Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1991-10-21 10-7-91/10-21-91 Council. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications closed. I ADJOURNMENT Laszlo moved, second by Wilson, to cancel the regular meeting of October 14th, that the October 14th meeting be adjourned to October 21st for a redistricting workshop, that the October 21st meeting be adjourned until October 28th at 6:00 p.m. to hold a Closed Session, and that the public hearing to consider redistricting be called for October 28th. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn the meeting at 9:32 p.m. of the Approved: ~..~.L~~ Mayor I Attest: Seal Beach, California October 21, 1991 The City Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:02 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Laszlo Councilmembers Doane, Forsythe, Hastings Absent: Councilmember Wilson It was the consensus of the Council to excuse the absence of Councilmember Wilson from this meeting. I Also present: Mr. Bankston, city Manager Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Forsythe moved, second by Doane, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried 10-21-91 Mayor Laszlo announced that the intent of the workshop session was to discuss and receive comments with regard to redistricting proposals, specifically relating to Districts One and Three, and noted the display of district boundaries as adopted in 1964, 1967, 1971, and 1981. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS I Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Phyllis Crosby, 1737 Harbor Way, brought attention to the members of her Wieblo Pack present in the audience to observe the meeting as part of their Citizenship Badge. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications closed. CONSENT CALENDAR Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to approve the recommended action for the sole item on the Consent Calendar. A. Approved regular demands numbered 85508 through 85671 in the amount of $801,722.57 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried REDISTRICTING DISCUSSION The city Manager reported receipt of a communication dated I October 18th from Ms. Sheri Ross, President of the Surfs ide Colony Community Services Tax District which he read for the record as follows: "with regard to the recommendations of the City Council on the subject of redistricting - The Surfs ide Colony Community Services Tax District is strongly opposed to any plan which would result in a division of Surfside Colony into two districts. Surfs ide Colony Community Services Tax District acts for the benefit of a community regarded as a single cohesive beachfront residential development and any division of the community would result in splintering of united community goals and objectives. A redistricting must treat Surfs ide Colony as a whole in order to preserve the Colony's basic integrity." He noted receipt of three other communications with similar I comments. Councilmember Hastings read for the record the referenced communications from Mr. Stephen Rowe, the Surfside Colony storm Water Protection District, and Mr. E. G. Salegui. Mayor Laszlo reported the Redistricting Committee successfully completed the redistricting of Districts Two, Four and Five with respective populations of 4911, 5024, and 4927. It was clarified that of the four modified proposals of Councilmember Hastings, two reflected a split of Surfs ide and two did not. As a point of information the City Manager noted that the process of conducting an election would become more difficult should 10-21-91 Surfs ide be split, also there is some question as to whether the area could in fact be divided. I Mr. Gordon Shanks, 215 Surf Place, Chairman of the Redistricting Committee, stated the boundaries of Districts Two, Four and Five appeared to be so clear and logical that the Committee had not prepared alternatives, and presented a brief description of the five alternative proposals that had been prepared for consideration for Districts One and Three, also noted the Committee did not find the splitting of Surfs ide as a viable solution. Councilmember Hastings mentioned that District Three was reduced by six hundred twenty-five persons with the removal of Leisure World which in turn means five hundred thirty-six persons are needed from Old Town and Surfs ide to bring the districts into balance. Councilmember Forsythe pointed out the need for the districts to be as equitable as possible utilizing the census statistical data as mandated, noted that a portion of the Old Town area has been in District Three for a number of years, that every issue that comes before the Council is considered and voted upon by all five representatives, and stated she would oppose a split of Surfside. Members of the audience were invited to present their views on the various redistricting proposals, summarized below. Ms. Shirley Leddy, 16th Street, spoke for Proposal "C" as representing the goals of the Redistricting Committee and placing Surfs ide in District Three; Mr. Salegui, A-57, Surfside, voiced his objection to the concept of splitting Surfside; Mr. Bob Montgomery, President of the Surfs ide Board of Directors, said he believed there was agreement that Surfs ide should not be split and should remain in District One; Mr. Laird Mueller, 8th Street, stated his preference that historic Old Town remain intact and Surfs ide become part of District Three; Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, said he felt Proposal "C" would be the best for the community by following more natural lines; Mr. Joe Orsini, Seal Beach, offered his opinion that Surfside should not be split, and suggested that Hastings Proposal A, modification 2, be given consideration; Mr. Mark soukup, 16th Street, said as the District One representative to the Committee he had been involved with developing Proposal A, and suggested its further modification to place the triangle area adjacent to Marina Drive and nearest Pacific Coast Highway in District one, while also retaining surfside, Zoeter, and Main Street in that District; Ms. Mitzi Morton, Old Town, spoke for either Hastings Proposal A, modification 2, or Proposal C, stating it may be advantageous to have two Council representatives with interest in the city's beachfront; Mr. Charles Antos, 17th Street, agreed that Surfs ide should not be split, disagreed with Proposals A, B, 0, A-1, A-2, A-3, and B-1 that split existing neighborhoods, however stated to transfer an area in its entirety may not