Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1997-03-10 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: ~. <~;dfT4 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: Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers Brown, Campbell, Fulton, Hastings I 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 3-10-97 WAIVER OF FULL READING Hastings 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 I Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. In reference to a recent news article relating to the two story cabana is~ue in the Trailer Park, Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, described a hypothetical situation of two students of low to moderate income qualifying to reside in the Trailer Park, thereafter practicing professions with high incomes, then moving from the Trailer Park. He questioned if the low to moderate income status would continue to qualify for the unit, whether it can be rented to another, and if a survey has ever been conducted to determine how many units in the-Park are in fact being rented. He concluded that persons are aware of the rules when they purchase a residence and they should abide by them. Mr. Chi Kredell, Seal Way, said the sand berm is now being taken down and pushed into the ocean, a practice over the past four or five years, to which he suggested a possible stockpile of sand closer to the sidewalk on the east beach. Mr. Kredell recalled morale problems in the past when a Police Chief was hired. from outside and offered that it would be better to select a person with local experience from within the Department. He questioned if a circus is planned to be held in the 10th Street parking lot. The city Manager responded that the Recreation Director has been coordinating with the Chamber of Commerce, the event sponsor, and it is believed the circus may locate in the 8th Street lot. Mr. Kredell expressed his preference that such events be held in I the 1st street lot where there is a new restaurant facility and there would be no impact on the residential areas. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Ocean Avenue, claimed that the city is becoming the film capital of the world, and complained about filming that was done recently in the vicinity of Dolphin Avenue during late evening . hours, the crews in and around residences where children reside, suggesting that they go elsewhere. Mr. Dennis Sandler, College Park East, asked what is taking place between the Marriott Corporation and the Bixby Company, the stories vary, the subject was tabled at a recent town hall meeting with toe explanation that another meeting was scheduled regarding that issue the following day between five members each of the two resident groups, which he had been informed he could not attend as he was not a.member. Describing other such meetings, he questioned what is taking place at them, and suggested that something be decided regarding that property soon. To a comment that one should not be concerned because Marriott does not build care facilities, Mr. Sandler said after that he visited one of their facilities called a Marriott Retirement Community, they are individual apartment units, frequented daily by visitors, services, etc., and objected to such a facility in the vicinity of College Park East. He requested a meeting for College Park East residents so that a compromise project can be designed before it is too late. Ms. Dorothy Whyte, College Park East, I directed her comments to the Brown Act, declaring that the Council is not consistent in its application of the Act in that responses are often made to some persons and not to others, and asked that the subject of the Brown Act be placed on the next agenda as there seems to be different interpretations depending on whether the subject is Hellman or Bixby, the residents of College Park East deserve answers to their questions. She said not only is the Marriott coming to College Park East it is understood that an Arco Station is as well. Ms. Whyte inquired as to what a memorandum of understanding is, if Bixby enters a memorandum of understanding in the next sixty days does that in 3-10-97 I any way obligate the City or place it in jeopardy of a lawsuit. The Director of Development Services responded that he was uncertain as to the term memorandum of understanding with Bixby. The city Attorney explained that a memorandum of understanding is simply a contract signed by both parties. Ms. Whyte indicated the concern is that if Bixby opts for the Marriott development a conditional use permit could simply be granted by the Planning Commission, not allowing the residents of College Park East a say. Making reference to when the Hellman project was announced and members of the Council indicated they felt it was a good proposal, she asked if their votes are then challengeable because of having indicated approval. Mayor Forsythe explained that typically when there are questions from the podium a response is made if it can be done easily, a response to more difficult questions can not_be made immediately. She clarified that to date the City has had nothing submitted by the Bixby Company, explained that a prior reference to another meeting had nothing to do with the Bixby issue, there are many issues that need to be addressed, and Council meetings are not the proper time or place to request an opinion of Councilmembers. Ms. Whyte again asked that an interpretation of the Brown Act be placed on the next agenda. It was suggested that copies of the Brown Act be provided Ms. Whyte and any questions could then be posed to the City Attorney for clarification. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "A" thru "G" Hastings moved, second by Fulton, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented. I A. 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. B. Approved the minutes of the February 10th, 1997 regular meeting, and the February 24th regular adjourned and regular meetings. C. Approved regular demands numbered 15179 through 15306 in the amount of $200,882.24, payroll demands numbered 20962 through 21131 in the amount of $235,480.57, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. D. Received and filed the monthly investment reports for December 1996 and January 1997. E. Received and filed the staff report relating to the Final Environmental Impact Statement - Disposal and Reuse of the Long Beach Naval Station, authorized the Mayor to sign the response letter and that it be forwarded to the Department of the Navy for consideration in the preparation of the Record of Decision. I F. Adopted Resolution Number 4518 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 28-2319(E) (3) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SETBACK 3-10-97 BETWEEN TWO-STORY CABANAS AT A TRAILER PARK (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 96-8)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4518 was waived. G. Authorized the city Manager to contract for recruitment services for the purpose of identifying candidates for the position of Police Chief. I AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE SERVICES AGREEMENT - BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL - OLD TOWN RECYCLING/REFUSE ORDINANCE Mayor Forsythe declared the continued public hearing open. The City Clerk certified that the notice of continued hearing had been advertised for information of the public, and reported the receipt of one communication relating to the recycling issue, copies of same provided the Council. The city Manager again reported that this item relates to implementing a recycling program for the Old Town area which in turn requires an amendment of the franchise agreement with Briggeman Disposal as well as the solid waste/recycling ordinance. The program will provide uniform trash containers with wheels and lids, provides for recycling as there is in other areas of the community, collection will be once per week, retains the current bin service for apartments, there will be a customized collection for portions of Seal Way and other areas where it is not feasible to use the semi-automated system and in those cases the current method will continue. He said the program was designed primarily to continue the waste reduction and recycling program I mandated by the State. Given the fact that the program requires modification of the existing franchise that contract was also looked at in terms of other areas of the city, option one is basically that there would be no change, refuse and greenwaste would continue to be collected weekly in the large containers, and recycling would be bi-weekly, option two would allow one or two sixty gallon recycling containers to be issued to all residents requesting smaller containers, collected bi-weekly, or option three, one new sixty gallon recycling container collected weekly. With regard to option two Councilmember Hastings asked if the second container is provided at no cost. The Manager said his understanding is that either one or two recycling bins may be obtained, however if the contractor makes the investment for twice the number of containers then there would be an every other week pickup. Mr. Briggeman said that up to three recycling containers may be obtained by residents at no charge on the bi-weekly program, option one is the existing program with recycling collected bi-weekly however if two smaller refuse containers are desired there would be an additional $5 charge for the second, some cities have a higher charge as the intent is to promote recycling, under option three with weekly pickup there w9uld be a charge for additional containers, however if the bi-weekly recycling program is retained their company will assist the residents with getting the large containers through I their side gates and if that can not be done the resident will be provided with two sixty gallon containers at no additional charge. councilmember Campbell reminded that the same would hold true with the refuse container. The Manager offered that option two retains the current system without increasing the truck traffic and the number of collection days, the container is smaller yet two would increase the capacity, once a week collection with the smaller container was discussed at last meeting also. It was noted that either size container could be used'for the once weekly option three. with regard to Old Town, councilmember Hastings noted that recycling collection is 3-10-97 I proposed for once weekly. Mr. Briggeman said the intent was to develop a franchise agreement that would provide benefits to the City, bulk item collection being one, then adopt a revised ordinance, and design and implement a program for Old Town, always intended to be once per week collection as the area is so different from others in the community, however at the last meeting other issues surfaced and there has been an effort to address those. Councilmember Hastings said it may be best to keep Old Town separate in that there