Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1985-04-22 4-22-85 Seal Beach, California April 22, 1985 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I ROLL CALL present: Mayor Brownell Counci1members Clift, Risner, Wilson Absent: Counci1member Grgas Councilman Grgas arrived at 7:12 p.m. Also present: Mr. parker, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services Mr. Hemphill, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mr. Jue, Assistant City Engineer Mr. Ma1kemus, Administrative Aide Mrs. Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Clift, 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 Counci1members after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Brownell proclaimed Wednesday, May 1, 1985 as "Law Day U.S.A." Judge David o. Carter accepted the Proclamation as Chairman and on behalf of the Orange County Bar Association. Mayor Brownell proclaimed Saturday, May 11, 1985 as "Fire Service Recognition Day." Battalion Chief Marc Hawkins accepted the Proclamation on behalf of Fire Chief Larry Holms and the Orange County Fire Department. Councilman Grgas arrived at the meeting at 7:12 p.m. I Mayor Brownell proclaimed the week of April 22nd through April 28th, 1985 as "volunteer Recognition Week." Mrs. Sherry Baum accepted the Proclamation on behalf of the Volunteer Center of Orange County West. The week of May 12 through May 17, 1985 was proclaimed "Transportation partnership Week" by Mayor Brownell. The Mayor proclaimed May 19th through May 25th, 1985 as "Human Resources Development Week." 4-22-85 PUBLIC HEARING - BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA Mayor Brownell declared the publIC hearIng open to consider the establishment of a Business Improvement Area proposed for the general promotion of business activities in the Business Improvement Area. The City Clerk certified that the notice of public hearing was published as required by law, posted, and mailed to each affected business. The City Clerk reported that until 5:00 p.m. this date ninety-five written communications had been received, of which nine businesses, valued at $1820, opposed the BIA, seventy-five businesses, valued at $14,730, did not oppose the BIA, five requested they be removed from the petition, two indicated they neither favored nor opposed the BIA, two businesses outside the BIA zones supported same, one communication from the Edison Company requesting that public utilities be specifically excluded from the BIA, however offering a voluntary contribution to same. The Clerk reported five additional communications received since 5:00 p.m., not included in the previous reported totals. The City Manager explained this to be the next proceeding to consider the creation of a Business Improvement Area, and that following the public hearing and receipt of protests, a tabulation would be made to determine if those businesses protesting constitute a majority of the charges proposed to be imposed, and if so, would terminate further consideration of the BIA. The City Manager stated that should there not be a majority protest, it would then be recommended that: 1) the City Council, by minute order, approve the intent to establish a Business Improvement Area; 2) that the City Manager and City Attorney be instructed to work with the Old Town Business Association of Seal Beach toward amending their By-Laws so that the Association can officially embody and represent all businesses affected by the Business Improvement Area; and 3) that the City Attorney be instructed to draw up an agreement that will enable the assessments collected by the City to be turned over to the Association for administration, said agreement to spell out the purposes for which the monies can be spent as well as appropriate accounting and/or accountability controls. Mr. Parker stated that pursuant to State law, the Ordinance contains the legal description of the district and the amount of assessment to be paid, noting that the eventual determination as to what the monies will be designated for would be a product of negotiations with the organization that will represent the Business Improvement Area. Additionally, he stated that assurances must, be made that the City is not going to keep the monies and spend it for other purposes, a concern expressed by both the proponents and opponents of the BIA. Mr. Parker recommended that the Ordinance not be introduced until all accompanying documents are prepared for consideration, also, that the additional time will allow for negotiations with both sides of this issue. The City Attorney concurred that under state law, the ordinance is required to state the boundaries, the amount of assessment, and a general statement dealing with how the monies are to be spent, which, in this case, is for promotional activities, and concurred that details of administration should be set forth by separate agreement. The City Manager stated he would recommend that the agreement contain a stipulation that should the City Council unilaterally determine to change the BIA, the public hearing and protest would automatically be set in motion, stating this would be protection for all parties. The City Manager acknowledged that it would also be his recommendation that all businesses operating from a home be exempted, that the term "office buildings" be deleted, and c1arif~ed that apartment house I I I 4-22-85 owners are not affected, which again, should be a matter discussed during negotiations. Mr. Parker offered that should the Council choose to indicate approval of the BIA, it could be with the provision that the agreement meets with City Council approval. I Mayor Brownell invited members of the audience wishing to speak in support of the proposed Business Improvement Area to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Rich Harbour, owner of a business located at 329 Main Street, was duly sworn by the City Clerk and stated he was a member of the Downtown Revitalization Task Force, that improvements to the business area were discussed during those meetings, one recommendation being to obtain a paid professional coordinator to oversee the promotional programs of the business community. Mr. Harbour stated he is the current vice-President of the Old Town Business Association, reported the numerous activities that have taken place over the past year, as well as the errors and mistakes that occurred due to their lack of promotional expertise, proving costly to the business community and the City, and referred to the numerous hours, away from their own business, devoted by volunteer business persons to promotional community activities. Mr. Harbour spoke for approval of the BIA, expressed his feeling that all businesses will benefit, and urged all concerned to take a positive attitude toward the BIA if it is created. Mr. Neal Ward, stated he owns two businesses in Seal Beach, Johns Food King for fourteen years, and Old Town Wine and Spirits for eight. Mr. Ward reported his thirty-five year experience and background has been in small shopping areas, noting numerous changes in the business world, making specific reference to shopping centers and malls. Mr. Ward referred to the ocean as a benefit to the community, although somewhat of a detriment to local business when consumers are drawn from only one hundred-eighty degrees. He suggested that possibly a parking district could, at a future time, be realized through the BIA. Mr. Ward expressed his feeling that the volunteer program does not have the capabilities to provide a