Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1997-11-10 I I I 10-27-97 / 11-10-97 estate offices, the brokers, and Board of Realtors in an attempt to obtain their cooperation, at this point there has been no prosecution efforts. Mayor ProTem Brown questioned how much notice there would be of an El Nino situation. The City Manager noted that a participant in the training session was the weather forecaster for the Fire Author{ty, depending upon the size and direction of a storm there could be several days warning, that information would be provided by the Fire Authority and other sources. Mayor ProTem Brown said he would hope Leisure World will be provided the same detail of information as the City, which will allow some preparation time. Councilman Fulton noted that there is a Leisure World resident that checks the weather scanner every day. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications presented. COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilman Fulton said when there is notice of an approaching El Nino he would hope it would not be like Denver that went from a light snow prediction to four to eight feet. Councilmember Campbell reporeed that the Halloween Haunt, hosted by the College Park East Neighborhood Association, was held this past Saturday, was very successful, predicted to be bigger and scarier next year, and next Saturday the Association will be sponsoring a paper drive at Almond Park. She inquired of the Public Works Director if tree trimming has been scheduled for the south side of Lampson Avenue, to which the Director reported they are private property trees overhanging onto the street, a letter is being forwarded to those homeowners requesting that their trees be trimmed. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, November 10th at 6:30 p.m. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. clerk Approved: ~1!. ' . ~,.,.. !ofaY.:lr P 0 m Seal Attest: Seal Beach, California November 10, 1997 h' 'I '~\ f T e C~ty Counc~ of the c~ty'of al B ~h.met ~n regular adjourned session at 6:30.;.p.'~l\l ',P.I.H~;.,HAliIt:i'ngs calling the meeting to order wi th)"ERe&i, MtWJl.~~ tlhe' !flAg. ,f ..., l " f 11-10-97 ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Hastings Councilmembers Brown, .Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton Absent: None Also present: Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I The City Manager joined the Council in Closed Session. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Council, by unanimous consent, approved the order of the agenda as presented. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications presented. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to confer with the City's labor negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to discuss negotiations with the listed employees, Executive Management/ City Manager/Confidential/Supervisory/Professional/Technica1 Employees. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:32 p.m. and reconvened at 7:07 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had met in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, no decisions were reached with respect to the discussion, the desire of the Council is to continue the Closed Session until after the regular meeting. By consensus, the Council recessed this meeting at 7:08 p.m. until approximately 9:00 p.m. I The Council reconvened the adjourned session at 10:46 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling the meeting to order and adjourned to continue the Closed Session. The Council reconvened at 10:56 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney announced that the Council had met in Closed Session to discuss the performance of the City Manager and a motion would be in order at this' time. . Brown moved, second by Fulton, tha~ ~ffective January 1, 1998 the salary of the City Manager be raised five percent and that one additional leave day be granted. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the regular adjourned session was adjourned at 10:59 p.m. Approved: I lerk and the City of 'i 11-10-97 Attest: ~".~I a City Clerk '" I Seal Beach, California November 10, 1997 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:08 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Hastings Councilmembers Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Badum, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Mr. Dorsey, Assistant to the City Manager Ms. Beard, Recreation Director Ms. Kathleen McGlynn, Recreation Supervisor Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Campbell requested that Item "H" be removed from the Consent Calendar. Fulton moved, second by Campbell, to approve the order of the agenda as revised. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried PRESENTATIONS Mayor Hastings read in full Resolution Number 4579 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE 1997 HAUNTED HOUSE." Ms. Kathleen McGlynn introduced the contributors and participants, and described their part in the transformation of and participation in the 1997 Halloween Haunted House. Mayor Hastings and members of the Council commended all for their efforts towards this successful project. Brown moved, second by FUlton, to adopt Resolution Number 4579 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried PROCLAMATION Mayor Hastings declared November 23rd through November 30th, 1997 as "Bible Week." ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Hastings declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Seretta Fielding, Seal Beach, directed her comments to Seal Beach Boulevard. She showed a copy of the plan that was 11-10-97 started fourteen years ago, approved by the Council in September, 1986 for improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard, yet pointed out that nothing has been done to the Boulevard in forty-nine years. Ms. Fielding described the Boulevard as the entrance to Seal Beach, said it is time to do something to it, offered copies of the approved Plan, correspondence, and minutes leading to the Plan approval, and with the upcoming change of Council, asked that the Boulevard not be forgotten. Mr. Lionel Okin, Leisure World, stated his understanding that the City Council participated in a legal action along with other agencies relating to the Bolsa Chica wetlands. He offered that following the legal judgment with regard to the housing development on the Bolsa Chica, the wetlands have been acquired from the Koll Company therefore will be saved, now of concern is the mesa area that is part of the Bolsa Chic a wetlands ecosystem, following the judgment the new development plan should have been sent back to the County for an amended Local Coastal Plan, including a public hearing, for submission to the Coastal Commission, which was not done, and at this time people are being asked to contact the Second District Supervisor, Mr. Silva, and request that he vote against adoption of the amended Local Coastal Plan for the reason that the mesa is part of the wetlands ecosystem, proper procedure has not been followed, also if homes are built on the mesa there will be countless journeys that will spillover into Seal Beach and onto the Boulevard. Mr. Ok in asked also that a message be forwarded from the City Council requesting a vote against the LCP on November 18th. At the request of the Mayor, the Director of Development Services reported that a hearing was held before the Coastal Commission with regard to the revised Bolsa Chica project, about mid-October, the reason this matter went to the Commission initially was that the lawsuit that was filed challenged the Coastal Commission approval of housing to be built in the wetland area, that found to be improper by the Corp, therefore the commission reviewed their approval, at this point homes are not allowed in the wetland area, as the wetlands have now been acquired by the State of California. He noted the residential component of the project was initially approved for two thousand five hundred homes on the mesa, the revised plan, as submitted as part of the reconsideration by the Commission, is about one thousand thirty-five homes, that is the number of residential units that the Commission did review and approve. The Director said he was not certain of the process for review that the Commission followed, whether they held a public hearing or not. Mr. Okin said he wanted to clarify that his comments were not to a Coastal Commission hearing, rather the Board of Supervisors who are about to accept an amended Local Coastal Plan without a public hearing, the concern with this lies with individuals