are circumstances that are specifically applicable to the area as to collections, recyclables, special problems due to the narrow alleys, etc. It was suggested that Section 3.7.2 of the contract be amended to reflect that certain portions of Old Town will not receive automated containers. Mayor Forsythe pointed out a provision that states that any type of oral agreement is not binding, therefore possibly the areas that are not accessible for the automated system should be set forth speci~ically, to which Councilmember Hastings made reference to sections 6.1 and 6.2 relating to assignment of agreement and transfer of stock or interest where she suggested clarifying language be added. The Manager suggested an annual report could be required to identify any additional inaccessible areas. Mr. Briggeman noted that the style of truck is virtually the same as is presently used with the exception of the tipping machine in the front, and agreed to work with staff to document the inaccessible areas once they are known. In reference to section 3.7.2, Councilmember Campbell offered that if recyclables are to be collected once a week in College Park East the one hundred gallon container is not needed, the sixty gallon will be adequate, and suggested that Old Town residents give due consideration to which size container will fit their needs. Mr. Briggeman said some of the multi-units that are not on commercial bin service, of which there are few, will be provided a one hundred gallon refuse and recycling container for every three units. The Mayor mentioned that initially she did not feel her refuse would fit into the one hundred container however she had not factored in the recyclables that are separated out. In that there will not be greenwaste separation in Old Town, Councilmember Hastings asked where it is to be disposed of, the response was in the refuse container, the only downtown area having greenwaste containers is the Gold Coast, however Councilmember Hastings mentioned that it should be kept in mind that there are some homes on larger lots that do gardening. The City Manager stated that the initial objective was to determine if recycling could be accomplished in Old Town without a rate increase, a comparison of other Orange County cities was not realistic because of the varying types of programs, some without greenwaste separation, etc. He said a historical review of rates showed $12.25 approved in 1987, a discussion of an increase to $12.75 in 1990 and 1993, yet rates have actually not been increased, therefore that amount was designated as a target rate, the additional monies would come to the city to offset some of the cost of maintaining the streets used by the refuse trucks, billing, etc., mUlti-family residential in Old Town would be $12.25 monthly per billed unit, $6 per year more than the current charge. He noted that twenty-three of the surveyed cities have higher rates, Seal Beach would remain below the average which is about $12.83 per month. As to commercial rates, they have been found to be considerably below the market rate therefore discussion commenced as to how to generate a fair return to the contractor for commercial service without undue burden on the businesses, the result was agreement that any rate increases would be phased in over a three year period, no change to the once per week service for one year, and even after the phased increases the rates would still be lower than Los Alamitos, Cypress, Huntington Beach, and Fountain Valley, and I I 3-10-97 reported that notices are being sent for a June public hearing to allow further comments. The Manager noted that no cost collection services for the city and school ~acilities have been agreed to, that an approximate $30,000 saving, an additional $15,000 of franchise revenue to the city annually over the next three years, $30,000 by implementing the billing rate proposed in 1993, and $10,000 that the contractor has agreed to pay the I City for recovery of AB939 compliance administration, the total cost savings and additional revenues estimated to be $85,000, plus a one-time payment of $50,000 in the form of a cash bond at the time of execution of the franchise, for a total first year revenue of $135,000. Mayor Forsythe declared the continued public hearing open. Mr. Bill Ayres, Old Town, asked if the contract has been let as yet, the response was that there is an existing seven year franchise agreement with Briggeman Disposal; asked if competitive bidding is required to amend the contract under state law, the response was no; comment was that this may be a good contract however competitive bids from the major trash haulers may be advantageous for the City, taking advantage of the purchasing power when a contract is let. Mr. Ayres stated his opinion and that of people across the nation that recycling is a bad law, voluntary recycling is just as effective and less expensive, the problem with a recycling contract that is too long is that the law may be rescinded in a few years yet the City would be bound by contract. He stated that the trash hauling business is very competitive, there is an over-abundance of disposal sites, in many instances the recycled waste ends up in the landfill as well, the reason is that there is no market for the recyclable goods, and is more convenient for trash pickers. Mr. Ayres provided copies of Wall street Journal articles relating to his I comments to the Council. Mr. Bruce stark, Seal Beach, said the containers have nothing to