professional promotion program, and offered that the BIA may be the vehicle to bring the City, as well as special interest groups, together through the representation of a professional coordinator. Mr. John Baker, past President of the Old Town Business Association, stated he is a six year businessman in Seal Beach, and one of the promotion volunteers. Mr. Baker stated it is increasingly difficult to secure volunteer help, noting that those few who traditionally volunteer their time and efforts to the benefit of all businesses, are tired and can not continue to devote the time necessary to promotional activities away from their businesses. He expressed his feeling that there is a definite need for the BIA, that promotional activities benefit the entire community, and expressed his concern should the BIA not be created. Sharon Leonard, 217 Central Avenue, President of the Old Town Business Association, spoke of the burn-out of the volunteer program and spoke in support of a paid professional coordinator. Ms. Leonard liked the BIA charge to that of money individually spent on advertising or promotion, suggesting that the businesses give thought to reallocation of those funds through the BIA. Mr. Dean Grube1, co-owner of The Beauty Shop, 452 pacific Coast Highway, reported his business is located in the originally proposed zone three which has since been deleted from the Improvement Area, stated his business opens at 8:00 a.m., closes at 5:30 p.m., stating that an outside coordinator would not be necessary if customers I I 4-22-85 and the business were taken care of, acknowledged that he did not necessarily favor the BIA. Mrs. Teri Jones, Seal Beach resident and co-owner of Bay Hardware, expressed her feeling that this is the time and opportunity to bring the business community together, that the BIA would provide the means to share ideas, form opinions, enable the business community, as a group, to communicate with the City through one representative. Mrs. Jones noted that news articles I and the Business Association newsletter had noticed the formation of a committee in an attempt to find a means to obtain a paid coordinator, the consideration of an Improvement District, as well as the mandatory assessment, explaining that all businesses were invited to participate in discussions relating to the merits of the plan. She stated that in talking with members of the business community she has found that misinformation has been presented by opponents of the plan with regard to assessments, cost of a coordinator, and the function of the City with regard to the BIA. Should the Business Improvement Area be adopted, Mrs. Jones urged that all members of the business community work together to accomplish the needs of the community, and if not adopted, charged the opposition with the responsibility of presenting a viable plan for promotion of the business community. Mr. Bob Ragland, speaking for himself and co-owners of Seal Beach Travel, spoke in support of the BIA with the safeguards outlined by the City Manager. Mr. Jim Klisanin, 1405 Catalina Avenue, owner of Bay Town Realty, related the background of his involvement in producing the Christmas parade for the past four years, noting the time required away from ones business to produce such activities. Mr. Klisanin expressed his feeling that it is the time to determine whether the business community is to go forward or backward, and stated his support and I urged approval of the Business Improvement Area and retention of a paid coordinator. Maureen Budinski, stated she is a resident of Costa Mesa and a sales representative for the Register, and has been working in Seal Beach for the past three months on advertising and promotion. She commended the Merchants Association for the efforts they have put forth, and expressed her feeling that the need for a coordinator is evident, one person to make decisions and direct activities, resulting in more interesting promotions, increased buying power, revenue, fellowship and positive thinking. Mr. Earl Woodruff, 204 Central Avenue, expressed his feeling that the BIA may be good for some but not for all, and that promotional activities do not benefit him as a salon owner. He stated he would oppose the BIA at this time, based upon the report that indicated the paid coordinator would talk to the landlords, cut the square footage of a business, which, he stated he felt was specifically directed towards the salons. Mr. John Eulberg, resident and business co-owner of 207-1/2 Main Street, stated his support for the creation of the Improvement District and the specific need to hire a person to promote the business community. Mr. Eulberg referred to his lifelong experience in owning his own business, coordinating promotional activities for various Chambers of Commerce, experiences with volunteer I programs, and expressed his feeling that anyone who runs their own business can not devote the time necessary to conduct successful promotional activities of any substantial nature. Mr. Wally Bitters, owner of Bitters Insurance Service, 239 Seal Beach Boulevard, reported his business to be outside the BIA zones, however will voluntarily assess himself to be part of the BIA. Mr. Bitters stated he had an office in Whittier from 1971 to 1979, belonged to an active service organization, and was able to observe the 4-22-85 I type of things the merchant organization was able to accomplish. He reported that in 1965 when the Whittier BIA was formed there was a thirty-five percent, eighteen month, vacancy factor, now it is approximately seven percent on an average of thirty to ninety days, which, he offered, speaks highly of the BIA. He also noted that the non-retail/professional businesses did not object to their assessment, with the feeling that if the business community grew, all businesses would grow. Mr. Bitters stated he is a member of the Merchants Association, has seen the decline of promotion volunteers and persons willing to accept offices, due to the fact that they are aware they will have to take time away from their individual business, family and livelihood. Mr. Bitters concluded that a BIA should not be expected to show an immediate return on investment, however should be looked at as a positive means of helping the community grow, indicating his feeling that it would be a mistake to not enact the BIA. Mr. Jim Funk, 215-1/2 - 10th Street, concurred with the statements of Mr. Bitters, offered that it would be a mistake to not implement an association as proposed, citing the fact that there are many cities that require a contribution from any business operation in a community to contribute to some type of professional Chamber of Commerce or merchants association. Mr. Funk stated that no matter how a clientele becomes acquainted with a business, whether it be through visibility or another means, promotion for every business is important, and recommended creation of the proposed BIA. Mr. Tommy Thompson, 809 Ocean Avenue, eleven year co-owner of Grandma's, recalled the hard work and patience put forth by his wife to make their business a success, and expressed his feeling as to how much easier it would have been to accomplish their goal had the BIA been in place at that time. He stated the intent of the BIA is to assist those in business and new businesses coming to the community, and in turn bring more tax dollars to the City. Mr. Thompson expressed his feeling that the assessment is a nominal amount, not even the cost of an ad in the newspaper or telephone book, compared