Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2003-03-10 2-24-03 I 3-10-03 and the attorney and get the issues settled. Mayor Larson announced that Boeing is sponsoring a community meeting in Leisure World to discuss their proposed land use plan for their site adjacent to Seal Beach Boulevard on Monday, March 3rd in Clubhouse 3 at 2:00 p.m. I ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned until Monday, March 10th at 6:30 p.m. to meet in Closed Session if necessary. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 9:04 p.m. clerk Approved: ~~~ k~~ ;;)d~~ 1M Attest: I Seal Beach, California March 10, 2003 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Councilmembers Antos, Campbell, Doane, Yost Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to confer with legal counsel relating to the item identified on the agenda, Wiles versus City, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a). The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:32 p.m. and reconvened at 7:11 with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported that the Council had discussed the item identified on the agenda, gave direction to the City Attorney, no other action was taken. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m. 3-10-03 clerk Approved: ~--1hL~ 94u:ia iJ City Clerk / I Attest: Seal Beach, California March 10, 2003 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:13 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Councilmembers Antos, Campbell, Doane, Yost Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Dancs, Director of Public works/City Engineer Chief Sellers, Police Department Ms. Arends-King, Director of Administrative Services Mr. Vukojevic, Deputy City Engineer Lt. Pounds, Lifeguard Department Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I APPROVAL OF AGENDA Yost moved, second by Campbell, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. Mayor Larson noted a request that the "Public Safety Dispatcher Week" proclamation be held over to a future meeting. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried I PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Larson declared the Public Comment period open and requested that those wishing to speak to matters in general do so under the regular Comment period, those wishing to speak to the tennis club item can do so at the time that item is considered. Ms. Carla Watson, Catalina Avenue, requested to speak to the tennis club item at this time as she was not well and could 3-10-03 I not wait for its consideration. The Mayor granted her request. Ms. Watson said as a resident of this community for forty years she has been involved in many recreation activities including serving on the Recreation Commission, in addition, co-director of the Rough Water Swim, the Save Our Pool Committee, Selection Committee for the original Tot Lot at Marina Park, Founders Day, etc. Ms. Watson expressed her care for all recreation sports and leisure activities for all people in Seal Beach, she was a strong proponent for a park at College Park West which some in government opposed, in addition, even though she and her family are not tennis players, she cares deeply about the fate of that wonderful facility, it is important to applaud the effective, capable, and patient leadership of Ms. Sustarsic and the many hours spent by the Bixby Recreation Committee, unfortunately that Committee was laboring with false information in.that the money gifted to the City could only be used on the tennis site, if correct information had been given the City could now hold title to the property, the tennis center would be up and running, and the remainder of the money would be banked and gaining interest while the Committee determined how to create fun areas for College Park East citizens. She suggested it be kept in mind that the gift of the tennis park is just that and not open space, to destroy any part of this facility would be a waste of money, would compromise an outstanding facility that will need quality courts to succeed as a business, would remove courts that could be used for public play, will lengthen the time that the tennis facility could be operating and paying for itself, digging up quality tennis courts would not be right, if the City had to replace or rebuild these courts it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. She said keeping these courts for all of the citizens of Seal Beach is just putting back into recreation what was taken away or not built, two courts that were maintained by the Seal Beach Tennis Club were removed from Zoeter School and two that were promised at Marina Park were never built, bulldozing courts would also compromise the ability of a private tennis club to maintain financial viability while allowing the public to play on quality courts, additionally, if the courts are torn up this will lengthen the time that the tennis club can be up and running, too much time has been taken already and members have left the club or not joined because they were not sure of the future, fortunately the City does not have to remove courts to satisfy the citizens of College Park East and Seal Beach. She offered that a new committee can be formed and at least three fourths or more of the $1 million plus interest can be spent on parks inside College Park East. She noted that there was no choice with the skateboard park but to locate it where it would fit in Old Town, if College Park East residents want this too they will find a place for it, tot lots are placed where they are most needed and accessible, in those cases there was space on the beach and at Marina Park yet it was determined to not put one on the greenbelt where it might be unsafe. Ms. Watson mentioned that many people in Old Town and Bridgeport do not have backyards so committees were formed and money raised to build a facility through donations, a community center, why not, a second story surely would be feasible if that is what CPE wants, that area of the community can have everything but just not on the tennis park, tennis is a lifetime sport for ages five to eighty- five, this is an opportunity to offer quality play and instruction on quality courts, however once the tennis courts are gone they are gone, using money to tear down existing recreation facilities that could be enjoyed by future I I 3-10-03 generations is wrong, College Park East should choose what amenities they want and where they should be placed. Ms. Watson concluded that the gift of this $4 million facility provides recreation for the entire City and money should not be used to tear down courts that could be spent in College Park East. Mr. Bill Ayres, President of the Seal Beach 10K nonprofit corporation, stated they were present to talk about the upcoming 29th annual 10K, 5K runs, and 5K walk. Mr. Ayres mentioned the benefit to the City in the area of recreation from the proceeds of the race, noted that over the past five years there has been in excess of $40,000 for recreational purposes in and around the City, $10,000 for rehabilitation of the pool, $23,000 for rehabilitation of the Marina Community Center which included interior painting, new doors, commercial kitchen range and sink, $10,000 was donated to the resurfacing of the tennis courts at the Marina Center, and they look forward to making more contributions for recreational improvements. Mr. Ayres introduced Ms. Elizabeth Kane, Los Angeles Marathon finisher, promotional chairman, and Janie Tulcamp, the Kids Race chair, half marathon finisher. Ms. Kane, Seal Beach, urged as much community participation as possible in the 10K and SK races, she too mentioned that all of the profit from the Race comes back to the City in the form of health and recreation programs which benefits all, and encouraged the members of the Council as well as their constituents to participate. Ms. Kane said as a result of 911 the Race is again off of the Navy base and back on the old course which she described as through Old Town, up Seal Beach Boulevard to Westminster, down the riverbed into Old Town and finishing at the pier, also, this year the 1K Kids Fun Run has been changed to start ahead of the 5K and 10K events to allow parents to watch their kids run, and then day care will be provided. Ms. Kane noted that registration is currently going on, entry forms are