having I been placed too close to the sidewalk, asked if the property owner is responsible for weed abatement, and since the lot is for sale does that relieve the owner of maintaining it. The City Manager responded that the fence is not permitted and the matter has been turned over to the city Attorney for an enforcement action, maintenance of the lot will be part of that action. The City Attorney advised that towards the end of last year the owner had agreed to move the fence, there is a grading problem as well, however nothing has been done, another letter has been sent advising that the problems must be resolved by March 3rd, the weed cleaning as well, otherwise the City will file a prosecution action. Ms. Mitzi Morton, Seal Beach, asked if there is a legal action against the city with regard to the in-lieu parking program fees. Staff response was that there is no knowledge of a legal action. Ms. Jane Vineyard, Fir Circle, President of the College Park East Neighborhood Association, reported the Association is adopting Bluebell Park as a long term project that will require volunteer services by and monetary contributions from residents of the area, the plan is to raise money for playground equipment and sand to improve the Park through the sale of tee shirts, tiles and a lasagna dinner, and although the project may take some time she requested Council support for this effort. Mr. Peter Anninos, Electric Avenue, announced that the Seal Beach Cable Foundation took action to fund the remaining amount of the cable consultant's I contract fee, the Foundation realizing the importance of the consultant's services and hopefully a positive renegotiation process. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "B" thru "N" Brown moved, second by Campbell, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except Items "E, F and L", removed for separate consideration. B. Approved the waiver of reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. I Approved the minutes of the January 30, 1997 regular adjourned meeting. D. Approved regular demands numbered 15050 through 15178 in the amount of $377,956.48, payroll demands numbered 20779 through 20961 in the amount of $257,173.09, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. C. G. Received and filed the staff report relating to the Pre-Final Extended Removal Site Evaluation Work Plan, IR sites 40 and 70, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, authorized the Mayor to sign the response letter, and instructed staff to forward this item to the Environmental Quality Control Board and the Archaeological Advisory Committee for information purposes. I Authorized the purchase of one (1) 1997 Ford Explorer police vehicle from Wondries Chevrolet/Ford at a cost of $24,783 plus tax of $1,920.68. Authorized the purchase of one (1) 1997 Ford Explorer police vehicle from Wondries Chevrolet Ford at a cost of $24,783 plus tax of $1,920.68, funded by State funds under the terms of Assembly Bill 3229. J. Authorized the City Manager to execute a consultant agreement with Moffat & Nichol Engineers to perform design and permit support services for the East Beach Replenishment Project at a cost not to exceed $18,700. H. I. K. Received and filed the staff report and comment letter from the Environmental Quality Control Board relating to the Naval Weapons Station Focused site Inspection for Operable Units 4 and 5, and instructed staff to forward this item to the Archaeological Advisory Committee for information purposes. I M. Received and filed the staff report relating to the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Installation Restoration Program - Status Report re All Installation Restoration Sites, and instructed staff to forward this item to the Planning Commission, Environmental Quality Control Board, and the Archaeological Advisory Committee for information purposes. N. Received and filed the status report relating to the construction of West-Comm Communications Center at the Seal Beach Police Station. 2-24-97 2-24-97 AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "L" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4517 - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 97-1 - AVALON DRIVE - DAVIS I In response to a question of Councilmember Campbell, the Director of Public Works explained that this is an administrative procedure to accomplish a revision of the property lines to be in conformance with existing grading of this parcel, a sliver of land that represents the toe of the slope on the property, as a general rule property lines are not located within a slope area, this will give the property owner control of the entire slope, and the terms of this transaction have been agreed to by the adjacent property owner, Hellman Properties. Brown moved, second by Campbell, to adopt Resolution Number 4517 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL-97-1, FOR PARCEL 2 OF TRACT NO. 1817, ALSO KNOWN AS 811 AVALON DRIVE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4517 was waived. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried ITEM "E" - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTIINITIAL STUDY - MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT - ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER Councilmember Campbell noted that the Development Oversight Committee in College Park East will be preparing a response to this document as well. As to the draft response of the city she agreed with the statement that Seal Beach supports the continued mission of the Los Alamitos AFRC, however requested clarification as to the location of the proposed JP8 fuel tank, mentioned that previously approved two hundred thousand gallon tanks were located behind st. Hedwig's School, where contamination from previous tanks is being cleaned up on the School grounds, suggested that possibly the Center could be encouraged to move the tank location further east, and questioned why that suggestion was not included in the letter as the EQCB had requested. The Director of Development Services said the understanding of the EQCB comment was that it pertained to the JP8 fuel tank that is proposed as part of the maintenance facility, the attachment to the letter requests that they indicate the location of the maintenance facility on the map, shown on page eight of the staff report, the understanding of the Council request is that language be added to request the specific location of the JP8 fuel tank as well. He noted that reference to the other tanks were part of a review process in 1994/1995, which he recalled as a replacement of three two hundred thousand tanks with two of like size in basically the same location with berms around them for containment purposes, it is believed the comment at that time was that the city would prefer that the tanks be located as far away from the School as possible, and suggested that comment could be reiterated in this letter as well. Councilmember Campbell noted her concern is with the proximity of the two tanks in this environmental assessment to the other two that have been proposed however to her knowledge have not been built as yet, again the concern is with being located near the school. The Director suggested additional language that the City continues to have concerns regarding the larger JP8 fuel tanks that the City commented on previously and request that their location be reconsidered and moved as far from the property line as possible. Mayor Forsythe expressed amazement that there are no regulations to control fuel tanks in the vicinity of a school. The Director responded I I I I I 2-24-97 that there are at the state level however they do not apply to a federal facility. Councilmember Campbell said it is not the intent to make it difficult for the AFRC as they are a good neighbor, rather, it is an issue of safety. Campbell moved, second by Brown, to receive and file the staf+ report, authorize the Mayor to sign the response letter, as amended, and that staff be instructed to forward this item to the Environmental Quality Control Board and Archaeological Advisory Committee for information purposes. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried Councilmember Campbell noted the request that the City and the Mary Wilson Library be added to the mailing list for all environmental documents relating to the AFRC, and asked that the Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Library be added as well and a personal copy for herself. The Director stated the Rossmoor Library is currently on the distribution list, and suggested possibly two copies could be provided the City. Councilmember Campbell emphasized her desire to receive a personal copy. ITEM "F" - AMICUS BRIEF - HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION vs. CITY OF LA HABRA - POST PROPOSITION 62 TAXES At the request of Council, the city Attorney explained that mid- 1996 the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a legal action against the city of La Habra relating to their utility users tax, this after the Guardino case that determined that Proposition 162 applied to General Law cities, thereafter the Jarvis group focused on three or four general law cities that had adopted taxes without submittal to the voters after Prop 62. The City of La Habra claimed that legal action was too late, they filed an action to dismiss on the basis of a three year statute of limitations for tax measures in that the tax was adopted in 1992, the trial court ruled in favor of the city and the case is now on appeal. He noted that since the Guardino case applied to general law cities only there is no immediate impact on Seal Beach, however the three year statute of limitations is important to all cities and their financial planning, in that after three years there can be no challenge of the tax. Hastings moved, second by Campbell, to authorize this City to join the League of California Cities Amicus Brief in the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association versus city of La Habra case. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 96-8 - MINIMUM SETBACK - TWO-STORY CABANAS Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Zone Text Amendment 96-8, the minimum setback between two-story cabanas in the Seal Beach Trailer Park. The city Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing was advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received relating to this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, described the various attachments thereto, some of which follow the history of how the development standards for two-story cabanas came into being in about 1983, current communications with the Fire Department relating to fire safety issues in the Park and whether the distance standards for cabanas are a concern. The request for consideration is to change current standards for the separation between two-story cabanas, the Code currently requiring a twenty foot separation from exterior wall to exterior wall. He showed a diagram of the Park and the spaces that currently have a two-story cabana, some side-by-side 2-24-97 trailer spaces shows that the separation requirement does not necessarily prohibit adjoining spaces from having a two-story cabana, just that they be twenty feet apart, an example would be a narrow two-story cabana on a trailer space, or a cabana in the front of one space, the back of another, some means of adjustment to meet the twenty foot separation, also a larger space having a two-story cabana would make it very difficult for 1- a smaller, adjacent space to meet the separation requirements. The Director noted the Planning Commission considered the options to make no changes to the current standards, in place since 1983, or to change the standard to something less than twenty feet but more than the six foot that would be required between wall to wall cabanas, a six foot separation would be similar to what can be constructed for dwellings in Old Town and Surfs ide, the Commission ultimately determined to make no changes to current Code as it was felt the existing standards seem to work fairly well. The Director proceeded with a slide presentation showing various features of existing cabanas, the size, design, spacing, how appearances have changed over the years particularly the seven to nine cabanas that were built prior to the City establishing building standards, requiring sprinklers, stucco walls, etc., noted in some instances the trailer portion of the unit is not visible, and explained that for a period of time the state said two-story cabanas could be built in the Park and those were done under state minimum standards, for a number of years the state also required that if there was a cabana the trailer had to physically be moveable, that is no longer the case however the floor must remain and the kitchen must be kept in its original location. Most of the units are between thirteen to fifteen hundred square feet, including the trailer, the spaces are not as large as a standard I lot in Old Town, typically half to two-thirds the size, the minimum separation at the ground floor level is six feet, a single story cabana can be up to fifteen feet in height. The Director noted that Council had been provided a copy of an information packet that had been distributed to Park residents making certain comparisons to the Old Town and Surfs ide areas. Mayor Forsythe invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Ms. Wendy Jones, Welcome Lane, noted her participation on a committee of Trailer Park residents seeking to abolish the twenty foot setback requirement, made reference to a petition signed by seventy percent of Park residents in support, and asking for the same rights as are granted to residents of Old Town and Surfs ide. She stated that each area of concern expressed by the Planning Commission has been carefully addressed, and after careful consideration of the facts it is felt the Council will agree that there is no logical or legal reason to deny the amendment. She stated Park residents are regular people, proud of their homes and community. To a question at the Commission meeting as to what has changed in thirteen years, Ms. Jones emphasized that things have changed, some of the trailers are more than forty-five years and are in need of rehabilitation, the ages and requirements of the residents have changed as well, and more importantly the residents are no longer willing to accept the I dictates of an arbitrary, discriminatory decision made thirteen years ago that prevents changes, this change will cost the City nothing, ,in fact, the addition of a cabana will be an increase of property taxes to the city. Ms. Jones requested the opportunity for those in support of the appeal to make final comments at the conclusion of the hearing. Mr. Ken Williams, Cottonwood Lane, introduced himself as the appellant, speaking on behalf of the Park residents as well. To a request of the previous speaker, Mayor Forsythe advised that rebuttal comments are allowed by the appellant at the conclusion of the hearing. Mr. Williams stated that many of the Park residents did not I I I 2-24-97 attend the Commission meeting because there was an understanding that the Commission was awaiting a report from the Fire Department as to whether it would be safe to build the second stories, the Department did report that it would actually be safer than the existing trailers, therefore with that determination it was thought unnecessary to attend. He reported having reviewed minutes of past meetings to establish a history relating to cabanas, the Fire Department in 1983 concluded that a cabana could be built on each space. It is felt that the every other space concept is based on a discriminatory practice, determines