to the benefits that will be received. Mr. Thompson voiced his support of the BIA, and urged the business community to look upon this proposal with a positive attitude. Mr. Jim Watson, 101 Main Street, stated he was very much in favor of the Business Improvement Area. Mr. Watson cited the cost as very nominal that should not pose a hardship on any business. Mr. Watson stated he looks at the proposal to benefit the business community as a whole rather than a focus on Main Street, that there is great potential that is untapped, that he has seen few areas with the opportunity for business growth that exists in Seal Beach, and if there were professional assistance, he could foresee all businesses prosper, and the City benefiting from additional sales tax. He also pointed out that if the BIA does not seem to be accomplishing the goal after a period of time, and with the merchants having control, they could request that the BIA be discontinued. Mr. Watson reiterated his support of the BIA, and urged that the business community give it a chance. Nan Andrews, co-owner of the Main Street Weenie Works, reported her efforts toward passage of the proposed BIA, however noting there are some issues that will need to be resolved. Ms. Andrews expressed her concern if the BIA is not passed, that things will not continue as they have, that they will get worse or less, and urged that the BIA be given a chance. Nancy Blackman, 513 Riviera Drive, owner of a business located in the Seal Beach Center, previously located on Main Street, reported her involvement with the Old Town and Safeway Center Business Associations, I I 4-22-85 and stated that the BIA is necessary, has been well thought out, the charge is nominal, and the BIA worth trying. She stated it is an opportunity for the community as a whole, and that there is an obligation to have a thriving, attractive, growing community, where residents will prefer to shop local. Chris Allen, owner of a hair salon located at 224 Main street, stated she felt one thing that has not been made clear is that a landlord is not going to I-- force a business out because of the type of business. She added that the people who are negative to the proposal feel that if they are a service business they will not benefit, which she stated to be untrue. Ms. Allen expressed her support for the formation of the BIA. Mayor Brownell declared a recess at 8:34 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order. Mayor Brownell invited members of the audience wishing to speak in opposition to the proposed Business Improvement District to come forward and state their name and address for the record. Sherry Passmore, P. O. Box 1332, Temple City, was duly sworn by the City Clerk, and stated she was a member of the 'Citizens Property Rights Committee, a state-wide organization that represents small businesses throughout the State, and that she was speaking on behalf of the Committee of Seal Beach for Free Enterprise. She stated she was sympathetic with what she had heard from the business community wanting to improve themselves, and approved of the concept. Ms. Passmore stated she had reservations about the ordinance and resolution as they are now written and on behalf of the businesses, she felt _ there needs to be honest representation in the literature I that was sent out explaining the BIA. She referred to State law governing a BIA as "parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1979," stating that if the intent of the BIA is for promotional purposes the language of the implementing documents should be consistent with state law, and read the definition of "assessment" and "charge" as set forth in Sections 36504 and 36505 of the Streets and Highways Code. Ms. Passmore offered that the primary purpose of the Act is for acquisition, construction and maintenance of parking facilities for the benefit of the area, and if that could be a future consideration, then the business community should be aware of that intent. Ms. Passmore stated, in her opinion, the BIA documents, as now written, are not consistent with State law and subject to challenge, and further, that their organization would be looking at Seal Beach closely since the City has misused Redevelopment Law in a number of cases and that they would also be monitoring whether the City is creating a business blight by not providing proper parking. Councilmember Risner referred to Section 36500 which allows the BIA to be used for several purposes, stating that the BIA proposed is intended to be used for "(c) promotion of public events which are to take place on or in public places in the area," "Cd)" furnishing of music in any pUblic place in the area," and "(e)" the general I promotion of business activities in the area," that a parking facility is not the intent. Ms. passmore stated her disagreement and referred to Section 2 of the proposed annual program with reference to "parking." The City Attorney stated that the proposed Ordinance refers to charges being imposed rather than assessment, clarifying that the Exhibit attached to the Ordinance was prepared earlier to provide information to the businesses as to the type of formula that would be imposed, noting that if there are any questions 4-22-85 I in this regard it could be changed to "proposed charges formula" as Exhibit "c" to the Ordinance, further, that under this Ordinance the Council could not provide for the acquisition or construction of parking facilities, and if that were ever proposed, it would require an amendment to the Ordinance with another protest hearing. Ms. Passmore again objected to the Resolution as written, suggested it be revised and noticed for public hearing again. councilman Clift inquired as to Ms. Passmore's statement regarding misuse of redevelopment. Ms. Passmore responded that redevelopment was meant to be used to help slum, blighted and disadvantaged areas, referred to Surfside as one example of misuse which lead to a change in the law, and cited Redevelopment Agencies that have implemented hotels, shopping centers, convention centers, etc. rather than benefiting the poor. She referred to cases where businesses have been relocated only because they were not creating enough sales tax, also that cities are entering joint partnerships where they become partners of the business merely to create more sales tax dollars. She stated further that if there is an intent to create parking, the community needs to know who and how much is being obligated, since a future Council could look at this situation differently. Councilman Grgas responded that the Surfs ide project was done for health and safety purposes pursuant to the Code at that time, and despite the fact that some people feel it was an abuse of the law, it was totally legal and in the best interest of those residents. He also confirmed that the City is not considering redevelopment on Main Street. The City Manager interjected that the California Redevelopment Agencies Association, of which he was then president, in conjunction with the League of Cities, worked with the legislature to change the previous redevelopment law, as provided by AB 203. Mrs. Lorraine Faber, twenty-three year co-owner of a business located at 700 Marina Drive and recent owner of a second business, stated their BIA charges would be $240 in addition to the annual business license fee, noting that this will pose a problem to them as well as to many of the small businesses in the category under $200,000. She referred to the type of business community that