available at City Hall and at many of the local merchants, there is also a new website to obtain an entry form, course information, etc., and invited all to come to the Marina Center on Friday the 4th where pre-registration will be taking place and race packets can be picked up. Ms. Kane urged all interested persons to volunteer and support this 29th Race event. Ms. Jane Tulcamp, Seal Beach, said she is in charge of the Kids 1K Run, third year committee member, this race is basically for kids thirteen years and under who want to participate yet the 5K or 10K is too long, this race will start at 7:45 a.m., fifteen minutes earlier than the adult start time, thirty-five high school dancers have been enlisted to be at the finish line in. a gated area where the children will be cared for to allow their parents to run, this Race Day can be a fun event for everyone in the family. She noted also that $2 of the children's registrations will go back to their school, fliers relating to the Race have been distributed to 'all of the schools in the Seal Beach area, the schools are using this as a form of fund raiser, the City and schools will benefit from the Race. I I Mr. Mike Joseph, Bridgeport, stated he just came from the Marine Scholarship Foundation Gold Tournament Committee meeting of which he is a member, therefor will likely be addressing the Council again relating to that Tournament in the near future. Mr. Joseph said he wished to rise to present a good gentleman's'story, this past Monday he left for the gym at 6:30 a.m., stopped at Marina and 5th Street to deposit some mail yet while doing so his wallet evidently fell out of his pocket, when he returned home he then realized his wallet was missing, he retraced his steps to no I 3-10-03 I avail, returned home to make calls to the card companies, called the Police Department to report his loss, specifically due to losing his drivers license, when he went to his door to allow entry of the what he thought to be an officer to take a report a City employee by the name of Charles Feenstra was there, inquired as to his name, advised him that he was a lucky man and stated he had found his wallet as someone was picking it up from the gutter, he had taken the wallet from the person, found that the picture did not match the person, noted the home address from the drivers license and returned the wallet to him at his home. Mr. Joseph said he offered to do something for Mr. Feenstra, he would take nothing, therefore he wanted to do something in a gesture of appreciation to make certain that Mr. Feenstra was recognized and commended for his effort. Ms. Penny peddicord, Trailer Park, presented a history of the redevelopment zone, in part said it is a one block area from Pacific Coast Highway to Marina Drive, the original residents on First Street were the families of the Seal Beach Trailer Park which was established in 1930, controlled by the Naples Land Company under a one hundred year lease, the original Park ran from its current location to Marina Drive, address was 11 Marina Driv&, in 1967 Oakwood Apartments became their first neighbors, in 1970 Bridgeport was developed and became the second group of neighbors, in 1979 the Trailer Park was redeveloped for moderate to low income housing, half of the people received money and moved, the Park was cut in half, one half was redeveloped as the Riverbeach Condos, the other half is the current Trailer Park, Riverbeach Condos received control and ownership of their half of the land, the new Trailer Park got paved streets, rent control until 2043, and there were rules between the City and the Park owner to protect the low/ moderate housing, some residents added cabanas, some built little houses around their trailers, took pride in their homes and new Park, the City, State and federal government all provided money for this redevelopment project for moderate to low income families, in the 1980's new homes were built on the site of the old city yard, another new group of neighbors, in the 1990's the townhouses became the newest neighbors, just across the street from the oldest, original residence on First Street, all in the redevelopment zone, the Street has a park, oilfield, Department of Water and Power property, townhouses, homes, apartments, condos, and trailer homes. Ms. Peddicord said historically speaking the only people living on this Street before the Trailer Park residents were perhaps the Indians, they did not need a deed, life was different then, they lived, worked and played in Seal Beach before land cost money, in 1930 no one wanted this land, it was only good enough for trailers, storage, oilfields, gas lines, and a power plant, no one wanted to live there, it was the wrong side of town, the Trailer Park residents deserve the same future as the Riverbeach condos and all the other neighbors, control of the land/ownership. Ms. Dorothy Whyte, College Park East, told of attending a CPE Neighborhood Association meeting at the North Seal Beach Community Center a couple of months ago, arriving a bit early the only person present was her Council representative who, upon seeing her went outside, was then observed on her cell phone, shortly after the meeting started a police officer was observed in the back of the room and upon inquiry as to why he was present the response was that the Department had received a call to have someone present to monitor the meeting in that a large turnout was expected, to that Ms. Whyte stated that there were six persons at the meeting, also that the following day she verified with the Police I I 3-10-03 Department that her Council representative had called for an officer. Ms. Whyte claimed that that occurred as a result of her presence, for a citizen to not feel free to attend a meeting because the Councilperson is going to call the police is untenable, it is a waste of tax dollars and the time of a police officer, to her that is harassment by a public official of a resident and should never happen again. Ms. Joyce Parque, 6th Street, expressed thanks to the families who have relatives in the military, she appreciates what they are doing for this country, God bless America and the President. She recalled that at the last meeting the City Attorney said he had nothing to do with the Trailer Park Covenants to that she said, even though he did not write them the firm has been representing the City since the 1972, in the attorney contract, included under additional services is the Redevelopment Agency, bond counsel services, and claimed that even though he did not write the Covenants to protect the people in the Trailer Park, her feeling is that he is responsible for the actions of the people in his firm. Ms. parque said she is waiting to receive requested checks numbered 029604 in the amount of $91,981, 029939 for $6,252, 030363 for $58,650, and 030925 in the amount of $56,260. Again in reference to the last meeting she recalled comments relating to tax bills, agreed that the Trailer Park spaces receive a tax bill if they have improved the property as well as a registration fee for a mobile home, however she has the grant deed that shows Linc owning six lots, three are listed as 313 Welcome Lane, that is the Trailer Park, there are two located in Los Angeles County for which she has not as yet obtained the records, he owns the land and the trailers, she is happy that the people are paying their fair share for this deal. Ms. Parque displayed a document which showed a sum of $6,750,000, $1 million from the City for the MPROP loan, and $960,000 Agency grant for rent subsidies for twelve years. In reference to tax figures to which the Manager had once spoken, $3,100,000, the citizens were not told about the $1.1 million that came to the Agency from Bridgeport, Oakwood, etc., also not told that the utility tax is now $4,200,000, between the utility tax and the property tax that only pays for the Police Department. I I Ms. patricia Clark, Trailer Park, recalled a comment from the last meeting that the City spent $9.1 million to obtain the Park yet the land is not even owned, that dollar amount was wrong, there were many layers of financing to put the Park purchase together, the major portion of the money, $6,750,000, came from low interest, tax free municipal bonds issued by the Agency and purchased by bond investors, CD and Company, New York, $6.4 