that Park residents can not have the same rights as others in the community, the first person to apply for a cabana permit then disallows the same right to the adjacent spaces, it discriminates by requiring the same setbacks as Old Town and Surfs ide, and at that same 1983 meeting in response to the Council request that cabanas be restricted to every other space the City Attorney was quoted as having stated that there would be no guarantee that a legal challenge would not be sustained. Mr. Williams claimed by not allowing the residents equal opportunity condemns the individual or family to a very small, substandard living space, and even though the residents are low and moderate income it is not felt that the residents should be forced into low and moderate living standards, and called for improved aesthetics in the Park that the residents and community can be proud of. He claimed that cabanas create no impact on the buildable ground space, merely allows the addition of living space, the twenty foot setback limit only applies to heights above fifteen feet, and in 1982 City staff advised that it was feasible for persons of low and moderate income to build a cabana. Mr. Williams expressed his opinion that the Park residents were not properly represented before the Commission, stated also that if the history is carefully reviewed it is felt past actions will be seen as arbitrary and discriminatory, and as to original concern with fire safety, at the 1983 meeting the Fire Department outlined a plan to ensure that every space could safely build to a twenty-five foot height with certain conditions, those conditions greater than those for Old Town and Surfside at that time, yet having heard the Fire Department report a member of the Council insisted that cabanas be allowed only on every other space, and, seeking further assurance that cabanas would not create a fire hazard, the Fire Department again said there was no foreseeable hazard, even if built on each space, if the Department standards were adopted, yet the Council voted for the every other space location, the city Attorney was again quoted as stating that the test would be the reasonableness of the restriction and there was no guarantee that a legal challenge would not be sustained, suggesting also that the wording be strengthened. He said after that meeting other issues of concern were developed to restrict cabanas to every other space, fire and safety, light, air, density and appearance, to which he stated all of those factors are within the control of the City as far as aesthetics and appearance, and the Park is already zoned as high density. Ms. Jones spoke once again, providing pictures of properties in Old Town and Surfside, stated the small lots in the Trailer Park are not necessarily a disadvantage when compared to other one hundred foot lots which she claimed do not appear to be suffering from density or light. She noted that the Trailer Park is bounded by First Street, the River on the other side, has a large parking complex in the center, providing a surrounding of light, that in addition to the internal open spaces, also has recreation facilities in the form of a basketball court, recreation room, a barbecue area, is surrounded by Marina Park, the bike trail and the ocean, none of which would be reduced by the building of two story cabanas side-by-side, and as to density and overcrowding she stated about eighty percent of the units with two story cabanas have one or two persons residing in them, the same 2-24-97 percentage as the remainder of the Park. Mr. John McKee, Riversea Road, a resident since 1948, said Seal Beach had a parking problem some forty years ago when he obtained his drivers license. He claimed there is no parking problem in the Trailer Park, there are one hundred ninety-seven spaces and one hundred forty-six people with drivers licenses, fifty-one spaces remaining, parking is also now allowed on both sides of First I Street. During discussion of parking issues and fire lanes he - recalled mention of Bridgeport and Old Town having fairly wide streets that allow parking on both sides, to which he showed a photo of the street in Surfside, cars parked both sides, also made reference to very narrow Old Town streets from Thirteenth to Seventeenth, and claimed that the streets in the Park are one hundred to one hundred fifty percent wider than those he referred to, a snorkel and pumper can be placed side-by-side throughout the Park, there is not a problem with fire lanes, the fire lane in the Park is between twenty-four to thirty-four feet wide where some downtown streets are eleven feet wide. Mr. McKee cited a statement at the Commission meeting that they want to raise the living standards of the community, create an atmosphere of beauty, to which he stated the residents of the Park live in Seal Beach and would like an equal opportunity to beautify. He concluded that he too would like the opportunity to build a two story cabana as his neighbor has. Ms. Linda Stobbe, Cottonwood Lane, said she wished to speak to the quality of life in the Trailer Park as it pertains to the residents rights to improve their property. She stated she has nothing to gain by the request to change the regulations as she has remodeled and added a second story to improve the quality of their home, yet to remodel in the Park they were required to build to stricter standards than anywhere else in Seal Beach, including sprinkler systems that were not required in other I areas of the city, the setbacks and proximity to neighbors were more stringent, particularly in comparison to Surfside. Ms. Stobbe said she felt this issue could be broken down into two main components, individual rights as to what is fair, just and equitable, are the Park residents being discriminated against as compared to other areas of Seal Beach, and secondly the unfortunate tendency to view Trailer Park residents as being poor, a subconscious viewpoint by many people in this community of people who live in trailer parks, by nature a discrimination. There are problems in the Park as there are anywhere, clutter being one, and that is generally attributable to a few individuals who are long-term visitors of the Park and have no vested interest in improvements or the quality of life, however with the cooperation of the police department, building department, and management these individuals are no longer living in the Park and now the Park is on track as it was a few years ago to provide a nice, clean, healthy environment in which to live, the desire is that the Park remain unique and a safe place for children and retired persons. She said the residents too are concerned with aesthetics, described the professions and services of many prominent Park residents, and stated they are as interested in improving their homes and quality of lives as anyone in Seal Beach, the only dividing line being economic status, which does not mean those people deserve less I consideration. As to the issue of what is just, fair and equitable, Ms. Stobbe called for the formation of an advisory committee, if all else fails, to consist of the Mayor, Building and Planning department representatives as well as the Fire Department, the Park owner, and concerned Park residents to develop recommendations that both the city and the residents feel are safe and equitable for all concerned. with regard to the desire to change the twenty foot setback requirement she reminded that seventy percent of the Park residents signed the petition in favor, also at the time this standard was adopted the City Attorney advised of the uncertainty of its legality, I I I 2-24-97 what is being requested is that the ordinance be updated and brought into line with other areas in the community, fairness and parity for everyone. Mr. Mark Cunningham, Cottonwood Lane, commended the members of the Park committee for the manner in