do with a recycling program, claimed that Long Beach does not have special cans, suggesting that the recycling program should be segregated out from the proposal of the contractor. He said some years back he brought a news article to the attention of the Council showing that Seal Beach refuse rates were the highest in the county, at that time the City was getting two collections per week where other cities had one, now there will be one collection and the rates are going up. He stated he could find five areas where this will be advantageous to the contractor yet there is nothing that will benefit the residents of Old Town, one is the saving realized by using one employee on a truck rather than two, the length of the contract binds future Councils as well, the contractor will benefit from the enforcement provisions for the exclusivity clause pertaining to the commercial construction bin service, and will realize more attractive financing. Mr. Stark claimed that the City of Long Beach still uses regular trash cans with a separate collection for recyclables, those placed for pickup in a box or separate can, but that would not happen in Seal Beach because the contractor wants an automated system which the residents are paying for. He questioned how tagging can be enforced and how the bins can be removed from sight in Old Town, particularly the Gold Coast. He complained that the large bins I at his residence blocked his back door, they were replaced with smaller cans that were inadequate, now he has no containers because the prior cans can not be used. He questioned why the contractor would be reporting to the Los Angeles County Fire Protection District as set forth in section 3.17 of the Agreement, and to section 3.2.1, providing that seven percent of the contractor's gross receipts from commercial, industrial and residential premises is to generate to the City, asked if that is not a tax under Proposition 218 requiring a vote of the people. Mr. Stark suggested that the contractor take his cans and automated system elsewhere and that the residents keep their I I I 3-10-97 old trash cans and that recyclables just be held for separate pickup. Question was raised with regard to the reference to trash containers in Long Beach. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Seal Beach, asked why the refuse truck is in her area collecting trash in the early hours six days a week if pickup is going to be reduced to once a week. She recalled that sometime back a recycling committee was formed to develop a program that would work well for the City, excepting the areas of Surfside, Oakwood, the Trailer Park, and Leisure World that have their own programs, in an effort to comply with State law. After considerable discussion the recommendation of the committee was that a MRF program was the only feasible solution for the Old Town area where curbside could be implemented in the other areas. Ms. Antoci stated the reason that tipping and landfill fees have increased so much is that people are recycling, less is going to the landfill, therefore the fees have increased. In that her business is recycling, she reported buying three million pounds of cans per year before recycling, that translates into money at $1.05 per pound, forty cents a pound for plastic, and five cents a pound for glass, and claimed that the more recycling containers the contractor provides the more recycling money he makes. Ms. Antoci said she had provided the City Manager with a packet of information that the waste hauler in Santa Ana attached to each refuse bin as public information, that at the cost of the hauler. She asked if it can be presumed the refuse from the beach will be MRF'd, why then is a MRF program for Old Town not being considered as was ~ecommended by the committee as the best, most economical, and efficient program. Councilmember Hastings responded that it is understood that a MRF program is more expensive, the dirty MRF program in Huntington Beach about $4 more per month than Seal Beach. Mr. Briggeman advised that the Huntington Beach rate is $16.50 per month. Mr. Walt Miller, Seal Beach Boulevard, said for the most part trash containers in Old Town are located outside property fences due to the small lots, in the alleys or sideyards, and claimed that visitors to the community will toss their trash into the cans not knowing whether they are recyclables or not. Mr. Miller noted his concern with the rates, also stated his belief that there is an existing provision whereby if the contractor damages City property, curb, gutter and sidewalk in this case, the property owner that fronts the City property that was damaged is responsible for the repairs, in his case an $8,000 personal cost to repair the damage caused by Briggeman Disposal in order to obtain a building permit, damage they have denied, therefore his only recourse is to take a legal action against Briggeman. Mr. Miller asked that a provision be added to the agreement so that when the contractor causes damage the contractor, not the property owner, will need to make amends with the City or that the City determine it was not the fault of the contractor. Mr. Miller said although he has a letter from Briggeman denying that their trucks ever passed over his property, he and neighbors have observed the trucks using the property to exit the alley onto Seal Beach Boulevard for ten years, and their insurance should cover the repairs. Ms. Gail Ayres, Central Avenue, confirmed that the rate for multi-units