million of those monies were paid to Richard Hall, the $350,000 was to pay the bond insurance premium for the Series A bonds and other costs for the bond issuance, these bonds are subject to the rules and regulations of the Security and Exchange Commission of the United States, only a duly registered public benefit 501C3 nonprofit corporation, registered with the Internal Revenue Service, can receive this type of bond financing, this loan is to be paid back from a portion of the space rents paid by residents of the Park. Ms. Clark stated that Hall had asked $8 million for the purchase of the Park but only if the Park was purchased by a 501C3 public benefit, nonprofit corporation such as Linc otherwise he wanted the appraised market value of $11 million. Another layer of financing was the $1 million MPROP loan, that loan was arranged to bring the offer closer to the Richard Hall negotiated asking price of $8 million, after further negotiations Hall agreed to sell I 3-10-03 I the Park for approximately $7.4 million, it was indicated that the $1 million MPROP loan would take some time to process, to that the City offered to provide a $1 million Bridge Loan that was to be paid back when the $1 million MPROP loan was funded, the terms of the Bridge Loan are that if the monies are not received from the MPROP then the $1 Bridge Loan will stay in effect and thus protect the City, if the MPROP loan is not funded the monies will be repaid over the next thirty to thirty-five years to the City instead of to the State, therefore the City will not lose its million dollars. Neither the City or the Redevelopment Agency are responsible for holding up the MPROP loan, it is being held up by Park residents, which they may not realize, in order to finalize the $1 million MPROP loan at least eighty or more Park residents must sign a letter to MPROP stating that they approve of the purchase by Linc, if the Park residents sign the letter the $1 million Bridge Loan will be repaid to the City immediately, but there is an element in the Park that are holding the MPROP loan as hostage by encouraging many of the residents to not sign the letter that is needed to finalize the $1 million loan, to that they have said that if their demands are met then they will get the MPROP letters signed. Ms. Clark mentioned that $7.750 million has been spent yet no Seal Beach taxpayer money spent for the purchase, that leaves $1.4 million, the City decided to use Agency funds to pay for the cost of the various experts that were brought in to pull the transaction together, the City also decided to put monies into a fund to extend the necessary increases in rent to all Park residents over a three year period, the $1.4 million was a legitimate expenditure as it was used for low to moderate housing, if it had not been spent for a use like this it would have been returned to the State. She offered that it has been stated at Council meetings and in letters to the editor that spending Agency money for the Trailer Park was a waste of taxpayer money, she would differ with that statement, she does not feel that saving one hundred twenty-five homes in the Trailer Park was a waste of taxpayer money, to her knowledge the Park is still located in Seal Beach, the Park residents are taxpayers too, the residents tax dollars are working for them literally, it was also said that taxpayer money did not go for affordable housing, another requirement of this purchase is that there must be twenty percent low income which is twenty-five homes, sixty percent moderate which is seventy-five homes for a total of one hundred low to moderate income housing, there are approximately twenty-five higher income residents in the Park that were living there before the purchase. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, offered her belief that it would only take experts to make such a mess with the Trailer park, a lot of money has been spent. The City being a corporation it has not voted on the City Attorney firm therefore is a problem. With regard to the freedom of information comment, copies of the checks should be produced to show legal costs. She spoke too about freedom of speech. Ms. Corbin said she too wants to preserve the Trailer Park, tactics is the problem, the tactics of the Park residents have to change if they want to be helped, the low income housing is needed, it is understood that people are afraid of losing their homes, yet the threats and intimidation will not help to preserve the Trailer Park. She said the $600,000 fine for not producing new affordable housing could have been spent to help the people in the Trailer Park, there needs to be new low income housing on- site, people do not realize either that the City gave away the front portion of Zoeter. Mr. Mike Berry, Trailer Park, I I 3-10-03 mentioned that a few days ago he received something at his door that he felt was worthy. Mr. Berry said the piece began with the words 'there by the grace of God go the residents of the Seal Beach Trailer, Park, please give some time to give thanks, especially to the City Council members who helped save our homes, after reading the article just remember that this could have easily been us.' Mr. Berry identified the article as from the Dana Point News of February 20th, it states that the residents of Dana Point are rallying around others facing eviction, ready to form a human chain to try to stop authorities from removing a resident from a mobilehome owned in the Park, this resident supporting herself by working fast food jobs such as that at Jack In The Box, yet the resident stopped paying rent on the space she occupies when the fee was raised in July from $826 per month to $1200. According to the property supervisor and spokesman for the owner of the Park, Richard Hall, the rents were raised to bring them closer to market value for mobilehome rents close to the beach, however it was claimed they are still considerably below other Parks with similar proximity to the beach, stated also that it is not believed that Hall would raise the rents as drastically again, rather five to six percent per year. The spokesperson also said that despite numerous eviction notices since the rent has fallen into arrears Hall is willing to accept back payment from the resident and allow the resident to stay in her home, however if that does not happen the resident could soon face a court date and removal from her home, the resident has been receiving some guidance from her caregiver, the caregiver too is facing eviction from the Park for not paying rent after it was raised last summer, the residents of the Park have been hoping since last summer that the Park would be purchased by a nonprofit group call Millennium Housing, according to a representative of Millennium the company would stabilize the rents and in some cases the rent would be rolled back to under $1,000, after ten years the residents would have the opportunity to purchase the Park for slightly more than Millennium would have paid for it, the Park sale was contingent upon the Dana Point City Council approving the sale of bonds to secure the financing for the purchase, yet last November the Council shelved the issue, residents have lobbied the Council ever since to no avail to have the issue brought back for reconsideration, accordingly the lives of the Park residents have been in limbo, as of Wednesday it was reported to the newspaper that Richard Hall is no longer in negotiation with Millennium regarding the sale, it was said that that decision was based on the fact that the City did not seem to be interested in being involved in the project, it was said that the residents were angry in that they were led to believe that the City was negotiating in good faith, it was noted too that the City would have had no financial responsibility for the bonds, only would have had to approve them, a comment of a member of the Council stated that he did not think that tying up the property at the City's busiest intersection for the next thirty-five years as a mobilehome park was necessarily the best thing for the entire community. Mr. Berry thanked the Seal Beach City Council for going the extra mile. I I I MS. Cabnetto, a resident of the Trailer Park, said when someone is told that they are going to own something and then finds out that someone else is going to own it after