exists in Seal Beach, with only a one hundred eighty degree drawing area, consisting mainly of "mom and pop" operations, and a community that will not draw large business. She stated similarities have been drawn with the Whittier village Business District, comparing the Whittier District having four hundred seventy members, Seal Beach between two hundred to three hundred, the whittier budget between $40,000 .and $50,000, Seal Beach proposed at about $40,000, Whittier business license fee for service or professional of $37.50, Seal Beach being $50, Whittier assessment of one hundred percent of the business license fee for zone two, one and one-half times the business license for zone one, where the bottom line assessment in Seal Beach is proposed at $80 annually, also that the proposed BIA consists of approximately six square blocks which would then require approximately $6,000 assessment from each block, and stated she felt there are inequities in the fees proposed, also that many businesses will not realize any benefit from increased foot traffic in the community. Mrs. Faber reported she had spoken to businesses located in the Bay City Center and tried to honestly, factually and openly describe the BIA and what it was about, with those businesses indicating they were no interested in being a member of the BIA. Mrs. Faber stated she may be speaking for a silent majority for the reason that many businesses had calls from landlords or friends in the business community urging support for I I 4-22-85 the BIA. Mrs. Faber referred to comments by Business Association members regarding mistakes that had been made in producing promotional activities, noting that those same members may be in control of the BIA funds, and questioned whether or not a paid coordinator would improve the promotional success rate or produce a greater benefit, and if this were the case, it may then be decided that a larger promotional budget would be necessary. Mrs. Faber stated she wished to submit petitions to the City Council in opposition to the proposed BIA, which, she stated, had been approved by the City Manager and City Clerk, and included a signature, the business name, address and zone in which the business exists, reporting that a majority of Zone 1 and Zone 2 had signed the petition, with a majority of the voting value of both zones, and requested that the Council establish ground rules and give direction to staff for review of the protests in accordance with State law. She reported that she had delivered to the City Clerk, prior to 5:00 p.m., a communication signed by three members of their committee, citing certain things they foresee to be a problem, such as several non-existent businesses that were included on the business listing, requesting that the staff be directed to delete same, also questioned the inclusion of businesses that had not been licensed as of the date of notification, noting that this point could be arguable as long as it is clear the business was notified that they would be assessed and lastly, inclusion of Walt's and Hennessey's, stating she did not feel they should be included or if they were, that the lowest vote value be assigned since it is not known when they will open or what their receipts will be in the calendar year. Councilmember Risner asked if the list had been reviewed for non-existent businesses. The City Manager explained that when the entire district was walked, the non-existence of the Fotomat was the only error that was realized, and that to the best of his knowledge, the list that was compiled and sent out dated March 28th, there are now six businesses, including Fotomat, that no longer exist. He stated he could not verify or attest to the list that was submitted by the opponents this date, explaining that it is almost certain that there have been some changes in businesses since March 28th, he also reported that he had been contacted by the new hotel inquiring why they were not included, and they were informed that since they had not broken ground they had not been included. Mrs. Risner inquired of the City Attorney if it may be necessary to verify the existence of all businesses before any further action is taken on counting the protest votes. The City Attorney responded that one problem there may be is that over a period of time, no matter how short a period of time, there are going to be businesses opening and closing, so it would be impossible to have a totally up-to-date list and that is why, under state law, the law refers to proposed assessments, and that it is not believed that State law requires there to be an exact determination of the assessment because that is an impossibility. He stated that with respect to the six businesses that the staff discovered to be out of business, he would recommend that those be deleted from the assessment total. with regard to Jim Benson's listed at 1000 Pacific Coast Highway, the staff confirmed there is a valid business license for that location, and is not the same business as the Jim Bentson listed at 711 Electric Avenue. Mrs. Faber stated there is a situation where three businesses have only one license however do business under two names and were counted twice, giving them double vote value. The City Manager stated the staff would disagree, that upon review of the I I I 4-22-85 I licenses, there are some people operating out of the same business location under two separate business licenses, not withstanding the Finance Director's response to their inquiries. The City Manager suggested the following businesses be deleted: I) Aimees International Gifts; 2) Fotomat Corporation; 3) L & W Supply, doing business as Nip & Stuff; 4) Old Town Deli; and 5) Skylight Gallery. Mr. Parker clarified that the listed Andrew Brown Imports is now doing business as SanDee's Design Studio, that Little Darlings was an existing business at the time the survey was made and the March 28th list prepared, as well as the Family practice in Bay City Center. After discussion, T. W. Howard and Jim Benson on P.C.H. were deleted from the list. The City Manager noted that businesses are now being deleted, however no new businesses are being added, citing the Palm Hotel as an example, and again explaining that the cut off date was March 28th, that the only error on the list that was discovered was the Fotomat, and that he could not verify changes that have taken place over the past six weeks. The City Attorney recommended that the cut off date of March 28th be adhered to. Glen Dulac stated that the legal notice in the agenda packet of four weeks ago referred to $36,800 assessment dollars, therefore if a line is drawn, the majority protest should remain at $18,401 or be renoticed with the changed figure. He stated it is realized there are certain changes of businesses, but somewhere a line must be drawn, and referred to the Hennessey business application of April 1st and yet unpaid. The City Manager responded that when the district was surveyed, two and one-half dozen businesses that were operating and found to not have a business license, that they were included on the list, also everything that was observed to be under construction that would be open if and when the BIA became law, sometime in May, was also included, noting that Hennessey's and Walt's are scheduled to be open approximately mid-May. The City Attorney pointed out that a business license would not be a condition for a business to qualify for the assessment since it would be assessed whether or not it had a business license, however