is $12.25 per unit per month, her monthly cost would be $47, then questioned if one bin would be provided for each unit or one bin for all four, which would be inadequate, whether she would be charged extra for additional bins, claimed her rates are going up as there will be only once a week pickup rather than twice, and stated her properties already recycle. She asked if someone has measured the areas where the bins will be stored, she could accommodate three bins, no more, and maybe a small box, suggesting that maybe the answer is to stay with the present program with the existing cans and merely add a recyclable box. Mr. Ace Yeam, College Park East, requested Council support for option 3, once a week pickup of all three smaller containers. Mr. Tom Greeley, 3-10-97 Old Town, pointed out that for years the City allowed four units on twenty-five foot lots, leaving three feet on either side, his concern is with liability in the event emergency access is needed. He questioned where these bins are going to be kept, it may be necessary for them to be in the public right-Of-way as many properties abut an alley, and inquired if the Police and Fire Departments have looked at this issue. councilmember I Hastings noted that some of the properties on Seal Way have only one setback, one side of the dwelling built to the property line, that being one of the reasons this program will not work for that area. Mr. Greeley questioned how this program will work with absentee landowners, confirmed that the tenants will not put the containers out for pickup, and cited access and parking for emergency vehicles as an existing problem. Councilmember Campbell responded that the issue of the Fire Department is hazardous materials, not accessibility. Dr. Rosenman, 8th Street, asked for an explanation as to what happens when out-of-town visitors put things in the trash bins, the recycle particularly, which is an on-going problem, deemed the Fire Department response to Councilmember Campbell as a non- answer, pointed out access problems that currently exist in the alley between Main and 8th Street with delivery trucks, etc. and questioned the additional impact of the large bins. Mr. Dave Potter, Seal way, inquired as to what the customized collection will be for Seal Way. He said his gate measures less than twenty-five inches yet the bin is twenty-seven inches, upon measuring the sideyards of three Seal Way properties none met the three foot setback. He too questioned where the containers are to be placed, acknowledged the agreement by the contractor at the last meeting that placing the bins within two feet of the property line was unnecessary, however Mr. Potter suggested that I clarifying language be added to the agreement for this and other verbal agreements. Mr. Potter said while the staff has presented this item in a positive light to the City, Mr. Briggeman's percentage is income minus cost divided by his investment times a hundred, if one looks at the costs, which are the franchise fees, the free things, etc., the reality is that the only way he holds his percent of profit without juggling cost or investment is in the income area, therefore it would seem that if those were not included the income would rise and the rates would drop, and in reality it is the customer who is actually paying for them. He concluded that rather than using the assessors parcel book to determine the number of units there be a count of the actual number of trash cans, that could point to the number of illegal units there are. Mr. Ayres, central Avenue, stated if one can is provided for four units, that spells windfall. Mr. Sandler, College Park East, pointed out that the large cans scrape across the block walls and gates, his preference would be to have two recycling and one refuse container of the smaller size, also encouraged the residents to put their containers away once collected. Mr. Bob Cullins, Main Street, said it is a business principal and more profitable for the contractor to use the same system throughout. He stated there are a number of elderly people in Old Town that can not move the larger bins, to an earlier comment relating to the City of Long Beach he said the City uses the automated system, the I unincorporated area does not, and people do not like the bins, there are a lot of issues that relate to the size and weight of the containers, and explained that Main Street businesses need twice a week pickups. He mentioned also having to use Briggeman Disposal for construction site debris removal a number of times even though other companies were less expensive, also agreed with prior comments relating to emergency access. Ms. Fran Johnson noted that her property is on a slight hill, the bins have tipped several times and one must be cautious of the lids falling as well, and reported she recycled cans and newspapers before the recycling program ever started. Mr. Roger West, I I I 3-10-97 Electric Avenue, made reference to a statement in the staff report that 'adding a full route is likely to lead to future rate increases' to which he asked if there is weekly recyclable collection will the rates be increased. The response was that that did not apply to Old Town, followed by the comment that it would not apply to College Park East either pursuant to section 4.3.2. Mr. West said a system exists now that is working, the attempt is to change that, however as a resident of Old town it appears to primarily benefit the contractor, benefit those in the city government, with no benefit to the residents. He said he understood it would be about a year and a half before the rates are raised, yet the service is being cut in half and containers are being imposed on the residents that do not fit in Old Town, the garages take the full width of the property, and stated he did not believe that people realize how difficult this program is going to be and that Old Town should be considered separately. Ms. Ann New, College Park East, referred to the areas of the community that are served by other haulers and asked why this City has not gone to competitive bids. Ms. Gail Ayres, Central Avenue, asked if the multi-unit dwellings will be required to roll the containers to a certain place in the alleys, which in her case would block the garages. 