which they have addressed the issues cited in 1983. He said his residence has a two story cabana therefore he has nothing to gain by the Zone Text Amendment, however his desire is that the Park be allowed to improve. He said in this day it is not possible to afford a home on the Hill with a school teachers salary, and although the Park is for low and moderate income persons it is a good place to live and the people are just trying to make it better. Mr. Michael Narz, Cottonwood Lane, stated ZTA 96-8 is Trailer Park specific, other areas of the community have building regulations that work, and requested that'the umbrella be removed and allow the Park to work under the same laws as apply elsewhere in the City. Mr. Gene Vesley, Riversea Road, said he agreed with most everyone who has spoken, they are his friends, and agreed that this is an u~timately unique Trailer Park. He stated that a main selling feature when he purchased his unit was the twenty foot offset, he has a two story cabana, the cost was a fairly substantial amount yet it is still a trailer park. Mr. Vesley said the trailers that could be built upon are now selling for a fairly low price, his concern is that if the twenty foot setback is deleted persons that are in the position to profit from the purchase of small units, build two story homes and sell at a substantial gain are going to be motivated by this action, and it will no longer be a low and moderate income Park. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, cited his involvement in the Trailer Park since its beginning, as well as having been chairman of the Relocation Appeals Board, explaining that the Park was initially in considerable disrepair, as a result the tenants were relocated, new trailers were purchased, the Park was upgraded, and since that time it has seemed to go more and more upscale and the units have become larger. He said everyone lives under building codes and regulations to claim the twenty foot setback discriminates makes no sense, and described a scenario of a unit having sold, the setback requirement is changed, the new owner assumes the increased value, therefore money is a factor. He acknowledged that the narrow streets in portions of Old Town are difficult however there are alleys and garages in the rear and even the small yards allow a place for children to play, as stated, there is adequate parking in the Park in a sense, greatly due to the now allowable parking on First Street. Mr. Shanks inquired as to how many units are currently being rented in the Park, some people own more than one unit, they are improved, rented or then sold, making a profit and causing a situation. He stated that if every space is allowed to have a two story cabana the light and air issue does come into play, and said he would have to be convinced that when the square footage is increased that there would not also be an increase of the number of people, and in turn another vehicle. Mr. Reg Cloughly, Catalina Avenue, said he would oppose the ZTA as he did not believe the fire issue has been resolved, fire sprinklers, someone may not put them in or they may remove the system, the units are too close together for two story cabanas, it is not true that building codes are working in Seal Beach, as has been stated, as people are building on every little green space. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:31 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:43 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. Ms. Kathy Sousa, daughter of Mr. Bill Dawson, requested to rebut some comments. As to the issue of density she said the 2-24-97 definition given her is the number of units per acre, the Zoning Text Amendment does not increase the units, and even though everyone would have the ability to construct a two story cabana does not mean that there will be a rush to do so, currently there are only twenty-nine such units, twenty-three percent of the population, those over the period of eighteen years, there are presently ninety-six one story units, and if the ZTA were I passed and the past trend were followed that would only be an additional twenty-two units over the upcoming eighteen years. - She noted that there has only been two new units come into the Park in the last couple of months, placed on lots that would have accommodated a two story cabana, rather they are double- wide mobile homes. She said the issue of over-crowding needs to be mentioned again, eighty-one percent of the families having two story cabanas are families of one or two persons, building such a unit does not mean the there will be large families all of a sudden, nor is there reason that that trend will change, the facts in these cases do not support the concerns. with regard to yards, she acknowledged there are areas of the community with yards however if one looks at Old Town and Surfs ide with rows and rows of very large houses, there are no yards, and there is no limit on how many of those one hundred foot deep, three story homes can be built, in those cases it seems that the issue of air and light have been ignored. Ms. Sousa disagreed with a statement of lack of compliance with building codes, stating that when there is an addition in the Park the Building Department reviews the plans very carefully, there are inspections, and a certificate of occupancy is not issued until the units are built according to the specifications for fire and safety, and emphasized that the County has stated over and over that there is no fire hazard. She clarified that there are one hundred twenty-five spaces in the Park, the same I statistics that apply to the two story cabanas apply to the overall population, eighty percent of the units are occupied by one or two persons, again the statistics do not support the issue of overcrowding because of two story cabanas. Ms. Sousa said there has always been a cloud of contempt over the Trailer Park because the residents are low and moderate income, the request in this case is to allow these persons to improve their lives and their homes, there has never been a problem over the years to have persons qualified for those twenty-nine units, therefore there is no reason to believe that by building these units there will not be enough people of low and moderate income, all residents must qualify as low and moderate income to live in the Park. Ms. Sousa stated that the Park management, of which she has no interest, will not benefit from additional two story cabanas, there is no rental increase on a space because of a two story cabana, rents are based on the formula in the Covenants and Agreement with the City, therefore the only monetary benefit would be to the city in the form of property taxes. She expressed her desire that the Trailer Park be embraced by the city in total, describing it as a wonderful place for people who may not otherwise be able to live in Seal Beach, many residents would likely not be able to afford to buy a home at todays prices. She said she could see no reason for this separation requirement to go on especially if all of the I facts are looked at carefully and compared to the areas of Old Town and Surfside, the Park residents are not asking for any more rights than other areas of the community. There being no other comments, Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Hastings requested clarification of a statement relating to the payment of property taxes on cabanas, her understanding was that Park residents pay only a small DMV fee for their trailers. The Director of Development Services explained that once an individual obtains a building permit for 2-24-97 I a cabana the value of the cabana is established by the assessors office and the City receives property taxes based upon the value of that portion of the living area, for those that continue to have a licensed trailer it is understood those fees are forwarded to