it has pinpointed those businesses that must apply for a business license to operate, which is not an issue at this hearing, the question being whether the business will be operating within the City during the year for which the charge would be imposed on that business. councilmember Wilson asked if tabulation could now be made as to the number opposed or not opposed to the BIA. Councilmember Risner stated she wanted to be sure all parties were working with the same business list. The City Manager stated a problem had been anticipated with regard to the listing of businesses, explaining that opponents wanted a list prior to the time the official list was compiled and were given an old list dated January 1984, subsequent to that they, and the Council, were then given a revised list dated March 28, 1985 with the various subjective assignments in the various categories which then changed the $36,800 total to the $40,000 figure, and constituted the game rules given to the opponents, proponents and the Council. Mr. Dulac continued, stating the City Manager had indicated the BIA would only include licensed businesses, later stated that to be in error and that the list included some unlicensed businesses, also that when the committee was provided the preliminary list that the published figures were based upon, and upon examination, the revised listed businesses increased from 216 to 260. Mr. Dulac also suggested that the business locations should have been cross-referenced with the business licenses in view of the fact some have been shown to be non-existent. The City Manager confirmed I I 4-22-85 that there was a cross-reference, also that the list to which Mr. DUlac referred was one and a half years old. Mrs. Faber expressed her feeling that an undue burden had been placed on the opposition to try to contact businesses that are no longer in business because the list had only the business address, therefore it appears those will automatically be counted as a yes vote. The City Attorney responded that at this point if there is substantial evidence 1- that there is a business on the list that did not exist on the cut off date then, as recommended earlier, that business should be deleted from the list, noting again that this is an estimate of proposed assessment based upon staff's investigation. He stated there will be some cases, as seen, where some businesses have gone out of business during or shortly after the survey, therefore the list could be revised to reflect those changes where it is known that a business does not exist, however cautioned that it would be unwise to delete a business without proper verification that it was actually out of business as of the cut off date. Ms. Passmore stated she had one additional comment, suggesting that the name of the association that would be designating the use of funds, be included in the ordinance, explaining that State law allows the Council to so state. The City Attorney again cautioned that the Council should not speculate when a business may have gone out of business, explaining that the BIA is based upon an estimate of what the assessment could be if and when the Area is established, and recommended that only those businesses mentioned by the City Manager be deleted. Mr. Parker explained that approximately thirty businesses on the list do not have business licenses, recommending that none of those be deleted as they will all have valid licenses 1- at such time as the BIA would become law if approved. The City Manager again reviewed the list of businesses to be deleted from the March 28th business list and their estimated assessment, totalling $950, making the new assessment total $39,280, therefore the value of a majority protest 19,641. The Council and City Manager continued a review of the communication received from the opponents of the BIA requesting certain businesses be deleted. It was clarified that Balvenie Chemicals had submitted a letter of no protest, Andrew Brown Imports is now San Dee's Design Studio, B.S. Karadi, M.D., Keller and Associates, primary Care Centers and B. Warner Photography have valid licenses, determined that Nearly Famous Music should be deleted, 150 vote value, A & S Construction to be valid at 138-1/2 Main street, John K. Miller, RPT, was verified to exist by physical observance of the business sign, however need a business license, Seal Beach Psychic verified by application pending with the Police Department and expected to be open at such time as the BIA may exist, that the City Clerk had verified a business license does exist for Seal Beach Accupressure and Riggs ChiropractiC/Nutrition Center as well as Alicia Eisenstadt and village Psychological Center. The City Attorney reported the total assessment value to now be 39,130, with a majority protest equalling 19,566. Marjorie Bettenhausen, owner of the Seal Beach Inn, stated she was 1 for the people that had spoken, for the economic development of the community, for a paid coordinator, however against government involvement in private business. She noted that the proponents spoke of cost and promotion, to which she agrees, noting that the biggest problem in Seal Beach is that there has not been effective promotion, expressing her feeling that the proposed programs are civic in nature and should be placed with the civic organizations, which is the basis for her objection. Mrs. Bettenhausen asked 4-22-85 I that other options be looked into, such as the use of the bed tax for this purpose, which would eliminate the need for government involvement and assessment, and still allow the retention of a paid coordinator. Mr. Woodruff again addressed the Council and stated a lot of people who signed the petition are salon owners who feel they were targeted to be cut back, that he has now been informed that is not the case, and asked that some assurances be given that they will not be removed from their place of business, possibly at such time as their leases expire. Mrs. Risner responded that it was not the intent of the Task Force or the City to eliminate those businesses that exist, however stating that the seventeen existing hair parlors are probably enough. The City Manager explained that the BIA has nothing to do with the downtown business mix, that the report out of which the BIA grew did state that there was too much service and not enough retail, and spoke to additional needs such as restaurants, and whether or not that is achieved is dependent upon voluntary efforts of the property owners downtown. He stated there is no tool in the BIA to enforce the retail mix, it gives the City no authority to do that, that it has never been the intent of the Council, Task Force or staff to dispossess a business through redevelopment or any other means, that the report merely suggested that should a location become vacant, the retail mix could be looked into. Mr. Jim Oberson, owner of Hills Marine, 700 Marina Drive, expressed his opposition to the BIA, stating he would not derive a benefit from it nor does he approve of government involvement in business affairs of the community, that he could only see the BIA as a continuing aggravation point, and suggested the Main Street businesses hire a coordinator to focus on their particular problems. Sharon Russell, owner of a business in the Safeway Center, stated she did not like to see government get involved in free enterprise. She expressed her sympathy with those who have been involved in proposing the BIA, however stated she felt that if there is a product with merit and