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 9:07 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:25 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. A suggestion was made that Mr. Briggeman be first to respond to the questions raised, the liability and hold harmless issue and how the program will be instituted should also be points of response. Mr. Briggeman explained that when the curbside recycling program was implemented some three years ago the Old Town area was set aside given the knowledge that it would need to be dealt with separately, a dirty MRF program was not a consideration as that would have caused a rate increase of three to four dollars, recycling baskets too were not a consideration as they are difficult to carry and encourage scavenging, all of which led to an automated system, which is utilized in the majority of Orange County cities, however it is understood that the fully automated system can not be used in Old Town given the narrowness of the alleys, etc. He confirmed that the residents will not need to move their containers to the alley, the truck personnel will move the bin to the truck which is then emptied by means of a tipping machine mounted on the front of the truck, and clarified that there are two persons working each of the refuse trucks. Mr. Briggeman pointed out that recycling is not mandatory, never has been, therefore if someone chooses to not participate they can request that their recycling bin be removed, on the other hand a number of Old Town residents have requested a recycling program, some people have indicated they like the bins because they improve the appearance of the neighborhood, especially in the alleys, in addition if someone wishes to keep their old trash can that will be acceptable as well. It was clarified that if a resident does not wish to participate in the recycling program they may advise the contractor, return the bin and retain their existing trash cans, however, pickup will change to once per week, a problem too, should residents choose to not participate and keep their present cans, is the absence of trash can lids. To a comment from the audience insisting on the need for twice per week pickup for multi-units, Mr. Briggeman expressed his opinion that the owners of apartments and multi-units in Seal Beach are quite likely getting the best in all of Orange County, in some cities it is mandatory that complexes of more than four units have a three yard commercial bin, a complex such as Oakwood Garden Apartments has twenty-eight commercial bins, collected three 3-10-97 times a week. Comments from the audience objected to once a week pickups, the increase of rates, claimed that the bins can not be accommodated because of limited space, and that revenues are being generated to the contractor from the recyclables. Mr. Briggeman stated again it mattered not to him whether or not there is a recycling program in Old Town, reported there are only four cities in Orange County that have dirty MRF programs, I which carry a greater cost, and explained the obligation of his - company is that the City divert fifty percent of its waste stream, based upon the 1990 tonnage, by the year 2000 whether there is a market for recyclables or not, as an example it is presently a cost to dispose of mixed waste paper given the current market. It was again clarified that it will be at the option of the resident as to whether they choose to recycle or not, possibly by means of signing a waiver. To the question regarding soliciting bids, Mr. Briggeman responded that in about twenty years there will be no more George Briggemans because of the capital investment and liability for this type of business, by then there may be five choices of companies, the County landfills will be privatized as well, and explained that the franchise was not up for bid as seven years remain on that contract, it was felt it would be of benefit to the community and his company if a longer term could be obtained which in turn supports more attractive financing and helps to keep rates down, at that point he noted there has been no increase for nine years. Councilmember Campbell pointed out that refuse hauling is a very capital investment business and it would be unfair to not have some assurance of financial recovery. Mr. Briggeman stated his company has served Seal Beach, their newest community, since 1969, mentioned how much easier business was prior to AB939 when rate increases were based on the CPI to cover payroll and gate fees, reported that they indemnify the I City for AB939 compliance, and explained that liability is causing there to be fewer independent companies. As to comments relating to the city of Long Beach, Mr. Briggeman