you have paid for it, that is fraud. She thanked the City for letting the residents remain there, yet the Park situation needs to be looked into, agreed that the tactics on both sides of the 3-10-03 I issue need to stop, the people should own the Park since that was what the people were told, and asked that the City get more involved. Mr. Glen Clark, Trailer Park, said he was astounded at the last meeting when a speaker told him what he was allegedly thinking when they were putting together the Trailer Park Resident Owners Association, he said there was a plan to ask the MPROP to give the Park some money, to that Mr. Clark stated that as of March of that year they knew nothing about the MPROP, information regarding the MPROP was not learned until about the 10th of August, it was March when the application to become a nonprofit corporation was submitted, submitted as a mutual benefit corporation, not a public corporation, no where in the By Laws or Articles of Association does it say that the residents wanted to become the owners or operators of the Park, yet that is what the speaker was alleging, there was no language that would have allowed the residents to do that. Mr. Clark mentioned that a few years ago, when things were coming down to the wire, he thanked the Council for what was happening at that time, because of the actions of the City and thought given the Park residents the Park was able to get out from under an individual who had nothing in his mind but making a large fortune off of the Trailer Park, he did make a fortune but not a large fortune, the first figure quoted to the people was about $11 million, the people could not raise that kind of money, that is when the people went to the nonprofit 50lC3, which was the only means to do something, with the mention of the 50lC3 Mr. Hall said possibly he could get a little tax benefit from that himself, he would sell it for $8 million and make up the remainder in tax money, thereafter the people got him down to $7.4 million, the open market appraisal at the time was $ll million, the appraisal to purchase it under the nonprofit 50lC3 was $7.75 million. Mr. Clark thanked the City for making a good decision at that time, and expressed his belief that Linc is a good company for the Park to be with. Mr. Ray Molinex, Trailer Park, expressed his affection for the Trailer Park and thanked Seal Beach citizens for the City Council that saved their homes, the State and everyone involved. Mr. Molinex said there are people who still believe that the Covenants were going to save them. He read excerpts from a recent Residents Association newsletter, reporting that Councilman Yost had said that Mr. Johnson of Linc was eager to work with the residents and that there is now a window of opportunity to work out a solution, that Councilman Yost would do his best to resolve the issues and asked that the people work together, the newsletter stated further that working together could turn the Park into a community where all would show pride in ownership, to that Mr. Molinex countered that there is pride in ownership, the Park purchase was wonderful. He said that when he learned that Mr. Hall bought the Park he knew the residents would lose their homes, then the City stepped in to help and the residents started working together to save the homes, when there was a change in the membership of the Residents Board that is when the confusion began, the newsletter stated also that the residents can repair the sidewalks and paint the clubhouse themselves, yet the residents did not have an opportunity to vote on that, people doing those kinds of things need to be licensed, members of the former Board were invited to a meetings yet both times those meetings were canceled, the newsletter also assures the residents that there never has been nor is there now an attempt to subdivide the Park into two separate lots, any previous discussion of that is merely a fear tactic or rumor. Mr. Molinex read an excerpt from a letter in another news I I 3-10-03 publication authored by the acting Board secretary stating that the first thing that needs to be done is request an opinion of bond counsel as to the use of long term leases in the Park, this should include a request for an opinion regarding subdividing the Park or turning it into condominiums, townhouses, a stock cooperative, etc. Mr. Ken Williams, Riversea Road, said the author of the referenced letter is a human being that has a right to express an opinion, what was said was to just research what could be done, there were many options, one was subdivision, no one on the current Board has ever asked to subdivide the Park, other options were to look at a co-op, stock option, etc. Mr. Williams offered his services to fix up the Park. He disagreed with the previous comments with regard to the sale price of the Park, claiming it was initially $5.4 million and the attempt was to get it down to $5.1 million, it is not known why ,it went up to $7.4 million. The people sitting on the Residents Board were elected legally and properly, it was not a coup, it was not a takeover, it was a properly run vote, and countered comments of a prior speaker as to what took place, that it was said the Park would be bought, try to get it as a stock option, share, or whatever means, the previous Board was voted off of the Board legally and properly according to State law, there was a parliamentarian, the Police Chief oversaw the election, the paperwork was passed out in accordance with State codes. Mr. Williams said for comments to be made that things were so bad but it is okay now is just not acceptable, the Park issues could be resolved if the people would communicate, the prior Board refuses to share records as is required by State law and the By-Laws. Mr. Mike Narz, mentioned that he is a thirty year Park resident, said he has no trouble communicating with Linc if he has a concern, yet he was supposed to have a Board to do that for him, the new Board has filed lawsuits of which he had no knowledge, which leaves the Board option unqvailable to him, that is where the problem lies, claim~ng to represent him and they do not, the communication is not there because it has been taken away. There being no further comments, Mayor Larson declared Public Comments to be closed. I I COUNCIL ITEMS APPOINTMENT - ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY CONTROL BOARD Mayor Larson moved to appoint Mr. Phil O'Malley as the District Two representative to the Environmental Quality Control Board for the unexpired term ending July, 2003. Councilman Yost seconded the motion'. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "c" thru "N" Councilman Antos requested that Item "I" be removed from the Consent Calendar. Yost moved, second by Doane, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except for Item "I", removed for separate consideration. Councilman Yost requested that Item "H" be removed as well. I As to procedure, the City Attorney noted that the Council had approved the order of the agenda, that is the appropriate time to remove items from the Consent Calendar, therefore if the desire is to now remove items it would require a four 3-10-03 fifths vote. The motion was amended to remove Items "I" and "H" for separate consideration. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Larson, Yost Doane Motion carried I C. Approved the waiver of reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after the reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. D. Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned and regular meetings of February 24, 2003. E. Approved regular demands numbered 41001 through 41050, 41052 through 41212 in the amount of $590,906.35, ADP checks numbered 2346377 through 2346482 in the amount of $111,017.46, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. It was noted that checks numbered 41000 and 41051 were not used as they were damaged and voided. F. Adopted Resolution Number 5111 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADVOCATING SUPPORT OF THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION UTILITY DELIVERY SYSTEMS UPGRADE PROJECT AT THE JOINT FORCES TRAINING BASE IN LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5111 was waived. I G. Bids were received until February 12, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. for the Street Tree Maintenance Annual Contract as follows: Great Scott Tree Service West Coast Arborists, Inc. United Pacific Services Mariposa Horticultural TruGreen Land Care Trimming Land Co., Inc. $ 82,860.00 91,220.00 103,747.50 107,590.00 116,473.86 131,874.60 Awarded the unit price/maintenance services contract for street tree trimming to Great Scott Tree Services, Inc. in the amount of $82,860.00, and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract. I J. Approved the cancellation of City Council meetings of June 23rd, November 24th, and December 22nd, 2003. K. Accepted the resignation of Ms. Ruth Harrison as the District Two appointee to the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. L. Approved support of Senate Joint Resolution 6 (SOTO) and authorized the Mayor to sign the letter of support on behalf of the City 3-10-03 (funding for first responder training as part of the previously identified homeland security funding) . M. Adopted Resolution Number S112 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL-03-02 FOR PARCEL 2, ALSO KNOWN AS I ANDERSON STREET." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 5112 was waived. I N. Approved renewal of the existing Lifeguard Vehicle Sponsorship Agreement for an additional year with a three year option the with Beaches of Southern California Coalition and ' the Chevrolet Motor Division, and authorized the City Manager to execute said Agreement. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "H" - CITY MANAGER CONTRACT AMENDMENT Councilman Yost noted that a member of the public had requested that this item be removed. There being no comments, Councilman Yost moved to approve the City Manager Contract Amendment relating to an increase of vacation hours and vacation accrual. Mayor Larson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried I ITEM "I" - IN-LIEU PARKING PROGRAM - 132 MAIN STREET Councilman Antos stated he was unaware that the Council had adopted an In-Lieu Parking Program. The Director of Development Services explained that the Program was adopted at the time the Main Street Specific Plan zoning provisions were adopted. Yost moved, second by Campbell, to receive and file the Notice of Intent to approve participation in the in- lieu parking program for 132 Main Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Antos Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, declare a recess at 8:17 p.m. p.m. with Mayor Larson calling with consent of the Council to The Council reconvened at 8:27 the meeting to order. OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB CONCEPTUAL PLAN - RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Deputy City Engineer presented the staff report relating to the Recreation Commission recommendation to retain the Old Ranch Tennis Facility in its existing configuration, the recommendation also requests that the staff be directed to obtain proposals for a tennis'facility operator, and direction relating to facility upgrades and expenditure of funds for College Park East. The Deputy Engineer explained that as part of the Bixby development the Old Ranch Tennis Facility was to be dedicated to the City at no cost and $1 million was to be given to the City along with the facility, the offer of dedication is to expire in September, 2004. He noted that in March, 1999 an eighteen member ad hoc committee was formed to review the site and determine the best use of I 3-10-03 I the facility, the group held several meetings and developed a recreational wish list and site plan with the assistance of Purkiss-Rose, a landscape architectural firm, at that time the site plan included the demolition of five courts, expansion of the clubhouse, an outdoor stage/performance area, basketball courts, tot lot, skate parks, a splash pool, twenty new parking spaces, and a picnic area, in October of 2000 the site plan was presented to the City Council for approval, at that time the cost was estimated at $1.4 million yet a $1 million budget, and it was assumed that the City could use proposition 12 funds or Bixby revenue to offset the costs, however the Council directed staff to bring forth additional information. In November 2001 the project was assigned to the Public Works Department where the costs were analyzed between $1.4 and $1.8 million, in January 2002 the City contracted with an inspection company to determine if the facility needed repairs, what the costs would be, and the necessary ADA upgrades, the estimate was $250,000 for that facility. Based upon this information the Tennis Club Site Committee met several more times, developed another plan, approved the new plan in September of 2002 which included repairs and upgrades of the facility, demolition of four courts, construction of a skate park, a small tot lot, and some landscaping. The Deputy Engineer noted that in January, 2003 the Recreation Commission was presented with this option and four other alternatives including demolishing everything except the clubhouse, spending the $750,000 for various improvements in College Park East, or rejecting the project and dedication of the property, approximately one hundred people attended the Commission meeting, about twenty-two made public comments, the Commission then recommended that the City Council accept the site as it exists and that staff be directed to obtain proposals from facility operators. The Engineer stated there are three basic options for operation, a full private membership club, a public/private hybrid, or a fully public tennis facility. If directed by the Council staff will prepare requests for proposals to analyze the different costs and scenarios, from the firm costs the Council would be able to determine what type of facility and operation they would prefer. The Engineer noted that if the City accepted the facility now without an operational plan the City would assume the liability and responsibility to pay the tennis facility operational costs, utilities, landscaping, etc., therefore it is not recommended that the facility be accepted until a tennis club operator is chosen. He mentioned that another discussion point for the Council to provide direction on is the $250,000 of upgrades that are required at the site, the Public Works Department can construct the upgrades with the available funding or may direct the operator of the facility to make the improvements, a situation similar to that of Ruby's, yet with a low operating profit that may not be feasible, staff is also requesting direction on the expenditure of funds in College Park East, those monies are designated specifically for use in the College Park East neighborhood, possible projects would include parks, landscaping, concrete repairs, street repairs. The Deputy Engineer reiterated the staff recommendations to Council. I I Councilmember Campbell noted that this process began four years ago, it has been a long road, if it had been known then that the money could be spent elsewhere this matter would not be before the Council for consideration now, things would have been done sooner. To the question as to why removal of any of the courts was looked at initially was because the 3-10-03 courts were unutilized, there is an impaction rate with the courts, about thirty players per court, with a membership averaging about two hundred to two hundred ten that would indicate a need for only seven courts, removal of only four courts was being looked at. Councilmember Campbell mentioned that there are approximately fifty to fifty-five people from College Park East that belong to the Old Ranch Tennis Club, that is three percent of College Park East, there are three to four from Old Ranch and the Hill, with two hundred to two hundred ten members that means that approximately three quarters of the membership does not live in Seal Beach. She said she can understand the members of the Tennis Club wanting to keep and protect their facility, they have been there for a long time and love it, the fact is however that they make up only three percent of College Park East and a mere fraction of the City overall. Councilmember Campbell noted someone saying get the money and put it in the bank to earn interest, with today's rates of two to two and a half percent of $1 million that is only $20,000 to 25,000 a year, maintenance on the facility is from $60,000 to $90,000 