and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. To a question of Council as to whether as a body the Council could prepare a letter to Supervisor Silva since the subject matter was not on the agenda, the response was no, however it was suggested that the Council could communicate individually. The Mayor mentioned the importance of determining if proper procedure has been followed by the Board of Supervisors by not holding a public hearing on the revised Koll plan for the mesa, she would personally not like to see residential built on the mesa, the intent is to save the wetlands and the mesa is part of that. The City Attorney stated he was not aware of the required process in this case, not knowing what was approved before, the lawsuit was a CEQA challenge, then a challenge of the Coastal Commission approval, it is possible that the County approval already included the houses, I I I 11-10-97 I therefore there may not be a legal requirement for a hearing. Mr. Okin provide a name and telephone number to obtain additional information. Ms. Nancy Grgas, 15th Street, read a statement from her husband, Victor Grgas. The statement pointed out, in part, that 'Seal Beach Boulevard is one of the most highly traveled streets in the City, a gateway to the City, which currently gives a poor first impression of the community for first time visitors, and because of lengthy neglect the Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric was and continues to be one of the least attractive areas in the City'. Mr. Grgas stated that 'in 1985/86 a consultant was retained to study Seal Beach Boulevard, that effort included a citizens committee to provide input and feedback to guide the work of the consultant, the study included evaluation of existing land uses and recommendations as to future development standards for the area, a master plan for the installation of public improvements, including street, sidewalk, parking, lighting, and landscaping was completed as part of the study as well as construction cost estimates. The study was adopted by the City Council in mid- 1986, some of the desired improvements were included from year to year in the Community Development Block Grant funding request to the County, however because of the lack of funds the improvements were not made. The fact is that this study has either been forgotten or ignored, perhaps both, by City administration and the Council since 1990, it is time to quit ignoring one of the most important gateways to the City, Seal Beach Boulevard.' Mr. Marty Mahrer, College Park East, said his comments to Item "N", the cable franchise would exceed five minutes. To a question of the Mayor, the City Attorney advised that persons may speak to the item now or at the time of considering that agenda item. Mr. Mahrer agreed to hold his comments until later in the agenda. Mr. Walt Miller, Seal Beach Boulevard, inferred that the City has possibly broken the law, a newspaper article reporting that the 12th Street sidewalks were replaced because they were broken, yet Seal Beach Boulevard has had no sidewalks for fifty years, so if there is a law that requires sidewalks to protect the people then asked why was that money not spent on Seal Beach Boulevard. The Director of Public Works responded that repair of the 12th Street sidewalks had nothing to do with Seal Beach Boulevard, 12th Street had trip and fall problems due to City street trees uplifting the sidewalks to a degree that they could no longer be repaired, there is no such problem on Seal Beach Boulevard, and although there is sidewalk on just one side of the Boulevard there is no frontage in that area, it was not required when the street was constructed, also explained that potential funding through the Orange County Transit Authority is being looked into for a'sidewalk and possibly a bikeway however that program has yet to be announced, maybe by spring. To comments of Mr. Miller the Director noted that there is no law to install a sidewalk where none exists, however the California Highway Code requires an adjacent property owner to install a sidewalk, curb, gutter, and part of the street when their property is developed, however the Federal government is exempt, therefore there was never a requirement to construct a sidewalk on the easterly side of the Boulevard. Mr. Miller stated no one can build on Seal Beach Boulevard because that requires a Coastal Commission permit, yet they will not issue a permit without parking on-site, that can not be done because there is an alley that will not support commercial parking entrance and exit, the City does not allow curb cuts at the front of those properties, there are islands where nothing can be placed, the only answer is I I 11-10-97 that the City file a Local Coastal Plan, the City does not want to do that, meanwhile the property owners can do nothing with their property, citing his properties as examples. Mr. Miller referred to the Boulevard as a potential for new businesses yet no one looks to improve the area, no sidewalk, no repaving, no speed limit, nothing has happened. Mr. Greg Miller, Sandpiper Bicycle Shop, asked where the monies came from to repair 12th Street. The Director of Public Works explained that 12th Street repair was based on a scientific engineering evaluation, the pavement condition, drainage problems, no curb face in many places, the trip and fall hazards, street trees, and that it was he who selected that street for repair. As to drainage Mr. Miller claimed that storm water collected up to four feet in front of his business, made out of order comments to the Council, also claimed that nothing has been done to Seal Beach Boulevard during his seventeen years in the City or in the past forty years. Ms. Dorothy Whyte, College Park East, objected to staff and Councilmembers being allowed to respond to questions during Oral Communications where she has been denied such response in the past. She read an excerpt from a news article which she said described the mood of the public forum for College Park East residents this past Tuesday, then made reference to the agenda for the community forum that she said commenced with introductory remarks by the Councilperson and reports from City staff, and a Bixby Towne Center status report was listed for 8:30. Ms. Whyte inquired if City staff receives comp time for their attendance at such gatherings, to which the City Manager responded in the negative as they are salaried employees. Ms. Whyte claimed that this forum again did not provide a public question and answer period, made reference to past comments regarding the eucalyptus trees on the Bixby property, noted that tne former District Four Councilmember took pictures of all present, those understood to be for the District Attorney's office. She said the Councilmember initially alleged that there were two recall petitions, that was unfounded, an attempt was then made to obtain a copy of the petition, copies are not allowed, then alleged the petition was misrepresented, now a door to door survey of who signed the recall petition. Ms. Whyte made reference to a College Park East resident she said is due an apology from the Councilmember. She continued, her comments directed to the community forum, asked why no map of the proposed Bixby Towne Center, why can it not be discussed, discussion during the hearing process is too late, and referred to comments that there is no development, no project. Ms. Whyte invited all parties who fought to save the trees in Gum Grove to come to College Park and do the same for their eucalyptus trees, they are a windbreak. With regard to seeking information as to how to obtain more public input and analysis of projects, something said to not be easy, Ms. Whyte asked what is so hard about a town hall meeting where the people talk and the Councilperson answers questions. Ms. Whyte displayed a flier/report from the Councilmember, said if it represents the Councilperson then it should not discuss recall, asked if the flier was prepared at the expense of the Councilperson or is it legal for that person to use staff money for that purpose. Mr. Tom Bolling, Hazelnut Avenue, noted his attendance at the Tuesday evening forum, thanked the staff and Councilperson for being present, mentioned detecting subtle undertones of divisiveness. He recalled that the Bixby mixed use plan had been presented previously, it went through the EIR process, was presented to the Planning Commission, rejected by a five to zero vote based upon the findings of the EIR, to which he inquired as I I I 11-10-97 I to the specific reasons it was rejected and inquired if the transcripts of the discussions available for public review. The Director of