value, people will find it, that in her case income is directly related to the amount of time devoted to the product. Glen Dulac, owner of an insurance agency on Electric and a member of the Committee for Free Enterprise, stated that at first the BIA had no representation, now there are persons on both sides of the fence, that possibly some kind of dialog can now be opened between both sides, but not before this proposal is put to rest. Mr. Dulac read two letters of protest from D. Harris Barbershop and the Jewelry Mart, and referred to an unidentified letter that stated there was no opposition to promoting Seal Beach or to the assessment, however as a non-retailer felt there were inequities in the proposed BIA that needed to be addressed, therefore the opposiion to the BIA. Mr. Dulac stated that in spite of news articles, attempts to promote the BIA, landlord pressure on tenants, the Committee would still show a majority protest, expressing his feeling that this is a manipulated situation with no ground rules to begin with, and should another BIA ever be proposed, ground rules must be established first, that there should not be two business lists, there should be no question as to whether a business does or does not exist, no difference in the figures printed in the legal notice to what is considered later, and that all other options be considered first. Mr. Dulac suggested that the Old Town Business Association reorganize, then conduct a membership drive since there are many merchants waiting to rejoin that organization once certain things are dealt with within the Association. Mr. Dulac stated all want to promote Main street, how being the question, I I 4-22-85 comparing the high consumer retailer who benefits from promotional activities to the retailer with a set clientele who does not benefit, suggesting that the next proposal must address programs that will assist both kinds of retailers, and further, expressed concern as to whether more ambitious events or the paid coordinator would help the entire business community. Mr. Dulac noted that as proposed, seventy-five cents of each dollar assessment would go towards the coordinator and an office, suggesting that an ad agency be retained with a coordinator available on a spot basis, with the entire dollar assessment directed to advertising, also transferring any liability to the agency rather than to the City or other merchants. Mr. Dulac proposed that those on both sides of this issue open dialog and find an advertising program through the free enterprise system that would benefit the consumer retailer, the set clientele retailer and the non-retailer, stating that until that kind of program is found there is no justification for passing the BIA, and that there should be no program until at least two-thirds of the business community is in support. Mr. Jim Bentson, Attorney, 711 Electric, expressed his opposition to the BIA, stated that after listening to those speaking and noting the division of the business community on this matter, and should the Council vote in favor of the BIA, asked if the Council would then be forcing the will of approximately one-half of the business community on the other half that is opposed. Charles Antos, 316 - loth street, read his prepared statement which conveyed that his position on the BIA is neutral, expressed his support for the whole business community, and suggested that a Chamber of Commerce be reestablished in lieu of the proposed BIA, that an exemption for apartments be included as well as a sunset provision for the BIA. There being no other communications, Mayor Brownell declared the public hearing closed. The City Attorney suggested commencement of a review of the written protests to determine if the protest is sufficient. In response to questions by the Council, the City Attorney confirmed that the budget as it is now proposed is not to be considered the final approved budget, that there is no legal requirement for a public hearing on approval of an annual budget, however any change in the business assessment would require a public hearing and another protest procedure, that the method of selecting members of the BIA Board of Directors would be incorporated in an agreement, and that the Council could legally review the Board members selection process and how monies are to be spent. The City Manager offered that provision could be made for public hearing on the annual budget, and that insurance requirements could likewise be incorporated into the agreement, also, that it is anticipated that the Board would consist of nine members representing their specific category and selected via a mail ballot election. The City Attorney stated he did not foresee increased City liability in connection with the BIA, however confirmed that the issue of liability and insurance would be looked into in the preparation of the agreement. with regard to the tally of the protest, Councilmember Risner requested that information be provided regarding the total vote value of the protest, the actual numbe~ of businesses and protests, professional versus service, and categorized by Bay City Center, Safeway Center and Main street. It was the order of the Chair to recess the meeting at 10:27 p.m. to review the protests presented. The meeting reconvened at 11:05 p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order. I I I 4-22-85 I The City Attorney reported that the staff had commenced checking the protest petition by means of comparison to the business licenses in order to verify the owner or authorized representative of a business. He reported the verification to be a slow process that could take several more hours and recommended that staff continue the verification of the written protest at 10:00 a.m. the following day at City Hall. Mr. Stepanicich clarified that the Resolution of Intent set forth who could file a protest, a business owner or an authorized representative, also that evidence was required to be submitted verifying that a signer was authorized by the owner to sign on behalf of that business. He stated that if a signature is not readily verifiable, the procedure at this time would be to set those protests aside until such time as it could be determined if those protests would change the result of the protest, and if necessary, a procedure will be developed to check those signatures. with regard to whether or not the petition provided space for the signature of an authorized representative or the owner of a business, the City Manager stated he had approved, on a small piece of paper, the language for the petition, however had not seen nor approved the format of the petition. The City Attorney reported that the format states that the undersigned is the owner of the business and provides for the signature and name of the person who is purportedly the owner of the business. Mr. Stepanicich noted that it is possible, in certain instances, that a person has signed the petition however was not authorized to do so as a representative of the business. Mrs. Faber stated she felt another inequity to the opposition was that the business owner(s) were not identified on the business list. The City Attorney explained that the business license is an indicator that will be used to verify the business owner, however does not mean that those signatures that can not be verified by the license will not be checked and counted. Mr. Dulac stated their Committee did not obtain signatures of managers in lieu of the business owner, and requested that the petition be tallied at this time rather than signatures verified. Councilman Clift stated he wanted to be assured that the signer of the petition was verified to be the owner or authorized representative of the business. with regard to those signers that do not have a business license on file for signature verification, the City Attorney recommended that the staff contact the person who signed the petition and verify their status and signature. He added that the Council, at its discretion, could take the petition on face value, however it would be his recommendation that some attempt be made to verify the signatures. It was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to conduct an unofficial tally of the protest petition at this time, the meeting to continue during the tally. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1180 - PLACEMENT OF THIRD STORIES - SEAL WAY Ordinance Number 1180 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE 8 OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PLACEMENT OF THIRD STORIES ON LOTS WITH WIDTHS OF 37.5 FEET OR MORE ALONG SEAL WAY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1180 was waived. Clift moved, second by wilson, to adopt Ordinance Number 1180 as presented. I I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried 4-22-85 ORDINANCE NUMBER 1182 - TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX Ord~nance Number 1182 was presented to Counc~l for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE IV, OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, REGARDING UNIFORM TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1182 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Clift, to adopt Ordinance Number 1182 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Brownell, Clift, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I PROPOSED ORDINANCE NUMBER 1184 - ANIMAL CONTROL FEES proposed Ordinance Number 1184 was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO ANIMAL CONTROL FEES AND AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH CITY CODE." The City Manager reported this Ordinance is proposed to correct a previous error in setting the impound fee for small animals, the previous Ordinance erroneously set the fee at $11.50 instead of the recommended $25. After discussion, the City Manager suggested this matter be held over until next meeting at which time the Council would be provided with the previous staff report. Grgas moved, second by Clift, to hold proposed Ordinance 1184 over until the next meeting. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3470 - AUTHORIZING REFUNDS - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY Resolution Number 3470 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY TO MAKE REFUNDS OF THE UTILITY USERS' TAX ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3470 was waived. The City Manager stated the amount of refund is not known, that it was minimal the previous year. Councilmember wilson recalled approximately $2,000. Risner moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3470 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3471 - APPROVING GRANT FUND APPLICATION - ROBERTI-Z'BERG URBAN OPEN SPACE and RECREATION PROGRAM Resolution Number 3471 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI- Z'BERG URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3471 was waived. The City Manager reported $12,993 has been requested for refurbishing park and playground equipment in fiscal year 1984/85. He reported the City's match would be $4,331 capital outlay funds proposed in the 1985/86 budget. Risner I moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3471 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3472 - AUTHORIZING LOAN APPLICATION - CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY Resolution Number 3472 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, 4-22-85 I CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR A REIMBURSABLE CONSERVANCY LOAN FROM THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3472 was waived. The City Manager reported this to be an updated Resolution authorizing application for a Conservancy Reimbursable Grant in an amount not to exceed $250,000 for rebuilding the pier restaurant. Grgas moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 3472 as presented. In response to Councilman Grgas, the City Manager stated that should the restaurant reconstruction exceed $250,000 it would be necessary to revise the application, use other funds, or reevaluate the restaurant, noting that the current cost estimate is approximately $180,000. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, ~ilson None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "M" THROUGH "Un The City Manager requested Item "p" be removed from the Consent Calendar. Grgas moved to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except Item "P". I In response to a question posed by Councilmember Risner regarding Item "R", the Director of Public Works explained that the scope of problem sidewalk areas exceed the available monies required to repair all of them, therefore all allocated monies are being used to repair the most critical locations, those raised one inch or more. Mrs. Risner stated she has had several requests from constituents for sidewalk repair, which she referred to staff with the understanding the locations would be included in the next program. Mr. Hemphill responded that each request is checked with the Engineering list for upcoming contract and investigated as to the degree of disrepair, therefore it is presumed that damages of one inch or more would be included in this contract. Councilmember Risner seconded the motion on the floor to approve the Consent Calendar. M. Approved the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of April 8, 1985. N. Approved regular demands numbered 56028 through 56195 in the amount of $158,104.89, and payroll demands numbered 12885 through 13047 in the amount of $120,126.01 as approved by the Finance Committee and authorized warrants be drawn on the Treasury for the same. O. Denied the claim of Lauretta Mahlenbrie and referred same to the City'S insurance adjuster. I P. Bids were received and opened by the City Clerk at 1:30 p.m., April 16, 1985 for Slurry Seal of Streets in College Park West and the parking lot between the police Department and City Yard, project Number 554 as follows: Slurry Seal of California Doug Martin contracting Co. Pavement Coatings, Inc. Ron Allen Slurry Seal, Inc. California Pavement Maintenance Company $12,765.78 17,048.00 17,183.15 20,182.10 21,478.94 4-22-85 Awarded the bid for Project Number 554 to Slurry Seal of California in the amount of $12,765.78, as the lowest responsible bidder, and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. R. Approved the specifications for Construction of Sidewalk Repair, 1984/85, project Number 551, and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids. ' I S. Approved the renewal agreement with Bierly & Associates for administration of the City's workers compensation program for fiscal year 1985/86. T. Received and filed the memorandum from the Director of Recreation dated April 17, 1985, regardin~ the use of the Seal Beach Senior Center. U. Authorized the City Manager to accept and execute on behalf of the City, the Agreement Letter of Security Pacific for Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, 1985. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM lip" _ CLAIM - DON HELLMERS ENGINEERING I Grgas moved, second by Risner, to hold this item over until after the Closed Session as requested by the City Manager. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ZOETER SCHOOL NEGOTIATIONS The City Manager reported that in response to his last communication, the Los Alamitos Unified School District has requested a meeting between two representatives of the District, the Superintendent, two members of the City Council and the City Manager. The City Manager suggested that the Council may wish to consider the appointment of the Councilmembers from Districts One and Three due to the proximity of the site to their districts, also that the Mayor be selected as an alternate representative. Grgas moved, second by Clift, to approve the appointments as outlined by the City Manager. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The City Attorney clarified that only two members of the Council may be present at the discussions previously referred to, that the third person should not attend even as an I observer. Grgas moved, second by Risner, to declare a recess at 11:32 p.m. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The Council reconvened at 11:45 p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order. 4-22-85 I CLOSED SESSION It was the order of the Chair with consent of the Council to adjourn to Closed Session at 11:50 p.m. The City Attorney reported the Council was meeting in Closed Session to discuss pending litigation under Government Code Section 54956.9(b), and personnel matters. The Council reconvened at 12:25 a.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported that the Council had discussed pending litigation and personnel matters as previously reported. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "P" - CLAIM Clift moved, second by Grgas, to deny the claim of Don Hellmers Engineering. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - CONTINUED The City Clerk reported the unofficial tally of the BIA protest petition showed approximately one hundred twenty- five businesses had affixed their signatures thereto, making the total number of protests approximately one hundred thirty-four, and that the dollar value of the protests tallied, excluding those set aside earlier in the meeting, was approximately 15,870. The City Clerk suggested that since the tally did not closely coincide with the calculations of the opponents of the BIA, that the figure reported not be considered as official, and recommended that the protest be reviewed and recalculated the following day with a subsequent verification of petition signatures. Mrs. Faber asked for a point of order, requesting that the record reflect the number of votes that were submitted on the petition, the number of people who signed in opposition originally so that the Council is aware of their accounting, noting that the initial tally disqualified approximately six thousand votes. Mr. Dulac also referred to the six thousand vote difference. He stated his understanding of the law dealing with a protest, since this matter may go to litigation, is that there are only two types of documents to consider, the written protest to the BIA, and an official removal of that protest where a person. has changed their mind. He noted that documents are being used that state the signer is not opposed to the BIA, by virtue of the date of the document, that nullifies the signature and the dollar value on the petition. Mr. Dulac stated this is a question of legal procedure that may require a legal opinion beyond that of the City Attorney. Mr. Dulac reported the protest still shows over fifty percent on a head count basis that oppose the BIA, and suggested that instead of proceeding in this manner, the Council could render a decision in one of three ways, base the protest on head count, take a vote on the matter, or wait for weeks pending a determination of what the procedure should be. The City Manager recommended that this merely be a preliminary count, that the City Clerk and City Attorney be allowed to further verify the protest, and continue the matter until the next meeting. The City Attorney confirmed that the Council could not take action until the protest is resolved. Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to continue this matter until the meeting of May 13th. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried In response to Council, the City Manager reported that as of this time the adjusted dollar value of the assessment is approximately $39,130, affecting approximately two hundred fifty businesses. 4-22-85 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Brownell declared oral communications open. Councilman Clift stated he would be absent from the May 13th meeting and requested that his absence be excused. Councilman Grgas reported he would also be out of town on May 13th, and likewise requested his absence be excused. with regard to the BIA, the City Manager suggested that matter could be rescheduled for the May 20th adjourned meeting. Council 1- indicated they would prefer scheduling the BIA matter for the following regular meeting, Tuesday, May 28th. wilson moved, of Councilman meeting. second by Risner, to excuse the absences Clift and Councilman Grgas from the May 13th AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Risner moved, second by Clift, to set a workshop with Group W Cable for Monday, May 20th, cancelling the previously scheduled workshOp of April 29th. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, wilson None Motion carried It was confirmed that the BIA would be considered on May 28th. AGENDA AMENDED Grgas moved, second by Clift, to amend the agenda to include an additional Resolution. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3473 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL - MARINER DRIVE and PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Resolution Number 3473 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT MARINER DRIVE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3473 was waived. Councilman Grgas reported that the President of the Huntington Harbor Marina Homeowners had requested support from Seal Beach for the installation of a traffic signal at the described location. The City Manager reported that a letter had also been received from the Mayor of Huntington Beach requesting same. Grgas moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 3473 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ADJOURNMENT Grgas moved, 12:40 a.m. second by Clift, to adjourn the meeting at AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I 4-22-85 / 5-13-85 I Approved: 9, ,I-~~, ,_~... "'~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California May 13, 1985 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brownell Councilmembers Risner, Wilson Absent: Councilmembers Clift, Grgas The absence of Councilmembers Clift and Grgas were excused by Council action of April 22nd. Also present: Mr. parker, City Manager Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Chief Picascia, Police Department Mr. Hemphill, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Risner, 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. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Risner, Wilson None Clift, Grgas Motion carried AGENDA AMENDED Risner moved, second by Wilson, to amend the agenda to include an additional proclamation and two proposed resolutions. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Risner, Wilson None Clift, Grgas Motion carried