offered that a part of that city is recycling, they receive one one hundred gallon can and baskets for commingled recycling, his company is an independent hauler, there are no options in Long Beach as the City provides the service, their recycling program was bid separately when the price for paper was high, is now sUffering as the contractor can not survive on the revenue from the materials alone. He reported that although the Stark residence does not have bins the trash is being collected each week in bags. with regard to trucks being in the community six days a week, he explained that the commercial accounts and apartment complexes schedule when they want their bins collected; explained that the expenditure to development the AB939 program, the SRE and Household Hazardous Waste Element, were required to be filed with the State pursuant to State law; as to trash being placed in the recycling bin it was explained that will be no problem as it will go through the residual line and ultimately go to the landfill. The customized program for Seal Way means there will be no changes; special service is provided the elderly and handicapped who can not transport their bins to the street; with regard to bins for construction and demolition Mr. Briggeman acknowledged that there may be small companies who I charge less for those services however it is Briggeman that is required to track the waste stream and file tonnage reports with the State each year otherwise there is a $10,000 per day fine for which Briggeman has indemnified the City, for hazardous waste compliance as well. It was again clarified that bins will be available for each multi-dwelling unit if desired, and it will not be necessary for the resident to wheel the bin to within two feet of the property line. Making reference to Section 7.6 of the Agreement with regard to No Oral MOdifications, Councilmember Hastings asked how 3-10-97 I amendments and modifications will be incorporated that have been determined necessary, the recycling option, the two foot from the property line issue, etc. The City Attorney advised that Section 10-8.5 of the proposed ordinance relates to the two foot issue and that sentence could be deleted, the recycling option has always been part of the ordinance therefore no change would be required. A member of the audience inquired as to what is to be done with quantities of boxes and paper when tenants move in and out, the contractor advised that they should be placed next to the recycling container for pickup, and the City Attorney made reference to Section 10-6.1, Residential Householder Exclusion, to confirm that that section would include multi- family units. Councilmember Campbell referred to section 3.7.3 of the Agreement, Frequency of Collection - Residential Premises, requested that the word 'other' be deleted from a sentence to read "Collection of recyclables shall take place every week...." and that the third sentence of section 10-8.2 of the Ordinance be amended to read "...Unless otherwise approved by the city Council, collection of solid waste, recyclables, and greenwaste shall take place no less than once each calendar week...", the last sentence then deleted. The city Attorney clarified that the intent of the Council was to collect recyclables once per week throughout the city. Councilmember Campbell then made reference to section 10-8.5, Residential Collection-Placement and Removal of Containers, objected to the first violation being an infraction carrying a fine of $100 and the second violation a misdemeanor, suggesting rather an amount around $15. Mayor Forsythe said she felt the intent was a means for citation of those who leave their bins streetside on a regular basis. At the conclusion of discussion the Council agreed that a warning would be issued for a first violation, a second violation would be an infraction in the amount of $20, a third and further violations would be $40 in any twelve month period, also that the provision for misdemeanor be deleted. I I Mr. Briggeman confirmed again that the recycle bins will be collected each week at no additional cost however if a resident wishes to replace their one hundred gallon bin with two sixties there will be a $5 additional charge per month, also, if it can be proven that a one hundred gallon bin can not fit through the gate a replacement with two six gallon bins will be made at no charge, after June 1st. The City Attorney clarified that the definition of "residential" does include multi-family units therefore the ordinance allows any residential person to recycle on their own if they choose to do so except when placed curbside where it falls under the recycling program. It was confirmed that College Park West and the Hill, like College Park East, consists of single family residential units. The City Attorney referred to Section 10-8.2 of the ordinance, the first sentence amended to read "... collection in compliance with this Article from each occupied residential premises once a week and in accordance with...", confirmed that the third sentence was amended to read "...collection of solid waste, recyclables, and green waste..." then deleting the last sentence. The first sentence of this Section was further amended to delete the word "occupied" to read "...from each residential premises...", the intent of that word was to not require the contractor to place bins at vacant lots. Section 10-8.5 was amended to delete the second sentence relating to the two foot requirement, and the last sentence amended to delete reference to a misdemeanor to read "...Violation of this section is an infraction. For the first infraction the City shall give a warning to the residential householder, for the second infraction the residential householder shall be subject to a $20 fine, and thereafter violation shall be $40 within a one year period." It was agreed that such violation would not be implemented until after June 1st. 3-10-97 Brown moved, second by Fulton, to adopt Ordinance Number 1414, as amended, 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. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried with regard to the Agreement for Solid Waste services the City Attorney referred to Section 3.7.2, the last sentence of paragraph one amended to read "...Certain portions of "Old Town" will not receive automated containers due to inaccessibility...", a previous suggestion to require the contractor to supply the city with a list of such areas was dropped. He agreed that language could be added to the Agreement, in addition to the Ordinance, .to clarify that recycling is by choice. A requirement to provide written waiver from the program was requested to be included as well, however a suggestion was made that the program be implemented, thereafter anyone Choosing to not recycle may request that the bin be removed. The City Attorney suggested that the second paragraph of section 3.7.2 be amended to include language that "...any residential service customer may request to be excluded from recycling, in writing, as provided for in the solid waste ordinance..." Question was raised as to whether the residents of the areas of the community that are presently recycling could likewise request to be excluded. The City Attorney suggested that the language of section 3.7.2 be reworked entirely, offered to do so, and suggested adoption of the Agreement be held over until next meeting. with regard to section 3.7.3, the third sentence was amended to read "...All residential solid waste, recyclables, and green waste shall be collected once each week..." and the next two sentences deleted, Section 3.17 amended to reflect the Orange county Fire Authority. Brown moved, second by Campbell, to continue the Solid Waste Services Agreement until the next meeting. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried CITY MANAGER REPORTS The city Manager noted a recent report to Council relating to the bids to construct the WestComm Dispatch Center, those bids higher than anticipated due to the specialized equipment in the Center, and he reported that due to the fact this is a model program where three governmental agencies have joined together to consolidate services for a financial savings to the three agencies as well as the state, a grant application was made and this afternoon notice was received that $95,000 had been approved for that project. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilman Brown noted the selection of Brandi Whitaker as Miss Seal Beach this past saturday evening and offered to invite the 1997 Miss Seal Beach and her princesses to an upcoming City Council meeting for introduction. Councilmember Campbell thanked Mr. Briggeman for his willingness to work with the city, also reported a call from Waste News Magazine relating to the Seal Beach refuse issue, and stated she would be informing them of the Council action after this meeting. Councilman Fulton reported that he and Councilmember Campbell recently attended a I I I 3-10-97 I 3-24-97 I tour of the Seven Oaks Dam. Councilmember Hastings requested an explanation of the public comment regarding pushing sand into the ocean. The city Engineer said he believed the reference was to the natural movement of the sand, stated there has been some surf and the last of the high tides, it was fortunate that the new sand was in place or there could have been more erosion, and reported that removal of the berm commenced this date. Councilman Brown reported that the County has picked six people, he being one, to look at forming a Joint Powers Agreement for a two hundred fifty to three hundred million dollar project to take water out of the Sanitation District and Water District, clean it, then recycle it to Anaheim where it will be percolated through rock and gravel back into the water supply, that about twenty-two or -three percent of Orange County water use, that water will then be available when there is another draught. Mayor Forsythe invited public comments relating to the cable franchise at the next meeting, and announced that the Hellman Estate will be holding public workshops regarding their proposed property development at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 17th and Wednesday, April 2nd at the Mary Wilson Library. The Mayor made reference to a news article reporting that legislation is being proposed at the State level, likely by SCAG, where once a year the odometer on ones vehicle will be read and a gas tax charge will be imposed of two cents per mile driven during the year, to which she urged public response. I ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn until Monday, March 24th at. 6:30 p.m. to meet in Closed Session if deemed necessary. By unanimous consent the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. clerk of the Approved: d./)~+/~. - Ma or Attest: Seal Beach, California March 24, 1997 I The City Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:30 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