Development Services noted that Planning Commission minutes are available for public review at any time, stated the Commission recommended denial of that project for a number of different reasons, which he did not recall the specifics at this time, however a Commission Resolution sets forth their findings and recommendations, the minutes as well giving an overview of the Commission and public discussion and concerns. Mr. Bolling asked if the Bixby Company attempted to modify the plan in response to any objections or did Bixby submit another mixed use or totally residential plan to the City. The Director responded that the initial project, recommended for denial by the Planning Commission, was not modified based upon the recommendations of the Commission and was withdrawn by Bixby prior to consideration by the City Council, they then formally submitted a new application which is currently undergoing the preparation of an environmental impact report, confirmed that that is the commercial project, and that there have been no other applications submitted by Bixby for that property. Mr. Walt Miller, Seal Beach Boulevard, said he read in the newspaper that water rates were going to be discussed at this meeting, also, at the October 27th meeting there had been no correspondence, no presentations or concerns relating to that matter. Mr. Miller was advised that his communication had been received, entered into the record, and was read by the members of the Council present at that meeting. Mr. Miller said his letter posed questions, asked if they had been discussed, and questioned the issue of future accountability. The City Manager responded that a list of water maintenance and capital improvement projects is available at City Hall. Mr. Miller emphasized his opinion that future expenditures, improvements, and revenue use should have been thoroughly discussed, and cited his payment of $15 per month for zero water usage. Mr. Miller was informed that staff provides the Council with reports, in this case future infrastructure improvements, the Council had seen and reviewed them, and is in support of them given the age of the city's water system. The City Attorney interjected that at least three public hearings have been noticed regarding this issue, one just recently, the public hearing was closed, the public record is available for review, this is not an agendized item for this meeting therefore the Council may not respond to questions. Mr. Gordon Trigg, College Park East, asked if his letter to the Mayor of October 27th will be answered. Mayor Hastings responded that she would not be answering the letter, she did not feel it appropriate to enter into an interpersonal issue between a Councilperson and a group of College Park East residents. Mr. Trigg noted that the referenced accusation occurred during a meeting led by Mayor Hastings, and inquired if the Council approves of a member of the Council using meeting time to charge that a law has been broken. The Mayor explained that during the category of Council Items a member of the Council may speak to any issue they choose, and the other members of the Council are not held accountable for the actions of another, it is a freedom of speech issue. As a point of clarification, the City Attorney explained that questions can be answered however the Brown Act prohibits discussion of items that are not on the agenda, the Council and staff are trying to be helpful by answering questions however when the point is reached that it becomes a dialogue, a discussion, that is prohibited by the Brown Act. Mr. Trigg said the question is whether the Council approves of a member of the Council degrading a citizen. Mayor Hastings declared I I 11-10-97 Oral Communications closed. ITEM "H" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4560 - COMPLETION - SLURRY SEAL - PROJECT NUMBER 674 Councilmember Campbell inquired as to the opinion of the City Manager and Councilman Brown after their drive-through on College Park East streets. The City Manager said given the intent to stretch road maintenance dollars as far as can be, under this contract the City slurry sealed the streets to extend their life, this project called for a thick slurry that is expected to last longer than the thin, paint like slurry. He noted that in the early stage of the thick slurry the roadway is somewhat rougher, in his vehicle some vibration could be felt however it is understood that will subside within a short time, the project is felt to be a good value. Councilmember Campbell noted that since the project met specifications the City is committed to accepting it, however suggested that there be some assurance that future road surfaces will be smoother. The Director of Public Works acknowledged that utilizing the maximum thickness of slurry did create some problems however it is expected to smooth out over time, there will be an awareness for future projects, the sport utility vehicles seemed to exaggerate the problem inasmuch as the streets were driven with other types of vehicles with few problems. It was suggested that this item be approved with the Consent Calendar. I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "c thru "M" Brown moved, second by Campbell, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented. 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 unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. I D. Approved regular demands numbered 17579 through 17734 in the amount of $173,787.02, payroll demands numbered 24498 through 24682 in the amount of $260,801.56, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. E. Received and filed the status report with regard to the Housing Element update and instructed staff to forward same to the Planning Commission for information purposes. F. Received and filed the staff report regarding the Orange County Council of Governments 'Alternative Fuels Strategy Background Paper', instructed staff to prepare additional status reports as appropriate, and to forward this report to the Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. I G. Approved the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Orange County Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project and authorized the Mayor to execute same on behalf of the City, authorized the City Manager to execute 11-10-97 contracts with Edison EV for installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, instructed staff to prepare additional status reports as appropriate, and to forward this information to the Environmental Quality Control Board and Planning Commission for information purposes. I H. Adopted Resolution Number 4560 entitled uA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT #674, SLURRY SEAL FY 1996/97, CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PAVEMENT COATINGS COMPANY AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4560 was waived. I. Denied the claim for damages of Marlene R. Wolfe and referred same to the City's liability attorney and claims adjuster. J. Adopted Resolution Number 4580 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING BUDGETARY AMENDMENTS FOR THE 1997/98 FISCAL YEAR." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4580 was waived. K. Received and filed the Certification of Recall petition, Councilmanic District Four. I L. Approved the minutes of the adjourned meeting of the Redevelopment Agency and City Council joint session of October 20th, 1997 and the regular adjourned City Council meeting of October 20th, 1997. M. Continued to a future meeting, Resolution Number 4581 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CONFIDENTIAL, SUPERVISORY, PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES AND REPEALING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE SPECIFIED, ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH" and I Resolution Number 4582 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT AND MID-MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolutions Numbered 4581 and 4582 were waived. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1418 - CABLE FRANCHISE REGULATIONS / CABLE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT Mr. Marty Mahrer, College Park East, made reference to the Constitution of the United States, specifically the First Amendment, to which Councilman Brown publicly apologized for having previously misspoken. Mr. Mahrer continued to speak regarding the First Amendment, specifically to freedom of 11-10-97 speech and the press, to which he claimed on October 23rd the resident subscribers of Comcast were denied their rights by that cable company withdrawing a public service message because the manager did not like the wording, the message alerted people to attend and comment on the proposed cable contract being discussed, this violation was brought to the attention of the Council on October 27th at which time Acting Mayor Brown reported having given his permission to change the message. He said on October 31st he contacted the Federal Communications Commission with regard to this issue, was informed that the people involved broke a provision of the 1934 Communications Act, as subsequently amended, and made reference to section 611 with regard to cable channels for public, education, and government use, a subsection thereof prohibiting a cable operator from exercising any editorial control thereof with certain exceptions. Mr. Mahrer acknowledged the apology of Councilman Brown. He then criticized negotiative efforts with a company that violates the law, claimed the contract offer is substandard regardless of the misinformation provided by the consultant, stated the best action would be no action, month to month operation is an option, and if the cable company does not want to negotiate there are likely other companies that would be interested in talking to the City. Mr. Mahrer noted that many hours were spent reading and commenting on both the ordinance and franchise agreement, approximately forty comments were offered to the City yet only five were included in the documents, to which he ci~ed refusal to act or misinformation from outside sources. He claimed that Seal Beach is a cash call for Comcast, a taking of approximately three to four million dollars a year plus the raising of rates about every two years, questioned their why performance is not as the past contract dictates, if money is not spent on the various aspects specified in the contract then the bottom line is larger, claimed also that comments by a School District representative to the Council were not given proper attention, was told everything was covered, there was no follow-up with the School District, yet the schools need television services. Mr. Mahrer again urged a vote against the cable contract. with regard to the Constitutional issue, Councilman Brown explained that Comcast made no error, it was Comcast that had called him as the Acting Mayor, read the paragraph, and it was felt the language was inciting something other than what was desired, the intent was to invite constructive criticisms, to which he acknowledged again that he had made a mistake, he had informed Mr. Mahrer of that, and in his opinion the negative comments towards Comcast were inappropriate. Mr. Peter Anninos, Electric Avenue, said he understood some amendments have been made to the contract and expressed appreciation for those on behalf of public access. Mr. Anninos posed a question with regard to the proposal of Comcast to rent the current studio facility for a period of three years, whether that will be just a studio and control room, are utilities covered, and said it would be desired if the coordinator's office were included. Mr. Rob ROy, public access producer, noted that the one thousandth program has just been completed, an average of about sixty-six programs a year over the past fifteen years, about twenty-five of those utilize the van, yet the contract only provides for twelve, and requested that that be raised to eighteen or twenty, if the van is not used that many times it could be reduced the following year. As to the up-front payment of the first and last year $75,000, questioned what will happen in year ten without those funds. Councilman Brown noted that his presentation would include I I I I I I 11-10-97 certain things that is felt the Foundation should address such as budgets, future plans, etc. Mr. Roy inquired as to when the transition will take place, when should a coordinator be sought, noted that in ten years the contract will be worth thirty million dollars, an important contract for the City. He thanked those who worked so hard on this renewal process. Ms. Fran Johnson, Coastline Drive, cited the importance of public access to the Animal Care Center, and announced the 'Day of the Barkers' on November 22nd, that activity advertised by Comcast. It was the consensus of the Council to postpone the Closed Session until 9:30 p.m. * Councilmember Campbell noted that some of the proposed changes to the ordinance are not yet reflected in the current copy of the document, deletion of the second sentence of Section 23A-6(2) an example~ reference to the word 'capable' in subsection (4) and 2(b), it was thought that the intent was not to delete the word, rather define it. With regard to those subsections there appeared to be an understanding that the word 'capable' would be deleted. * Councilmember Campbell claimed a conflict of section 4 with section 2 on page eight with regard to response times~ Mr. Friedman, cable consultant, explained that one section relates to a telephone response the other relates to the crew that responds to the problem. * Subsection b, standards must be met ninety percent of the time, measured on a quarterly basis, questioned why not ninety-five percent~ response was that that is the industry standard at this time~ that is the standard established by the FCC in their customer service standards, under FCC standards if a more stringent standard is established the cable company is allowed to charge for additional services, as part of the negotiations if was thought more appropriate to use the ninety percent as a starting point, the City is entitled to change, on its own, customer service standards pursuant to federal law and regulations, the FCC rules felt to be a reasonable starting place and if that is not satisfactory based on the performance standards of the cable company, the percentage could be increased at some future date if desired. * As to what effect that has, Mr. Friedman responded that it effects the standards, however according to FCC regulations the cable operator is not allowed to pass through any extra costs to its subscribers for meeting the ninety percent standard, if it is increased, the incremental costs that the operator incurs for meeting that standard is allowed to be passed through to subscribers. * With regard to Section 2b(1), page eight, 'ten percent of the subscribers of the system', is the ten percent of the entire system of part thereof~ the response was the entire system in Seal Beach~ inquiry was then that that would mean about eight hundred homes to be a system outage~ response was ten percent of the subscribers in Seal Beach~ response also that it is not a definition of an outage, it is definition of an outage that requires a two hour response twenty-four hours a day. 11-10-97 * On weekends, outage affecting fewer than three subscribers...service call no later than the following Monday morning, was that not set forth as twenty-four hours a day on the previous page; the twenty-four hours is in reference to telephone capacity. * Page nine, (3), signal quality, that needs to be defined; response was that in attempting to define same, that could result in a loophole; Councilmember Campbell noted the operational standards contained in the Buena Park contract, which Seal Beach should look at in terms of including such operational and technical standards; response was that this is a reasonable man standard; Councilmember Campbell said her comments were a direct result of questions during the public hearing; response was that signal quality was looked at and determined that a reasonable man definition was reasonable; the response was disputed, rather, said questions were asked, were told they would be taken under consideration, but no answers were given, a few were modified, with regard to signal quality possibly the operational and technical standards can be addressed further. I * Page nine, Section 3.b, billing disputes, request that copy be provided City Hall; 'response was that that is within the ordinance, all that is necessary is to request a copy of the response. * page ten, Section 5, complaints and disputes, written procedures, question was where will such procedures be available; response of Mr. Friedman was that the Section provides that the Grantee must file a copy of the, procedures with the Grantor; file with the City Hall. I * page 12, Section 23A-8(2), question was if schedules will be made available of work to be done; response was that the cable company is required to obtain permits for work to be done, the permit in turn will contain a schedule of work; question was raised as to who would be responsible for publishing the schedule; response was that it would likely be Public Works, that an issue between the Council and Public Works. * Page 