per year, it is important to know what this is before getting into it, she must look out for everyone in College Park East, not just the three percent that use the facility, her goal was to get something that was for the majority of the CPE residents, that is why they continued to press for some usage of the courts even when it was realized that some of the money could be spent elsewhere, it was not desirable to put amenities in other parks because parkland is so important, the desire was to not diminish that, some feel that the tennis facility is an asset and should not have any courts removed, some feel it adds prestige to the community, she understands that but again she needs to work for all of College Park East, there is no question that this facility is an asset but is it an asset that can pay for itself, is it an asset that the whole community will use or just can use, that remains to be seen. with that in mind, Councilmember Campbell said she is willing to support going out to bid for an operator but with some caveats, there must be some provision for public use and special availability for Seal Beach residents, there must be provision for the Los Al High School tennis team which is ranked nationally, there must be some provision for use of the clubhouse by the community as a community center as that was high on the list for CPE, as much as the Tennis Club members would like to keep this a private facility there is no way that public monies can be put into a private facility. She noted having received a number of comments from CPE residents this past weekend, she also hung signs to inform the people of the consideration of this issue at this meeting, a comment she heard a number of times was to not spend any of the million dollars on the tennis facility because not that many people in the community use it, they wanted that money spent on parks and other improvements in College Park East, therefore she could not support putting $250,000 into a facility that is used by so few CPE and City people, especially since there is no assurance that the facility will make it, it is felt that the tennis facility should take the cost of improvements out of its revenues, if $250,000 were spent and it is not a success then that money is lost, Bixby is not making a sufficient return on their investment, that is why they are willing to part with it, and if it is not a success the City does not have the money to fund an operation that can not pay for itself. Councilmember Campbell suggested ways to look at a request for proposals, in the first the operator would make the capital improvements and would be provided a three to I I I , , _I 3-10-03 I five year lease, after that time the City would earn a certain percentage of the net profit, assuming there are any, the second would be to go out for a one year lease with no cash infusion and the operator would need to prove that they can increase the membership and that it is a viable business, the capital improvements would be taken out of revenues or if the facility showed a profit after the first year the City could lend the operator the money for the improvements to be paid back out of revenues, the tennis facility is an asset that needs to be managed properly and one that needs to make a return, and given the financial condition of the City it can not afford to waste any money. Councilmember Campbell noted that she has received some good suggestions as to the use of the $l million, some play equipment for Bluebell Park, a new shade cover there as well, possibly another survey could be done to see how the residents want the money spent within College Park East, the whole purpose of dedicating the tennis facility to the City was because of the impacts of the shopping center on College Park East such as two thousand more vehicles a day on Lampson, by owning this property there would be no future worries of Bixby using it as leverage to obtain approval for something they want from the City. I Councilman Doane noted that he has had a discussion with Mr. Barrett, the Golden Rain president, as is known there are no tennis courts in Leisure world, there was a proposal a number of years ago to construct tennis courts yet that did not meet with favor, and in this case his preference would be the private/public hybrid Tennis Club, and if there were a senior citizen discount there are many younger persons residing in Leisure World that would like to play tennis. Mr. Barrett was enthused with this proposal in that he feels there are enough Leisure World residents that would be interested and make up the deficit that Councilmember Campbell has mentioned, it is believed all of the courts could be utilized not only by Leisure Worlders but by persons throughout the City, he would be supportive of retaining the bleachers which would open up tournament play, and he agrees with those who have spoken in favor of upgrading the clubhouse which in turn could be utilized for the different community events for a fee as is the case with the other community centers. Councilman Doane said he would ask the Council to support the request of Mr. Barrett to make the facility affordable so that Leisure World players would have a facility on which to play close at hand. Councilmember Campbell noted that when enlarging the clubhouse was looked into it was determined that in order to do that center court would need to be taken out, it was felt that was too important to the facility. Councilman Yost expressed his opinion that this is a wonderful asset, it is used by the community, to him it would be a crime to demolish tennis courts and take away an asset of the City, yet there are some provisions that he would prefer, having gone through this a few times in recent years, that the $1 million stay in College Park East for whatever improvements those residents choose, the use of the clubhouse as a community center, renaming the facility as the Seal Beach Tennis and Community Center and make it a jewel of the community, at this point he would tend to support a private/ public hybrid use so that the public can also use the facility, and that the Los Alamitos High School boys and girls tennis teams are able to use the facility. Councilman Antos noted that he had attended the meeting at the North Seal Beach Community Center where the Recreation and Parks Commission met with regard to this issue, a number of correspondence has come in, all in favor of keeping the I 3-10-03 facility. Councilman Antos mentioned also that the City has a noise element in its General Plan which provides information about policies and the noise that ought to be associated with outside activities such as in a park, with that in mind he reported that on Sunday between 12:30 and 1:30 p.m., with no wind, he was on Bluebell Street taking noise readings, one site was near the soundwall and the transmission towers where the tennis courts are closest to the street and then in two places at Arbor park, the readings, based upon certain proposals to tear down tennis courts and construct other outdoor childrens activities such as skateboard facilities, etc., the ambient noise readings near the freeway were about seventy-five decibels, the Council would have a great liability if they tore out tennis courts and constructed outdoor facilities for children, ambient noise is without any cars, trucks, or whatever on the street, a little further down the street the reading was above sixty-five, the readings in Arbor Park were below fifty. Councilman Antos said in good conscious he could not support tearing out tennis courts under any circumstances to be replaced by youth facilities under the presumption that they would be safe, from what he has heard at the meetings, a report he had from his Parks and Recreation Commissioner, everything in writing, his belief is that the facility should be maintained as it exists, public and private use would be fine, there has also been a recent experience of requiring an operator to upgrade a City facility at their expense, that being the Ruby's lease, that could be explored with this operator to upgrade the facility, and the $1 million should remain in College Park East for improvements. I Although not a public hearing, Mayor Larson invited members of the public to make comments to this item if desired, the speaking time allowed is five minutes, and noted that the recommendation is to retain the tennis facility as it presently exists. Mr. Ray Ybaden College Park East, chairman of the Committee to Preserve Our Neighborhood, noted that he needs to revise his comments after the statements that have been made. Mr. Ybaden said this committee was formed because there was fear that there would be irreparable damage done to the tennis facility, the facility has been a wonderful neighbor for thirty years, when word came out that there was consideration of bike parks and skateboard parks there was not much support for that kind of direction, there was concern also that once damage was done to the tennis facility and once the bike parks were there and then proved to be unsuccessful then where would the money come from to restore the asset that currently exists. The members of the committee started talking to people and hundreds of signatures were secured on a letter addressed to the Council advising the Council to not adopt that type of a plan, as it turns out the Recreation Commission had the wisdom to adopt a different plan and at this point it sounds as if the Council is in agreement with that direction, those present are in support of the Recreation Commission recommendation that the tennis club remain as it exists, they would support selection of an operator, they favor a mixed use plan. Mr. Ybaden pointed out however that those persons who are members of the tennis club now pay over a thousand dollars a year to play tennis at that facility and enjoy what comes with that membership, many people who use the facility are not looked at as outsiders rather assets as they are contributing sums of money to enable this City to keep and maintain and develop that facility, he would not want the membership to go down because they do not live in Seal Beach rather would like it I I 3-10-03 I to go up, the more members that are attracted and the better facility that is there, the better it will be for any operator and for the City, this will enable things to be done for the community. As was mentioned by Councilman Doane, they did contact Mr. Barrett and inquired if the facility would attract people from Leisure World to the tennis facility so they could sample what the experience is like, at this point there have been about a dozen and a half people who have come to the facility, have started playing tennis there, a couple of days a month have been set aside for the Leisure World players to come, they are being assisted with forming a club, and it is understood that somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty to one hundred people are going to start playing tennis at the facility, they feel the same thing will happen in College Park East when people understand that this is a facility that is available to them, there are tennis programs for children, people from the Hill and Old Town will be invited, the facility will be busy. Mr. Ybaden expressed his opinion that this is going to be a viable activity, a resource for the City, he believes everyone is prepared to get behind this plan and make it a success. A great majority of those in the audience raised their hand in agreement with the comments. Mr. Robert Tumelty, President of the Old Ranch Townhome Association, said there are sixty home sites, the homes are directly opposite the Tennis Club, he too agrees that the Club has been a good neighbor for over thirty years, yet noted their concern upon hearing of plans to modify the Club, they were delighted to think that this would be an expanded facility that would offer services not only to College Park East but to the entire City as well as the entire area, and identified others in the audience from their complex. Mr. Tumelty said they see this as an opportunity and a challenge in terms of what can be done to develop a regional tennis center, one must start with a dream of such a center, how this comes out lies with the policy direction that the Council must set, at the Recreation Commission meeting a dream was seen as beginning to form because this is planning into the future, every planning effort is futuristic where not everything will turn out just as planned, the recommendation is the start of a dream. Mr. Tumelty said he has no concern if there is only ten people from CPE that use the facility, he does care that there are tens and tens and tens that would utilize the Club but does not care where they are from, if there is need to expand the Club and reach out to other organizations and agencies to develop this regional tennis center he believes that there is a focus for that. There was a comment from Council that he had had concern, that with the economic viability of the Club, everyone shares that, yet his concern was more with the proposal to remove four courts, that would be twenty-five percent of the possible revenue base of the Club, he believes that was within the context of the comment. Mr. Tumelty stated that the people are all for some good planning, they will be delighted to work with the City, the framework that has been presented seems to be a good starting point, that is when the hard work starts. A member of the audience who had addressed the Council at the first Public Comment period was denied a second opportunity to speak on a two to three vote of the Council. Mr. Marty Mahrer, College Park East, said he agreed with most of the positive comments regarding the Tennis Club, however with regard to Alternative 5, a request for direction on the expenditure of funds for College Park East projects, his question would be who is going to be the overseer and what projects are going to be brought forth that the public does not know of at this point, of concern is that I I 3-10-03 since the City is in a shortfall for money the $1 million could,be used for many things. The City Manager explained that the Development Agreement states that the money has to be used for the benefit of the College Park East neighborhood, therefore the money can not be used in another area, once there is direction from the Council any capital improvement project proposal would be voted, upon by the Council, as has been heard preference as to projects may be done by a survey, improvements have been mentioned at this meeting, at this point it is an open issue that is yet to be fully discussed. I Councilman Yost expressed appreciation to the Neighborhood and Tennis Club Preservation Committee for the work they have done, a group a people who were not supportive of a proposal and in turn brought forth positive, constructive changes and did so with respect, dignity, and professionalism, suggesting that might be an example for others to take a similar lead who are unhappy with situations, the group deserves a hand for changing something into a positive. Councilman Yost said his hope is that this facility will be a jewel in the City as the Seal Beach Tennis and Community Center, there seems to be a great deal of division in the community that stops at the 405 Freeway, there are a number of people from District Three that travel to this facility to play tennis, it is hoped this can heal some of the division and this can be the meeting point between Seal Beach north and south of the freeway, also that the money be kept in College Park East to do with whatever is desired. Yost moved, second by Antos, to approve the recommendation. I Councilmember Campbell stated that she would like to split the recommendations, she would have no problem retaining the tennis facility in its existing configuration, provide direction to complete the facility upgrades by the City or the operator, her feeling is that that needs to be addressed in the RFP rather than make that decision at this time. Councilman Yost said he would accept that as a friendly amendment to the RFP however would want some flexibility should it be problematic. Councilmember Campbell questioned whether $250,000 would go towards the tennis facility or the entire $1 million go to improvements in College Park East, she has a concern putting $250,000 into a facility where it is not known whether or not it can be successful, she would prefer to go out to bid for a year proposal to see if the membership can be built up, at that point either take the capital improvements out of revenue, possibly the City could lend the money, or the operator could put the money into the facility then provide the operator with a three to five year lease. Councilman Antos clarified his understanding of the motion, to retain the Old Ranch Tennis Facility in its existing configuration, direct the City Manager to obtain proposals from private facility operators, specifically to have the private facility operator pay for the cost of improvements, including ADA, in the same manner as the City did with the Ruby's lease, then the $1 million stays in College Park East, and as part of the RFP indicate that this is a combination private/public tennis facility, include language to allow the public to use the clubhouse as a community center at some point and amount, and a provision for the Los Alamitos High School tennis teams to use the facility. Councilmember Campbell included special availability for Seal Beach I 3-10-03 I residents, including those who are retired, noted again that at such time as the City seeks an operator no money would be put into the facility at that point in that it has not been proven that it can succeed, it will need to be seen if the operator can provide the capital improvements or have a year to determine the success of the facility, there will be no money from the City for operational expenses. Mayor Larson suggested that alternate bids be requested because it must come out economically feasible for the operator, if the operator puts $250,000 into the center then there will be a greater charge to play tennis, the bids could reflect the charge to play if they put that amount of money into the facility or if they do not. Councilman Yost noted that the community as a whole will get some benefit by using the clubhouse as a community center, for classes, etc., it will not be solely for tennis but to the benefit of the residents of the community, he could support the suggestion of putting that into the RFP then the City can have a choice. Mayor Larson noted that the tennis facility in Long Beach has an operator, it is similar to how golf courses are run. Councilman Yost mentioned that there is a beautiful public/ private hybrid facility in Santa Monica that ,functions very well. Councilman Doane said he would be interested in knowing if anyone has made any kind of inquiry as to operators, would they be interested. Councilmember Campbell confirmed that there have been inquiries, however the policy of the City is to go out for bids. In response to a comment from the public, Mayor Larson pointed out that the expenditure of funds is generally left to the determination of the Councilmember, whether it is fixing streets or whatever. Councilmember Campbell said what she would like to do, with the approval of Council, is send a survey to all College Park East residents seeking suggestions as to how they feel the $1 million should be spent, one suggestion was play equipment and a new overhang cover at, Bluebell, with this pending action the money from Bixby will not be required to be spent on just the tennis courts, it can be spent in College Park East in general. Councilman Antos inquired if City staff can prepare the survey form, to that Councilmember Campbell stated she would work with them, there is a format, Councilman Yost too agreed that staff should be involved. I I with regard to a procedural issue, the City Attorney noted that the maker of the motion was Councilman Yost, the recommendations on'the last page of the staff report can be used as a guideline, except that the word 'alternative' should be added to read 'alternative proposals', the first was to retain the Old Ranch Tennis Facility in its existing configuration, obtain alternative proposals from private tennis facility operators for a public/private hybrid facility, it is presumed that staff will be directed to obtain the money from Bixby, that being after a tennis facility operator is selected, the community center use and Los Alamitos High School tennis team(s) use, that being the motion. Councilmember Campbell mentioned senior citizen use of the facility. Councilman Yost suggested that a survey generated by City staff of the College Park East residents with regard to their suggested improvements for the area be included. Councilman Antos reiterated his second to the motion. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried 3-10-03 Councilman Doane thanked everyone for their participation in the discussion, and mentioned the efforts of Mr. Saunders of the Leisure World News. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report was presented. CITY MANAGER REPORT No report was presented. I COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Antos extended greetings to Ms. Olson for her birthday the following day. Councilman Antos requested Council concurrence to submit an issue to the City Attorney. He noted that the Council was provided some general information on new laws relative to conflict of interest, he downloaded Sections 87100 through 87105 of the Government Code, has a concern with Section 87103 as it relates to the Trailer Park and elected officials on the Board, 87103 states that 'a public official has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of Section 87100 if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect distinguishable from its effect on the public generally', what follows are some lists, subsection "d" says 'any business entity in which the public official is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management.' Councilman Antos offered that he does not see how an elected public official can sit as a director, officer, trustee, board member on a nonprofit entity wherein decisions that they might make sitting as a member of either the City Councilor Redevelopment Agency could have a direct impact on that entity even if they have no financial interest themselves, even if it is a non-paid, totally volunteer position, his concern is whether this is a problem because he would not like to see the two Councilmembers who are sitting as public members on the Trailer Park Board fall under this and be unable to make decisions as Councilor Redevelopment Agency members because they are serving voluntarily as public members. Reading further, it would also preclude anyone who files a conflict of interest statement, which means the City Manager or Planning Commissioners because they make land use decisions, so if he is reading the Sections correctly he would think that the members would need to be totally public. Councilman Antos again requested a consensus to have the City Attorney review these Sections. Mayor Larson suggested that those persons write to the Fair Political Practices Commission individually and their inquiry will be answered, the opinion of the City Attorney will not help them. The City Attorney concurred that that would be the best approach, that is the opinion they always give to seek a written opinion. In response to Councilman Yost, the City Attorney agreed to assist the members of the Council in that regard. Mayor Larson noted that the Attorney has to state to the FPPC that he has the permission of the members of the Council to write on behalf of. I I CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council to adjourn the meeting until March 24th at 6:30 p.m. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. 3-10-03 / 3-24-03 Ci of clerk Attest: "'- )bJ6/..1) h~ ~<,,:F>>I a Ci ty Clerk / I Approved: Seal Beach, California March 24, 2003 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Councilmembers Campbell, Doane, Yost Absent: Councilmember Antos I Councilman Antos joined the Council in Closed Session at 6:35 p.m. Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Ms. Yeo, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss Item A (a), Peddicord versus Linc Housing, pursuant to Government Code Section S49S6.9(a), that Item A-2 (b), Wiles versus City of Seal Beach, and Item B, a conference with legal counsel relating to anticipated litigation, would not be discussed and held over to a future meeting. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:31 p.m. and reconvened at 7:10 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported that the Council had discussed Item A (a), gave direction, no other reportable action was taken. I ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, to adjourn the meeting at 7:11 consent of the Council, Approved: ~Mlfof.h ayor