be a bad idea, specifically in the case of Surfs ide there would be two representatives of coastal areas working in concert with regard to shoreline problems; Mr. Gordon Shanks, speaking as a resident, recalled that Old Town was once the area south of Pacific Coast Highway, acknowledged that portions have been placed in another district as a result of reapportionment, that each district has its particular problems, stated his opposition to splitting Surfside, however if need be it should be shifted as an entire area, and suggested that the direction should be to balance the load of responsibilities of the districts; and Ms. Dorothy Whyte, College Park East resident, pointed out that until now college Park East was split for a number of years, College Park West and the Rossmoor Condos have remained intact, and offered that it may be necessary for I I 10-21-91 Old Town to lose some area. She explained that the Committee meetings were open to the public yet only one person had input, that the Committee attempted to keep neighborhoods together, that pursuant to Council direction alternative proposals were developed as well as advantages" and disadvantages of each in lieu of a majority and minority repor~. with regard to percentage differences between districts, the city Manager explained that neither the Elections Code or the Charter set forth specific percentages, however there have been court challenges dealing with the equity of population between districts and upon review of those cases it appears there could be a potential for challenge if the numbers are much beyond two percent, also the percentage difference between the most and least populated districts must be taken into consideration. Councilman Doane questioned why there was no discussion of Proposal E, that plan having a difference of eighty, addresses the issue of keeping Surfs ide intact, and only slightly moves the existing boundary of the neighborhood that is presently in District Three, which he said appears to be a reasonable compromise. councilmember Hastings stated Proposal E would transfer a greater portion of historic Old Town to District Three where taking a portion of the east side of Old Town would not be as great. Councilmember Forsythe said she did not believe that there is or will be any intent to cause ' anything adverse to historic Old Town, again made reference to the consideration of issues by all five Council representatives, read the redistricting criteria as set forth in the Charter, stated her uncertainty as to understanding and dealing with the issues associated with Surfside, and indicated that Proposal E would be a more logical boundary than to project into another separate area of downtown. I I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:41 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:50 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calli~g the meeting to order. , , Ms. Georgiana Brown, 212 - 14th Street, spoke regarding Proposal C, noted that there are presently incursions into Old Town and by placing the entire of Surfs ide in District Three additional and seemingly arbitrary incursions into Old Town may be prevented which she said discourages community interest, yet would provi~e the coastal areas two representatives that may be beneficial in the future with regard to development of Anaheim Bay and enhancement of the beach areas. Ms. Brown agreed however with Councilmember Forsythe that Proposal E would merely increase the community area of District Three rather than make further incursions into the Old Town area. Councilmember Forsythe reiterated that the criteria and guidelines for the Commit~ee were to maintain as concisely as possible the existing boundary lines, proposal E does just that, stated that District Three presently has diverse areas of varied interests, indicated I: an uneasiness with assuming an entirely new area with different problems, and likewise to move an area along Seal Beach Boulevard was not in compliance with the Committee guidelines. Councilmember Hastings said she felt the guidelines were ignored in dealing with Districts Two, Four and Five, questioned what difference there would be if the same modifications were applied to Districts One and Three, indicated that it would not be her preference to lose the Surfs ide area, therefore the modified proposals were developed to either divide Surfside or maintain that area intact. At the request of Council, the city Clerk explained that should Surfside be divided, two separate voting 10-21-91/10-28-91 I precincts would be necessary, one for each of the districts, consisting of approximately one hundred fifty registered voters each, likewise there is limited area to locate polling places as well as a problem with obtaining election officers, a similar situation with the Seal Beach Boulevard proposed boundaries where the voters of that area would either vote at McGaugh School or a separate polling place would be established for a small number of voters at st. Anne's Church or other downtown location. with regard to .. Proposal E, the Clerk explained that Surfs ide would continue to vote as a unit within Surfs ide and the additional voters within the area of Central Avenue and sixth street would vote at a location that is traditionally used for local elections. Mr. Soukup suggested that Surfs ide would pose no more a burden to District Three than had Leisure World, and suggested that Surfside present their views. Mr. Stark referred to a previous comment regarding Council votes, noted that actions of the Council generally require three votes rather than the five mentioned, and again suggested that two coastal area representatives could be of benefit to Surfside. Mr. Bob Montgomery, Surfside, acknowledged the value of the input from this workshop, however stated the desire of Surfs ide to reserve their final opinion until the next meeting and in the meantime the matter would be discussed further with the residents and Boardmembers. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. I ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn until Monday, October 28th at 6:00 p.m. to meetU in Closed Session. The meeting was adjourned unanimous consent at 9:08 p.m. Clerk and ex-of of Seal Beach the Approved: ~~.,~L Mayor A-..y--- Attest: I Seal Beach, California October 28, 1991 The Seal Beach city Council regular adjourned session scheduled for 6:00 p.m. was cancelled due to the lack of items for discussion in Closed Session. :1J};" ne M. Yeo, City y of Seal Beach