14, Section 23A-9, technical standards, with a reference to operational standards as well, pointed out that the technical standards are not defined in this contract, questioned why they were not, reference made to Section 17, operational standards in the Buena Park contract; the response was that it was looked at, determined that the contract language is sufficient, legal counsel concurred; with regard to the Buena Park standards referenced by Councilmember Campbell, Mr. Friedman responded that Buena Park recently adopted a new ordinance, that they as consultants wrote, these standards are not in that document, the referenced standards are out of date and the enforcement of which is preempted for the most part by the FCC. I * Question was posed as to whether there are technical or operational standards that exist and are defined in current contracts; a response from the Comcast representative was that the referenced standards were part of the past Buena Park agreement, not the current; question was then posed as to whether there are up-to- I I I 11-10-97 date standards that could be included; question was posed also as to whether the request is for standards or definitions; the response was that the standards set forth in the document are felt to be substantial, Section 23A-9, mirrors closely or nearly identically what Buena Park recently adopted, the referenced standards are about fifteen years old, out of date, the ordinance reflects the current requirements of the FCC; Mr. Friedman noted that the Section references the FCC technical standards, established specifically so that the carrier is aware, carrier noise as an example, the old standards refer to a 40db, the current is 43db, which is twice as good, they are required twice a year to do a proof of performance test, required to maintain those in a public file, the file may be inspected at any time with reasonable notice, those standards must be met or they will be in non-compliance with federal regulations; response from the Comcast representative was that the reason for using the statement 'in accordance with FCC standards and guidelines' is because the FCC standards change often therefore franchises become outdated in a very short time, this ordinance says that Comcast will abide by FCC standards. * With regard to being made aware of when revisions are made to the standards, Mr. Friedman responded that when enforcing any of the regulations the reasonable man policy will need to be used, periodic research will need to be done to understand what it is that needs to be enforced, what is going on at the FCC, they can be contacted at any time; inquiry was made as to the possibility of the Foundation Board being notified; the response was that it is felt that that would be nearly impossible; notation was made that it must be remembered that communication will be between the City and Comcast, the City will then communicate with the Foundation; suggestion was made that the City make arrangements with a department of the FCC to receive notice of changes; suggestion also that if the City has access to the Internet and E-Mail it can subscribe to the Daily Digest, a free service that publishes what is going on at the FCC daily; in other words if the FCC makes changes the City will have the right to enforce it; noted that it is basically up to the City to monitor the business of Comcast. * Page 15, Section 23A-11(3), records and reports, with regard to a summary of service calls, Councilmember Campbell expressed preference for a copy of the actual complaint; Mr. Friedman explained that service calls are not complaints, a service call is going to the dwelling to service an improper signal, loose connection, or whatever, a complaint is what generates a service call, the report sets forth the actual service call, on a service call there is nothing except a summary; it was noted that it was said previously that the City would be the recipient of all complaint calls; it was explained that anything that requires action by the cable provider will be part of the summary to the City. * Page 15, same section, (b), second line, Councilmember Campbell asked that the word 'reasonably' be deleted; question was raised as to the difference between reasonably and acceptable; at the conclusion of comments the Council agreed to delete 'reasonably'. 11-10-97 * Page 17, Section 23A-11.3, op~n~on survey, requested that be done every twelve months rath~r than two years; the response was that with all due respect it is believed that was decided during the negotiation meetings and is quite satisfactory, felt that every two years is adequate. * Page 17, Section 23A-12.1, annual review, Councilmember Campbell requested that there be a system performance review every twelve months rather than bi-annually, upon request with a thirty day prior notice; Mr. Friedman pointed out subsection 2, special review, that can be done at any time with a thirty day notice, and under subsection 3 there can be a special evaluation at any time throughout the franchise, the document provides the opportunity for evaluation at any time should there be a need, the annual review is more formal, done on a regular basis at set intervals, his only suggestion for change would be to the title, making it a bi-annual review. I * Page 18 and 19, Section 23A-13.2, procedure for remedying franchise violations, subsection a, Councilmember Campbell objected to thirty days as a long time for a violation; the response was that thirty days is standard. * Page 20, Section 23A-15.a, abandonment or removal of franchise property, the reference to a consecutive twelve month period was to be changed to thirty days; reference was made to subsection 'b' as well; the response was that 'a' deals with abandonment, 'b' deals with broken or discarded which carries the thirty day guideline; the concern with discarded cables, boxes~ etc. I * In reference to the Agreement, Councilmember Campbell made reference to page 3, Section 1.5, conflict with the cable ordinance, reference was made to the statement that the Agreement would prevail in the event of conflict, the question being why does the ordinance not stand by itself; the response was that the ordinance could be changed at any point in time, the Agreement is a negotiated document. * Page 6 of Section 2.2, last two lines, 'Comcast reserves the right to characterize its cable modem service in a manner consistent with such decision', the question was whether the City can be involved with that; the response was that the FCC could be petitioned, that is about all; the response also that this was subject of considerable discussion because at this point, Internet service, which most cities are requesting, is classified as a cable service, at some point in time federal regulations may redefine it as a telecom service, the consultant wanted to ensure the City that there would be no problem with classification. I * Section 2.3, payment to grantor, with regard to audits, limited to one for any three year period, Councilmember Campbell said she had wanted them more often; Mr. Friedman responded that he believed the intent of the language is that audits can be done as often as wanted, but once there is an audit for a three year period, it is done, the same period is not going to be audited over I I I 11-10-97 and over during the life of a franchise. * Page 8, Section 2.4(8)(b), question was what type of insurance does this section relate tOl the response was that page 7 references all of the categories of insurance 1 the comment was that insurance is generally adjusted each year, with the question, is the three years also an industry standardl Mr. Friedman responded that there is no industry standard for insurance, however cities go through a review process periodically, this provision is reasonable; it was noted also that many franchises do not have this trigger aspect. * Section 2.6, security fund, page 11, subsection (b), question was if the industry standard is a three year period for adjustment1 response was that the' standard is no change during the term of the franchise, response also that it had been agreed that that would be changed pursuant to prior discussions. * page 13 of Section 2.7(d), remedy for franchise violations, question was who decides what is satisfactorYl the response was the Council. * Section 4.3, page 14, future system modifications, the comparison groups served by Comcast, question was why not compare to other cities as far as technology is concerned 1 Mr. Friedman said as was discussed, the desire of the City, as was understood, was that this system not be any further behind whatever else Comcast is doing in the area, that the standard