the DMV, however it is uncertain what happens when there is no longer a licensed trailer and only the floor area remains, possibly the assessors office places a value on the total improvement. Councilmember Hastings then surmised that the property tax is paid by the owners of the property, the legitimate trailers pay only a small DMV fee, the property tax is levied on only the cabana. The Director said it is understood that the assessor does assess the value of the land of the Park to the owner of the Trailer Park rather than to the lessees of the trailer spaces. A member of the audience, Ms. Stobbe, clarified that before adding their cabana they paid $16 per year to the Department of Housing and Community Development, not the DMV, since adding the cabana they pay regular County property taxes on the cabana portion in addition to the HICD payment. To a question of Councilmember Campbell as to the ownership of the Trailer Park, Ms. Sousa stated from the audience that the widow of Mr. Dawson has ninety percent ownership, a Mr. Rich Botti the remaining ten percent. As to the number of units being rented, the Director said he believed a number of years ago the city approved a parcel map for two spaces to allow for-sale of the land, those believed to be located at the north and south end along the River, the remainder are believed to be rented spaces, of the one hundred twenty-five spaces in the Park, one hundred twenty are restricted to be occupied by persons of low or moderate income, five or six of the spaces have no income restrictions and they can be rented or leased to anyone, of the one hundred twenty, sixty are for low income and sixty are between low to moderate income. As to who monitors the qualifications of Park residents, the Director responded that the Redevelopment Agency has the authority to review the leases of persons moving into the Park, the Park required to verify that they meet the income criteria, which changes annually, in the past the City has found full compliance with the criteria and the Park is generally monitored about every other year. To a question relating to the resale value of a typical remodel, the Director said he would hesitate to guess because the Trailer Park is so much different than other areas of the city, the resident is actually renting the land to place a building on, in the event of a sale the land is not being sold, just the structure, which reduces the value considerably, for-sale ads observed in the newspapers have, ranged from about $80,000 to $130,000, and confirmed that a low income family could qualify for that price of unit, the State develops new guidelines each year based upon the number of persons in the family, up to eight persons, as an example, a moderate income family of four could be $60,000 annually, low income may be about $38,000 to $40,000 per year, a general test of affordability is three times an annual income. Councilmember Hastings noted several comments making a comparison of the Trailer Park to Surfs ide and Old Town in an attempt to establish a criteria for the Park to correspond with those areas, noted that there are three roads in the Trailer Park, if the appeal is granted there will be a number of inside units on which two story cabanas could be built, in Surfside there is a roadway, the ocean, the highway and open space, in Old Town there are frontage streets, alleys, the ocean, etc., in the Trailer Park there will be no separation of second stories for air and light, and questioned how one could rationalize the parking situation in the Trailer Park. Councilmember Hastings said she found the comment of Ms. Sousa of interest, in support of granting the appeal so that the criteria would be fair and equitable with Old Town and Surfside, which would be a situation where the tenants improve their properties to the benefit of the likely heir of I I 2-24-97 the Trailer Park. Ms. Sousa responded that she is neither heir or owner of the Park. As a point of information, Councilmember Hastings noted out that the criteria to determine the number of parking spaces required for Old Town and Surfside are based upon the number of bedrooms. Councilmember Campbell offered that when considering a variance the future use needs to be kept in mind in that a variance runs with the land, expressed concern with the reference to trends, there may be only a few cabanas now however as needs increase so will density, and cited parking as a very critical issue. To a prior comment she stated no one has contempt for anyone who lives in the Trailer Park, her concern is with people being priced out, being denied the opportunity to live in the Park. Mayor Forsythe mentioned that history shows that initially the design of the Park was to accommodate elderly people, primarily one occupant per trailer on very small spaces, now there are one and two people per unit, therefore if the tendency continues to allow fourteen hundred foot homes the natural trend will be children, raising the number of persons per space to three or four. She stated it is very clear that low and moderate housing is what is trying to be accommodated, however that will not be accomplished if the area is developed to the extent requested, and suggested that to compare the Park with Surfs ide and Old Town is unfair because in those areas parking in most instances is underneath the units. Mayor Forsythe expressed support for the idea of an advisory committee to address Trailer Park issues that have been ongoing for years. She expressed her feeling that the standards for two story cabanas should remain unchanged, that taking into consideration the issues of light, air, aesthetics, and the overall density of the area should a two story cabana be allowed on each space. Mayor Forsythe moved to deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, making no changes to the current Code provisions for two-story cabanas, also that consideration be given to forming an advisory committee to look into issues relating to the Trailer Park. Councilmember Hastings said at such time as a committee is formed she would request that a valid survey of the spaces in the Park be a priority task for the committee. The city Attorney advised that a committee can be formed at the desire of the Council, and noted that a resolution reflecting the action of the Council will be presented for consideration at next meeting. Councilmember Campbell seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried I I PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE SERVICES AGREEMENT - BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL - OLD TOWN RECYCLING/REFUSE ORDINANCE/COUNTYWIDE LANDFILL AGREEMENT Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider the an Agreement for Solid Waste Collection Services with Briggeman Disposal, a Countywide Waste Disposal Agreement, and a revised Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance. The City Clerk certified that notices of the public hearing had been advertised as I required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The City Manager recalled that the agreements were reviewed at the last meeting, the terms of which tentatively agreed to by the refuse hauler, and explained the actions necessary to implement recycling in Old Town, approval of the agreements, and adoption of an amended Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance. Councilmember Campbell stated her intent to request that this item be held over until the next meeting or sometime thereafter for the reasons that she has found that residents of College Park East, College Park West, and the Hill have had problems with recycling, when initiated the people had 2-24-97 I no input, many would like every week collection, changeout of the containers, etc. Councilmember Hastings suggested that those residents resolve their problems directly with the contractor rather than postpone the implementation of recycling for Old Town. Councilmember Campbell acknowledged that although this item relates primarily to recycling in Old Town it also involves a renewal agreement with the refuse contractor, therefore she wished to take advantage of this opportunity to seek public comments and resolve existing concerns, again, those concerns relate to the size of the containers, their maneuverability, removal of the bins from the street, etc. Mayor Forsythe suggested that the size issue can be resolved by requesting a smaller container from the contractor. Councilmember Campbell said if the recycling container size were reduced that would likely require a weekly pickup for an additional monthly cost of less than $4, this an issue that she wished to explore before going forward with this program. Councilmember Hastings asked if it is fair to impact the residents who have a recycling program now for the few persons who find it difficult to comply, and where the majority would not support an increase of the rates. Councilman Brown concurred with the comments of Councilmember Hastings, noting that no matter if it is now or years from now there will continue to be people who want weekly pickups and smaller cans however it is not foreseen that that will happen, the majority of residents more interested in keeping the rate down, and suggested that those residents having concerns meet with the contractor to resolve them. Councilmember Campbell said she initially felt that the residents would not accept a rate increase however would like to give them an opportunity to express their thoughts, one possibility would be a sixty gallon recycling bin like the greenwaste container and a smaller size refuse container, yet again if two smaller refuse containers are desired there is a charge for the second. Mr. Briggeman confirmed that there is a charge for the second bin however there is no additional charge for the extra pickup. It was pointed out that this is a noticed public hearing and suggested that the hearing be opened and the proper procedure be followed. Mayor Forsythe said she has not received complaints from Hill residents since before the greenwaste program, if there continues to be concerns she has not heard them, and it seems as if the contractor is trying to meet the needs of the homeowners. Councilmember Hastings added that the contractor seems to have resolved the container size and handicapped concerns for certain downtown residents as well. I I As was done at the last meeting, the City Manager reviewed the terms of the franchise agreement as tentatively agreed to by the contractor, that Briggeman Disposal would provide the City with a $50,000 non-refundable performance deposit; residential recycling would be implemented in Old Town with no rate increase, beyond the rate presented to Council in 1993, for a period of eighteen months; future rate increases would be limited to at least twenty percent below the Consumer Price Index; provide free disposal services for City and school facilities in Seal Beach; bulk item pick-up provisions would be enhanced; performance compliance measures would be tightened; the City would assume control of where solid waste is deposited; billing of commercial accounts would be transferred from the City to the contractor; the contractor would provide the City with a $10,000 annual cash payment to offset AB939 compliance costs; and a fifteen percent discount would be provided persons of sixty-five years of age and over who meet federal income guidelines. The Mayor suggested that the public needs to be better informed as to availability of bulk item pick-up services. The Manager explained that in consideration of those terms the contractor would receive an extension of the term of 2-24-97 the current franchise agreement, as it was for three years when the greenwaste program was initiated, with this amendment the total extension would be seven years on a evergreen basis, automatically renewed each year, also, the commercial rates would be increased, specifically those businesses having multi pick-ups a week and the rates are considerably below market. with regard to the countywide Flow Control Agreement the Manager I explained it is a part of the County bankruptcy recovery plan. Councilmember Hastings posed the question that if refuse to the landfills continues to decrease what is the possibility of the County raising rates to generate the necessary income, to which he reported the cities cOllectively participated in an audit of the County figures, and although the County had an overly optimistic projection of anticipated tonnage, it was found that the program could work at the $22 per ton rate, and the City would have the security of having a landfill site, Brea Olinda for Seal Beach, for the next ten years at a secured rate, less than the rate currently being paid. Councilmember Hastings asked if anyone has tried to secure a rate with the disposal in Long Beach for a similar period of time, to which the Manager reported that the refuse contractor has although unsuccessfully. Mayor Forsythe invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. The refuse contractor, Mr. Briggeman, stated that the waste energy plant in Long Beach is operated by the city of Long Beach in a joint venture with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, and at this point in time he has been unable to obtain any guarantee from the facility management for a secured rate, the facility currently has long term contracts with the cities of Signal Hill and Lakewood, similar I to what the County of Orange is proposing for a secured flow rate. He said his last discussion resulted in an offer to present a secured rate option to the Sanitation District Board however there has been no response to date, thus the recommendation to join the Orange county program. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, spoke in favor of implementing the recycling program for Old Town, however for those on the Hill and in the College Parks the bins often require wheeling for some distance, there is a grade on the Hill, the recycling can is totally full at the end of two weeks, heavy and difficult for some to roll, the refuse bin which is picked up once a week has almost nothing in it, and the greenwaste container is either empty or overflowing, to which he suggested that the program needs to be seriously looked into, there is a problem with the one hundred gallon recycling container, yet the program is working fairly well. Mr. LeRoy Brown, Ocean Avenue, questioned whether anyone has walked the alleys of Old Town to determine where the bins will be placed, cited as an example the six unit building next to his property where there is a three foot walkway into the apartments, a three foot walkway on the opposite side where the trash cans sit on stairs, Mr. Brown said his gate is at the end of the stairs which makes other cans unaccessible, other multi- unit dwellings have improvised various types of container areas, most multi-units have four to five cans that are collected twice weekly, it is inconceivable as to where enough cans are going to I be placed to accommodate recycling and refuse for a six unit dwelling, unless one takes away parking to make room for the bins. Mr. Brown asked when this program will commence and what type of receptacle will there be. The Manager explained that he and the contractor have discussed the anticipated problems associated with recycling in Old Town, it is understood that there may be areas where the program will simply not work, yet the entire program should not be abandoned because of a few difficult situations. Mr. Briggeman reminded that up until a few years ago the City had twice weekly service, which was unique throughout the County, and at the time recycling was 2-24-97 I first implemented there would have been a significant rate