that was established, to compare with other Comcast systems, and pointed out that the system that has been talked about beomg implemented in this community is what has been or is in the process of being done in other communities and is at the forefront of what is going on in the industry 1 response was also that this is the same comparison accepted by Buena Parkl concern was expressed should this system be sold at some pointl response was that hopefully that will not happen, however the same comparisons could be used, also should that happen this City would have the option of authorizing the comparison with other citiesl emphasized that the system that is about to be provided Seal Beach is state of the art. * Page 20, 4.8, technical standards, that was addressed previously, question, if changed, the time frame to activate 1 Mr. Friedman responded that typically when the FCC revises standards they likewise establish a table for implementation, as an example the current standards were over about a three year period of time. * Section 4.9, right of inspection, is that or should that provision also be in the ordinancel Mr. Friedman responded that it would apply to Comcast in that it is a part of the Agreement, the only benefit of being in the ordinance would be that it apply to another cable service provider, should that occur at some point in time the ordinance could be amended. * Section 6.3, compliance with Federal law, last sentence, 'will not oppose the pass-through of PEG access funding by Grantee", it was claimed that provision was not in the original draft agreementl response was that it was, received considerable discussion, it basically agrees to 11-10-97 abide by FCC regulations. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to postpone the adjournment to Closed Session until 10:00 p.m. * Counci1member Forsythe acknowledged the efforts devoted to this contract; noted however that the contract commits the City to Comcast for a period of ten years; experience has not been someone saying this is a great cable service, rather, complaints regarding the service, rate increases, antiquated equipment from the start; some of the contract promises seem wonderful but it does not go back to the basics; made reference to a rate break for the Leisure World area; from personal experience is hesitant to commit for ten years. I * Councilman Brown responded that Leisure World does not get a break other than having a common billing, that eliminates bad debts, etc., basic service is about $15. * Councilmember Forsythe stated that her fees consistently go up; with regard to the basic service she is deleting channels for various reasons, losing channels, paying more, thus to ask the residents to commit to this for another ten years is a concern. * Councilman Brown said the reason this contract is needed is that it now has teeth, if Comcast for any reason does not do what they are supposed to do or what they have said they would do, the City can now impact them monetarily, that has not been done before. I * With regard to connecting to the school district, the language being 'best effort', it was said that it is Warner cable that is the problem; the response to that was that McGaugh School has nothing to do with Los Alamitos and Warner. * To the reference of the cable system as 'state of the art', it was stated it is not; the response was that there is a date specified in 1998 that that will be complete. * If the system is upgraded, Councilmember Forsythe asked what the fee to residents is going to be; the rate schedules for the various cable packages are not consistent, sometimes those with the pay for channels are paying less than the basic cable rate; the problem is the record that has been established is extremely poor; claimed an upgrade will have a price tag attached; public access is another situation; it is felt many people will drop Comcast and go with satellite; there is no guarantee seen in this Agreement. I * Councilman Brown noted that the City will have the capability of safeguards through this Agreement it did not have previously, yet it depends on the City to enforce. * It was pointed out that rates can only be raised by Comcast for basic cable, the premium channels with Council approval; to a suggestion that a cap on the rates be placed in the ordinance, it was noted that that is not legal. I I I 11-10-97 * Comment was made that there is opportunity to do more for public access through this Agreement than has been available in the past, whatever the City chooses to do, two additional channels will be available. * Question was again raised as to how rates can be maintained for a period of several years, the response again was that rates are regulated by federal law. The Comcast representative explained that the dollars that Comcast spends to upgrade by law can not be passed on to subscribers, that is not what determines what the rates are, rather, they are determined by programming costs, the cost of providing services, etc., the rates are also determined by the level of service, as an example, if a digital service were added for Seal Beach that would be optional and could be subscribed to at a cost, it was also pointed out that sometime in the future the rates will be determined by the marketplace. * * Question was raised as to why cities in other areas and States receive basic service at a lesser rate than Seal Beach, the response was that the FCC formula would need to be looked at which takes into consideration programming costs, service costs, etc., other cities use the same formula as Comcast, costs are also a determining factor. * Given the continued use of Westinghouse boxes since the early 1980's, question was posed as to what constitutes the high cost, the response was that that is a capital expenditure, it is different, cost is basically program related, Comcast pays a fee for the programs of every subscriber, determined by the mix and number of programs as well. * The City Manager noted the degree of anger and resentment with the cable service, Councilmembers having heard that for years, that is somewhat because people generally do not like monopoly situations, because the picture quality in Seal Beach has not been good yet the price continues to go up, until recently there has been no options, and as was pointed out people may not opt for cable as competitors emerge, the question then becomes what happens if the Agreement is not approved, the franchise was looked at with the assumption that a renewal would be granted, what kind of contributions could be expected in return to the franchising authority as a benefit to the community, the cable company needs to use the public right-of-way to run cables, therefore the City has a legal authority to set conditions and hold the franchise; negotiations were entered into to get the best for the City, maintaining some funds for PEG operations, emerging much better than other cities on that portion of the negotiation, on the other hand what was being battled was an unhappy public as to the level of service, picture quality, and the issue of rates, reality is that Comcast already has the cable franchise in Seal Beach, yet this is not an exclusive franchise, there is nothing to preclude another company from applying for their own system, there is also nothing that would stop another cable company from buying out this system. 11-10-97 * Question was raised as to the options of the City to the buy-out scenario and in the event a ten year Agreement is approved; the response was that the potential buyer would need to come to the City. * The Manager again offered what if the renewal is not granted, the question becomes will the subscribers of Comcast going to be better or worse off, many of the extras that were negotiated would likely go away, there would also not be the assurance of an upgraded system within the time frame, nor would there be the added control, thus a gradual degrading of the system; this ten year franchise is better than a fifteen year, which most are, there are a number of changes forthcoming that may lend this discussion mute, and it is felt that the City and the Comcast subscribers have a significant amount to lose by not negotiating the best franchise possible. I * It was pointed outthat the losses would likely be public access, upgraded equipment, etc.; noted also that the upgrade deadline is June 30, 1998 as set forth in Section 4.1. * Reference was made to the definition of basic versus standard, the discussion seems to actually be the standard level; one of the first things looked at was the rates for the standard level of service, a survey was done to make certain Seal Beach subscribers were being charged within the market range, which it was. I * Councilmember Campbell referenced again the Leisure World rate of $15 as a result of their single billing, cable service to about four thousand people at $15 per month, twelve months a year comes to about $720,000, which in turn could hire a lot of people to handle the billing; in response to that comment it was again noted that single billing results in no bad debts, no collection agencies, bad debts for cable service is very common. * Question was raised as to how much basic cable has expanded as far as channels in the past fifteen years, yet the rates have continued to increase; the response was that the cost of providing the same programming has increased substantially, the cost paid for MTV, for CNN, actually the percentage of increase for programming has increased greater than what Comcast has increased its rates to consumers, costs have increased at every level of programming, their desire would be to control rates, yet that is not part of the agreement; a counter comment was that although rates are not addressed, they do impact the agreement, the Council represents their constituents, and there is concern with continuing a contract for ten years where it is not working well for the subscribers, therefore there is a hope that something can be done in the spirit of cooperation or commitment to that end. I It was the consensus of the Council to postpone adjournment to the Closed Session until 10:30 p.m. * Councilman Brown supposed that Comcast left Seal Beach, another company were to come in, he predicted that the rates would be as high or higher, it has nothing to do I I I 11-10-97 with Comcast, it is the cost of providing that service; predicted also that under the new agreement service will be better, there will be new equipment, there is means of penalty should provisions of the agreement not be met, however nothing can be done with regard to rates; a response was that that would be acceptable provided the quality of service is equivalent to what is being paid; response again was that given the track record of Comcast there is no trust factor that they will pay for new equipment, the people will pay. * The consultant confirmed that rates are always an issue; their experience, in working for municipalities throughout the country, there are two areas of concern, one is track record, that is frequently the result of the way the franchise agreement is structured, most older franchises have very little enforcement, there is little threat of any action against a cable operator if they fail to perform on their commitment, there may be many commitments listed but very little about what can happen if they do not meet that commitment; under Federal law there are very few standards to not renew a franchise or go through to deny a franchise; since the 1984 Cable Act was adopted which provided most of these procedures, amended in 1992, there are three cities in the country that have successfully denied a franchise renewal, all of those having unique circumstances, which are not seen here in Seal Beach; when talk about the company not having a track record of performance, if one looks at the official record of the performance it is unblemished, the reason is that the City never had anything they could take against them as a formal action to show a blemish, to show that they did not perform, or act in accordance with the terms of the franchise; the document before the Council has those safeguards built in, is it perfect, the answer is no, there is no such thing as a perfect cable document, yet this gives a tool to enforce the provisions of the agreement; if for some reason the Council decides not to renew, the question is what are the repercussions, up to this time negotiations have taken place under the informal procedures of Section 626 of the 1984 Cable Act, it could then be expected that the cable operator at some point would exercise its right to go formal, start a process that is not difficult, however many of the commitments that have been negotiated they would be able to take out of their proposal which would then result in a best and final offer, a need then to determine if that is reasonable in view of the community needs and interests and costs of meeting those needs, if it is found to be unacceptable and there is a preliminary denial, it could be expected that the City would be in court, yet what most likely would happen is that the City would end up with a package that would be inferior to what is presently proposed; if the current proposal is denied they could then exercise their rights under the First Amendment, only the attorney's would benefit; it is believed that a concern of cities throughout this country with regard to cable television is that the cable industry has been very successful in lobbying before Congress, having laws passed that has basically tied the hands of cities; the place for complaints to be registered and to do the best for the interest of the Council and the constituents are at the State level to some extent and very much so at the Federal level, not with the FCC, but with the 11-10-97 Congress and Senate representatives. Comment of Council was that if cities are placed in the position of having to approve because of threats of litigation, etc., it would seem that approval of the contract does the opposite of protesting at the State and Federal level, the hands of the Council are tied unless they chance ending up in courtl the response was that it is not that the Council has to approve because of the chance of ending up in court, it could be litigated, there is no obligation to do so, just pointing out the consequences of not doing SOl it would seem that by not approving the contract would show the State and Federal agencies that this is enoughl response was that by not approving this or any agreement, the desire being to have another provider, by State and Federal law the franchise is non-exclusive, any other cable operator or multi-channel video service provider can come into the City at any time and compete in the market place, that has not happened to datel if the Council takes a step to deny the renewal, Federal law provides reasons to do so, rates are not one of them, claims without an established track record of non- compliance, opportunity to cure, continued non- compliance, absent that type of record there will be great difficulty in denying a franchise renewal, that does not mean that a city can not protect itself by the maximum of its ability, that is what this Agreement and Ordinance does, establishes a franchise that has checks and balances and safeguards, that provides the opportunity for the City to enforce, and monitor diligently, and if there is a continued track record, as claimed to date, then there will be an enforcement opportunitYl experience has shown that when cable systems are rebuilt many of the problems, such as signal quality, go away. * A comment of Council was that there is a City Hall that is under-staffed, employees have assumed tasks of prior employees due to the City's budget, therefore a task to watchdog Comcast would be assigned to an overworked employee, also the public does not know and has not been educated as to the method of complaint that needs to be implemented in order to bring Comcast in line, there is no faith in seeing this happen. * I I * A member of the Council said it is then the fault of the Councill noted that the questions or concerns that have been brought up were negotiated, there was thought to be a consensus, a few things were given up but it is felt that this is the best cable contract that any city in the area has gotten, it has the tools to make the subscriber happy if the City chooses to do as it needs to, if not, the situation will be the same ten years from now. I Councilman Brown moved to approve the franchise renewal agreement between the City of Seal Beach and Comcast Cablevision, as amended, and to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1418 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH GOVERNING FRANCHISES GRANTED BY THE CITY FOR CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEMS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 23A OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." Mayor Hastings seconded the motion. By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1418 was waived. 