increase for twice a week service versus no increase for once a week like every other city in the County. Mr. Briggeman stated their processing of recyclables is referred to as clean MRF, as compared to Huntington Beach as an example that utilizes a dirty MRF process which led'to the construction of an $8 million facility to process the trash, and a rate of approximately $6 per month higher, per household, than Seal Beach. He said almost every option possible has been offered the residents as to their choice of container size, yet knowing that everyone can not be pleased, they continue to strive to provide the highest level of service at the best price possible, up to three recycling containers are offered free of charge, that was done to encourage source reduction. He noted it was not until 1984 that the landfill tipping fees were initiated and the landfills have now become an integral part of the bankruptcy plan. Mr. Briggeman said the alleys in Old Town are quite similar to those in the City of Los Alamitos, makeshift trash can covers, sheds, etc., stated he has been through the Seal Beach alleys and Seal Way, offered that there will be some areas where it will be impossible to place automated containers, the service to Old Town will be somewhat different with the semi-automated truck having a tipping machine on the front, confirmed that some people will need to remove the enclosures that have been placed in the alleys, and reminded that by implementing the program, the carts will improve the aesthetics of the alleys. He acknowledged that when such a program is initiated there are a number of calls the first couple of months, and to address those calls telephones will manned until evening hours, an informational brochure will be distributed, the recycling coordinator is willing to work with the residents, and handicapped services will be available. Mr. Brown inquired as to how many containers will be provided the multi-units, what type will they be. Mr. Briggeman responded that most multi- units in the community are served by three yard commercial bins, those are not a part of the semi-automated program, residences receiving regular refuse services now will be converted to the recycling program, provided with sixty gallon refuse and recycling carts per unit, in Los Alamitos some units received sixty, some one hundred gallons. Mr. Brown claimed that a sixty gallon container per unit, collected once a week, will not suffice, also, it is felt that the younger persons in the apartments will welcome recycling. It was mentioned that once recycling is in place it may be that less cans will be needed. The Manager stated it is not yet known when the Old Town program will commence. I I Dr. Rosenman, 8th Street, said there may be some merit in holding this hearing over until the next meeting as it is likely many people may not be aware of the upcoming program, requested an explanation of the rationale of the evergreen contract and possible ramifications, and cited a worst case scenario that Briggeman Disposal is acquired by another company or individual, is the successor of the contract, then why at the end of the seven year extension would the contract not be on a yearly basis rather than an ongoing seven year cancel cycle. The Manager explained that the evergreen clause was a negotiated item, quite common in Orange County, a survey showed there are a number of agreements ranging from ten to twenty years, the average about eight years, approximately half have evergreen clauses, and by State law a five year notice to terminate a franchise is the minimum requirement, inclusion of the evergreen clause accomplished some of the benefits described, also placed the contractor in a good position to obtain attractive terms and financing for the recycling facility that he will build to process Seal Beach recyclables as well as the containers. Councilmember Campbell noted that the purchase of refuse 2-24-97 equipment is an on-going, expensive process, therefore there needs to be adequate time for depreciation. In response to a comment of Ms. Mitzi Morton, Seal Beach, it was explained that there was a presentation relating to Old Town recycling on February 10th, not a public hearing. Ms. Morton complained that the presentation was made without public input, the containers were available then, not at this hearing, and claimed a decision I has already been made as to what is going to be done. She noted that residents are currently paying $47 per month for four units for trash to be collected twice a week, this will reduce collection to once a week for refuse, every other week on the recyclables, the same cost and a future increase, which she claimed is a cutback on service, cited potential problems as a result of having only three foot setbacks, the potential of eight persons residing on one parcel of property, and inquired as to what plans are being made for the collection of additional trash and boxes as a result of persons moving in and out of units. Ms. Morton expressed her opinion that every resident should be noticed of this hearing, especially the out of town landlords. Ms. Donna McGuire, Dogwood Avenue, stated her objective to seek continuance of this hearing given the importance of the issue, offered to have petitions signed in College Park East because of problems resulting from the container size, limited sideyard space for storage also containers too large to place in the garage, therefore options should be looked into before a provision for citation is enacted. Councilman Brown noted that this item relates to recycling in Old Town, if the program for the College Parks is not working then that should be resolved with the contractor, and with regard to the extension of the franchise term he pointed out that a working agreement already exists as to the services in College Park East and West and the Hill. Ms. I McGuire asked for a clarification as to how this matter will affect College Park East. The Manager stated this does not really affect College Park East or other areas of the City other than extending the term of the contract, and suggested that possibly any problems should be posed to the contractor for response and resolution. Councilmember Hastings clarified again that this discussion is in regard to implementing a recycling program for Old Town, it is understood that there will be problems to work out, this program will not impact College Park East or West or the Hill as those programs are already in place, nor do the other aspects under consideration relate to those areas as far as trash hauling, rather, the flow of refuse, where it is disposed of, the cost, and whether an extended term of the contract is desired, including an evergreen clause, therefore this is not an occasion for discussion of refuse problems in the other areas of the community. The Manager mentioned that remedies already exist to resolve concerns in the other areas. Councilmember Campbell stated that the ordinance does have an impact, one being the removal of bins from the street within a time period, however some residents leave them within sight because they are unable to maneuver them into an area out of view. Councilmember Hastings reminded that there are options, if the container is too large a smaller size can requested, twice a week collection can be requested as well however the I cost will increase, possibly these concerns should be addressed by district. Ms. McGuire too said the ordinance as proposed does affect the frequency of collection and the size of container, therefore suggested that the ordinance address only the area in which recycling is being implemented, and College Park East will address their concerns when the contract for that area is renewed. Mr. Jim Curlette, Hill resident, stated he is the owner of a twelve unit dwelling on Ocean Avenue and inquired if there will now be thirty-six barrels to serve those units instead of the dumpster that currently exists, made reference to the cost involved, and spoke for the right to choose ones refuse 2-24-97 I hauler, and in opposition to exclusive agreements. He was informed that the units will continue to be served by the dumpster. Ms. Morton read a provision from the proposed ordinance requiring containers to be placed within two feet of the rear property line when a property abuts an alley of a minimum fifteen feet, to which she inquired if that means all of the bins must be moved to the alley as opposed to current practice where the hauler retrieves the barrel from the sideyard and returns it once emptied. Mr. Dave potter, Seal Way, expressed concern as to where the bins can be stored, not in the garage, not in the rear yard setback, and once a fence is built and a gate is in place in the three foot sideyard setback there is barely room for a thirty-three gallon container, asked how it is expected that a sixty gallon will fit, questioning how this program will work in Old Town. With regard to the placement of refuse bins, Mr. Briggeman explained that the system is not much different than it is now, the hauler will exit the truck, take the bin to the truck where it will be dumped via a tipping machine on the front of the vehicle. He recalled also that some months back a publicized workshop was scheduled relating to this subject however there was no one in attendance. with regard to the twelve unit dwelling with the dumpster, Mr. Briggeman advised that nothing will change, this program will apply to multi-units that are currently on the barrel system, also cited the example of Los Alamitos that adopted an ordinance requiring dwellings of five or more units to have commercial bin service rather than containers, many of the multi-units in Old Town already have a three cubic yard bin. Mr. Briggeman inquired if it would be a positive for the city if the recyclables were collected once a week. Councilmember Campbell said that would likely solve the problem for those persons who have difficulty placing the bins behind their gate. Mr. Briggeman agreed the once per week could be implemented, preferable to changing out all of the recycling bins, and offered to notify the residents that that service will be available. Councilmember Hastings said through all of this discussion the Council and the residents must not lose sight of the fact that the City is mandated to reduce solid waste, there are no options, and accepted the offer of Mr. Briggeman as a positive resolution. In response to a Council comment, Mr. Briggeman stated the once a week recycling pickup will be at no additional cost to the customer. with regard to the suggestion that agreements be made specific to the various areas of the City, he noted that the franchise is citywide, also since implementing the automated system a bulky item collection service has been offered, without a contractual agreement, recycling was meant to divert as much as possible from the landfill, automation was to place a limit on what could be put into the bins, keeping in mind the goal to reduce the tonnage by twenty-five percent then fifty percent otherwise the City would be subject to a $10,000 per day fine by the State, to accomplish the automation the trucks had to be retrofitted, new trucks were purchased as were containers, and stated his desire is to see this program grow and prosper. Councilman Fulton offered that if the recyclables are collected once a week that may increase the amount of recycled materials rather than the overflow being placed in the regular refuse. Mr. Briggeman agreed that the recycling tonnage will quite likely increase, noted also that additional recycling carts are available at no additional cost, however it is also recognized that no matter how many bins are offered the problem then becomes their storage, question also arises as how and where people stored their numerous trash cans prior to the larger automated bins. Mr. Warren Morton, Seal Beach, requested that this item be continued until the next meeting. Councilmember Hastings moved to approve the franchise agreement with Briggeman Disposal Services, that with the knowledge that I I 2-24-97 complaints will be forthcoming, problems will need to be resolved, and unless the recycling program is implemented for Old Town the City is not going to meet the state mandate for landfill reduction. Councilman Brown seconded the motion, expressing his opinion that the program should be put in place, the problems then resolved as they arise, and recognized the cooperation of Mr. Briggeman to collect recyclables each week. I Councilmember Campbell asked that this item be continued to the next meeting. The City Attorney n9ted there are three items that require action, the County Landfill Agreement had been the most pressing however the deadline has now been extended until the end of March, therefore there is no urgency to take action on the Landfill Agreement or the Briggeman Agreement, the recommendation of staff was to hold the public hearing, receive input, seek direction, hold first reading of the ordinance, which he confirmed does have some implications citywide, then defer action on the other items until the next meeting, if that is the desire of the Council, which will in turn allow further public comments on all of the items. Councilmember Hastings withdrew the motion on the floor. Brown moved, second by Campbell, to approve the Waste Disposal Agreement between the City of Seal Beach and the County of Orange for the term of ten years. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1414 - SOLID WASTE I RECYCLABLES - COLLECTION Ordinance Number 1414 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES, AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1414 was waived. Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1414 and that it be passed to second reading. I AYES: NOES: Brown, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings Campbell Motion carried It was the consensus of the Council to continue the public hearing until the March 10th meeting, and the city Attorney advised that notice of the continued hearing will be published. CITY MANAGER REPORTS There were no city Manager reports. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Dave Potter, Seal Way, said he hoped there would be more interest in the recycling matter at the next meeting, and suggested that the notice contain the dimensions of the bins. To that suggestion Councilmember Hastings requested Mr. Brigge~an to provide samples of the refuse containers for the March 10th meeting. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. I COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilman Brown reported a meeting was held with Supervisor Silva and CalTrans relating to the freeway sound barrier wall, and announced an open meeting to be held in Leisure World regarding same within thirty to sixty days. Councilmember Hastings commended the Seal Beach Womens Club for their luncheon meeting this date during which Mayor Forsythe crowned fifty-two presidents of local clubs and organizations. 2-24-97 / 3-10-97 ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, March loth at 6:30 p.m. to meet in Closed Session if deemed necessary. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:56 p.m. I the Approved: ~. -<'~;dfT~ Attest: Seal Beach, California March 10, 1997 I The regular adjourned meeting scheduled for 6:30 p.m. this date was canceled due to the lack of Closed Session items requiring discussion. Seal Beach, California March 10, 1997 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:02 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: I 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 Ms. Stoddard, Director of Administrative Services Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation and Parks Ms. Yeo, city Clerk