11-10-97 I Councilmember Campbell said she had hoped to see further amendments however that does not appear likely, and predicted that if Comcast does not abide by the agreement people will opt for satellite dishes, if Comcast is not competitive they will lose their base in the City, if there is going to be a system rebuild the people need to be informed as to where it stands, that a public relations issue, as far as the contract is concerned it is likely to the point of being as far as the City can go, and if denied the City could possibly face a legal challenge. Councilman Fulton cautioned that if the contract were to be denied, the service then not available, the subscribers would likely be equally upset, yet if approved it would be important to make certain Comcast abides by the contract. As a point of clarification, the City Attorney made reference to the motion to approve first reading of the Ordinance, including the three changes set forth in the staff report, Section 23A-6, subsections 1-(2) and (4), Operational Standards, and subsection 2 (b), Service Standards, also, based upon discussion at this meeting, that the word 'reasonably' be deleted from Section 23A-11, Section 23A-12, subsection 1, the title cpanged from 'Annual Review' to 'Review', and upon further discussion, a subsection (g) was added to Section 23A-16 to reflect language similar to that of Section 4.9 of the Agreement relating to 'Right of Inspection' changed only to make reference to 'City' rather than 'Grantor' and the words ....provisions of the Franchise' changed to read .....any Franchise." I Councilman Brown amended his motion to reflect the amendments as stated, and the second concurred. Vote on first reading of Ordinance Number 1418 as amended: AYES: NOES: Brown, FUlton, Hastings Campbell, Forsythe Motion carried I The City Attorney noted the motion to adopt the Franchise Agreement with the amendments set forth in the staff report to Section 4.1, Rebuild, and Section 4 of Exhibit B, Public, Educational and Government (PEG) Access Channels, in addition, the Ordinance Number of 1418 should be inserted throughout the document, the language of Section 1.3 should be amended to read 'This renewal shall be effective on the effective date of Ordinance Number 1418', remainder of that sentence to be deleted, and suggested that Section 1.5, subsection (a), second sentence, be amended to read 'In event of any meterial conflict between the terms and conditions of this Franchise Agreement and any amendments to the provisions of Ordinance Number 1418, this Agreement shall prevail as to Grantee's rights and obligations", that language to protect their rights and obligations in the event the Ordinance is amended at some future date, the Agreement and Ordinance Number 1418 controls in this case, any future change to the Ordinance would apply to other franchisees. Councilman Brown reiterated his motion to approve the Franchise Agreement with the amendments as stated, this by the adoption of Resolution Number 4583 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND COMCAST CABLEVISION." Mayor Hastings confirmed her second of the motion. By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4583 was waived. 11-10-97 AYES: NOES: Brown, Fulton, Hastings Campbell, Forsythe Motion carried CITY MANAGER REPORTS The Manager noted that staff is following up and completing unfinished projects. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS I Mayor Hastings declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, mentioned the public comments this evening, deeming them to be a prelude to a typical Seal Beach four months before an election season and those comments should be taken lightly. He objected to the inferences relating to the 12th Street improvements, a street that was desperately in need of repair, which he too requested over the years. Mr. Peter Anninos made reference to the local access studio and provision for Comcast to convey the equipment to the City within sixty days, to which he reported that a couple of lights are missing and as of this date nearly all of the cables to the engineering station have disappeared, possibly the locks could be changed so that equipment does not continue to disappear. COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilmember Campbell announced an upcoming Boy Scouts food drive for which bags have been distributed to residences for the collection of clothing and canned goods. She made reference to an article in the local newspaper last week that contained a statement that 'the City has never offered Bixby a plan, residential, retail, or otherwise', to which Councilmember Campbell stated that the City does not do that, I also that the 'City has not endorsed the project', to that she asked where the paper is getting their information, not from the City as they would not have said that. with regard to the editorial, Councilmember Campbell responded that the community forum was an informational meeting, no one was prohibited from speaking, all of the questions asked were answered, or there was an attempt to do so, to some questions asked there are not answers as yet, some responses can not be made until all of the technical data for the Bixby EIR has been prepared, to which she said there will be no speculation in order to give someone j~st any kind of answer, the desire is that the answers be as accurate as possible. She acknowledged having had an agenda, if there was no agenda there would likely have been criticism of being disorganized. She made reference to a flier that was alleged to have been distributed by the recall petitioners at the forum, the date of which Councilmember Campbell said was August, 1997, and questioned the information as being speculation in that the final scope of the proposed project was not given to the consultant until October, responded too that that project is not her's nor the City's, it is Bixby's, also, approving the Memorandum of Understanding is not the same as approving a project. Councilmember Campbell pointed out that the Council I has not endorsed or approved the project, nor has the zoning been changed. She encouraged people to look carefully at their sources of information. councilmember Campbell acknowledged having said that the trees are sacred, however took offense to someone claiming she said they were negotiable, she never said that and is owed an apology. As to a 'nothing to report' comment, stated the Bixby project was turned down in June of 1995, in November of that year was pulled from the agenda several days from the Council meeting, since that time the Bixby Ranch Company has submitted no information relative to that mixed use plan, therefore there 11-10-97 I is nothing to report on that project. With regard to the Comcast Franchise Agreement, Councilman Brown asked if securing the studio and control room could be looked into so that only the Foundation can have access. He requested that the Foundation propose a budget for the next twelve months, in writing, the types and number of programs they expect to produce during that period, the number of and dates that the van may be requested, how much time the Foundation plans to use Channel 3 and the approximate timing of those shows, the approximate usage of the studio, and a timetable for replacement of the operating equipment, and that this request be forwarded to the Foundation by the City Manager for a response back to the Council of anticipated plans by the first of March. Mayor Hastings announced her participation with her granddaughter in a Walk-A-Thon. At the request of the Mayor, the Recreation Director reported a special event will be held at Eisenhower Park on Saturday, sponsored by the Los Alamitos High School, a one mile "Walk For Understanding" and a small carnival, and invited all to attend. Mayor Hastings expressed appreciation for the opportunity to serve the community, yet expressed concern with the length of the meetings. I It was the consensus of the Council at 10:46 p.m. to recess the regular meeting and adjourn to the 6:30 p.m. regular adjourned meeting to continue the Closed Session with regard to the item identified on the agenda. The Council reconvened at 10:56 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney announced that the Council had met in Closed Session to discuss the performance of the City Manager and that a motion would be appropriate at this time. Brown moved, second by Fulton, that effective January 1, 1998 the salary of the city Manager be raised five percent and that one additional leave day be granted. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried ADJOURNMENT By unanimous adjourned at consent, the regular adjourned session was 10:59 p.m. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday" November 24th at 6:30 p.m. to meet in Closed Session if deemed necessary. By unanimous consent, the regular City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Approved: I Attest: