Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1997-04-14 I I I 4-14-97 Seal Beach, California April 14, 1997 The city Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:45 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: the Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers Brown, Campbell, Fulton Absent: Councilmember Hastings Brown moved, second by Campbell, to excuse the absence of Councilmember Hastings from this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried Also present: Mr. Till, city Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Brown moved, second by Campbell, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss three cases of existing litigation as listed on the agenda pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a), Ewert versus City of Seal Beach, Gordon versus City of Seal Beach, and the case of Judith Brown. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:46 p.m. and reconvened at 7:05 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items listed on the agenda and that no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of adjourn the meeting with consent of the.Council, to of the Approved: -~ ........ ~yr/-'~ Attest: 4-14-97 Seal Beach, California April 14, 1997 The City Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:06 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers Brown, Campbell, Fulton Councilmember Hastings Absent: Brown moved, second by Forsythe, to excuse the absence of Councilmember Hastings from this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Campbell stated she wished to make a correction to item "0", the March 24th minutes. Brown moved, second by Fulton, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, mentioned that some of the Hill residents overlooking the bluff are looking at undergrounding the utilities in that area, the cost is being looked into, and to do so would require a sixty percent approval by the affected property owners. He said he mentioned this in the event other Hill residents may be interested in an underqrounding project as well, and an expanded area may be cost beneficial. He suggested the project could possibly be financed through a bond, the payment added to the tax bill over a period of several years, that with the exception of the hookup cost from the line to the dwelling, also, with deregulation of the power industry it is possible to utilize a private contractor for service at a lower rate and in turn a lesser cost. He offered that anyone interested could call Mr. Knight or himself. Ms. Audrey Kime, College Park East, noted that there has been considerable discussion regarding the Bixby project and lack of communication, particularly with regard to the group of individuals who were asked to formulate some type of a plan that would help define a development level acceptable for the Bixby property. Ms. Kime stated she has been a participant in the group, explained that from the beginning there was agreement that there would be no public discussion of what transpired at the meetings until there was something of substance to report, powever it appears the time has come for something to be said as misinformation is now being circulated. She said the uses of the pieces of Bixby property have been of critical importance to the citizens of College Park East for years because all of the people are anxious to protect the quality of life in the neighborhood and the City, some of the issues of concern over time have been the fate of the tennis club facilities, the golf course, the air base, traffic on Lampson Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard and the widening of the bridge over the freeway, the eucalyptus grove, flood control, economic impact to the City, issues of slow growth, no growth and numerous others. Over the years Bixby has brought forward a number of plans that have I I I I I I 4-14-97 either not received approval by College Park East residents or have been withdrawn, the citizens group was formed in an effort to stop the divisive arguments and resolve the seeming impasse between factions within College Park East and to work with the city Manager in anticipation of the Bixby Company's renewed request to develop its property. She noted that the group consists of individuals representing a cross section of various opinions on what kind of project would be acceptable, beneficial and feasible to College Park residents, the various proposals were discussed in an attempt to conceptualize a new project to - propose to the Bixby Company which, after considerable- time it became obvious that was not within the realm of the group, rather the owner/builder, however parameters could be defined within which the designers must work: no development in the area previously leased by the Armed Forces Reserve Center; no new development with access to Lampson Avenue; seven acres of C-1 zoning at Lampson Avenue/Seal Beach Boulevard, remainder of property to be utilized for on-off ramp reconstruction and landscape buffers; tennis court dedicated to the city; development agreement for the maximum term permitted, eight acres for low/moderate income housing; eight acres of C-2 development along Seal Beach Boulevard; and eighteen acres of fairway homes with no reduction in lot sizes. That criteria was then presented to the Bixby Company by the City Manager with a request that Bixby consider and utilize that criteria to develop a concept that the citizens group could review, the response of Bixby to just the first criteria was that the development would encroach ten acres into the land previously leased to the U. S. Government, which she said means sixty-six percent of the homes Bixby wishes to build would be within that ten acres. Ms. Kime stated since receiving the response the opinions of a number of people have been sought and the consensus was that: the significant percentage of homes both low to mod, sixty-six percent, and luxury, twenty-two percent, that fall within the area formerly leased by the Armed Forces is unacceptable; some citizens feel that the mix of retail on Seal Beach Boulevard should be increased to benefit the city; there are concerns about the noise level of the senior citizen residence; the seven acres of land at Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard should be down zoned to the C-1 as requested; the hotel is not an acceptable neighbor; the changed access to the country club is well liked; the dedication to the City of the tennis courts has been well received, which would help to meet the much needed park requirements of the neighborhood, however the financial portion of that issue is seen as inadequate; and the revamped freeway access and urban forest landscaping is well liked, the additional lanes at these junctions have long been needed. Ms. Kime concluded that this proposal is an interesting alternative to others that have been seen, and the citizens would like it to be worked on to improve its fit within the criteria set forth by the citizens group. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Ocean Avenue, recalled a situation of some years back where a resident was to have been required to provide a $1 million bond for using a few inches of City property, that due to a concern relating to liability. She described a potential problem in the vicinity of Dolphin Avenue where there are a number of apartments, many of the occupants have children and the beach is not a sufficient play area. She mentioned that there is a volleyball net erected on the beach most every weekend, there is no permit to have it, and inasmuch as she has been informed that liability in the case of an injury would not be the responsibility of the city, asked for assurance that that is correct, also, there is now a basketball unit being set up in the middle of the cul-de-sac. Ms. Antoci reported a recent incident where a gentleman was concerned with the basketball setup, it was suggested he contact the Police Department to have the unit removed from city property however suggested as well that he not identify himself, to that the 4-14-97 Department was heard to not be responding because the man did not provide his name, yet she said when she called the Department did respond and personnel agreed that the basketball unit should not be on public property. Ms. Antoci said this type of activity becomes annoying when it is ongoing on a weekend daily basis, the stub street blocked to vehicles by means of orange cones, there are children in the street, tables I and chairs placed on the sidewalks approaching the beach, all of which she deemed to be a liability, however said if it is to be - allowed for one it should be allowed for all. Ms. Linda Thomason, College Park East, stated the development of the Bixby property is important as well as disturbing to College Park East, in her twenty-f~ve year residency this is the most serious issue affecting property values and the quality of the neighborhoods to come up, their residence was purchased in part because of the approach to the neighborhood, not through busy commercial streets but through a golf course, which is now threatened as it is known that the Bixby property on Seal Beach Boulevard and along Lampson will be developed. Ms. Thomason said there had been an opportunity to sit down with Bixby representatives to develop a plan that would accomplish their objectives and have the least detrimental affect on College Park East as well as some advantages for the area, however there is a small group of people that seem to have backed away from any compromise or agreement, therefore with no chance for compromise Bixby seems to have given up on working with College Park East or the City and is going ahead with plans to sell the parcel south of Lampson, which will take away the attractive entrance to College Park, replaced by many more cars, commercial signs, and the area on which two golf holes now exist there could be a fitness center, miniature golf, or a go-kart track, yet all surveys of College Park East residents have shown that the last I thing wanted is more commercial development near the neighborhood. Ms. Thomason expressed her belief that the Council representative would have supported the wishes of the residents however said nothing has been done in nearly a year, rather, the Brown Act has been relied upon as preventing her from taking a public position or doing any negotiating on behalf of the residents, claiming her vote could later be challenged, doing nothing means that the fear of maximum commercial is becoming a reality, in contrast, the Hill area has had good representation from their Council representative with regard to the Hellman property, remaining open to all concerns and taking into account the desires of those residents. Ms. Thomason stated that the Council members are elected to represent the city at large, it is important that Bixby hear from someone on the Council in support of a specific mixed use plan, that requires Council leadership, and urged that a Council member do so before the May 1st deadline passes. Mr. Dennis Sandler, College Park East, recalled his request to the Council on March lOth to stop the Marriott Corporation from building the one hundred sixty unit Brighton Gardens for seniors at the corner of Basswood and Aster, and stated he has since tried to obtain information from either side of this issue to no avail. Mr. Sandler read Government Code Section 54950 et aI, the Ralph M. Brown Act, and requested that his elected Council representative I work for the citizens to keep the proposed senior housing for alzheimers patients and medical support away from the residential housing, the proposed complex to be approximately a block long with in and out traffic, including paramedics, ambulances, and moving vans, and reminded it too will be subject to aircraft and helicopter flights. He noted that a news article and Bixby update reported that the two groups of five citizens each were working to reach a consensus, however according to City staff and other news sources it is understood that an application for an ARCO station and mini-market has been filed to be located at Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard, it has I I I 4-14-97 been learned that a local ordinance prohibits the sale of liquor at a gas station, thus the mini-market is proposed, understood too that Bixby has submitted a parcel map to subdivide their property. He said given Bixby's experience in Seal Beach they have told some that they would like to sell their facilities and property and leave the area, the Brighton Gardens complex is proposed to be located on the four acre parcel currently housing the tennis club, however other reports are that if approached by the Councilor the city Manager Bixby may be willing to reconsider and swap the tennis club for a zone change on the golf course portion on the south side of Lampson, if that were to take place the Marriott facility could be built on that location, a plan also mentioned has been the building of a hotel which is understood to not be of top quality. Mr. Sandler reported a meeting to be held on April 19th hosted by the College Park East Neighborhood Association which he urged people to attend to discuss openly the Bixby development. He asked that the Council and City encourage the Bixby Corporation to develop something that the residents can live with, to which he also offered assistance from the residents. Mr. Sandler said he would hold his Council representative accountable for anything that distracts from the quality of life in college Park East. Ms. Jane Vineyard, President of the College Park East Neighborhood Association, announced that a meeting is not planned for this upcoming Saturday. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. PRESENTATIONS MISS SEAL BEACH and COURT Ms. Barbie Meyer, Seal Beach, introduced Brandi Whitaker, the recently crowned Miss Seal Beach, and princesses Jennifer Seifert and Sheree Burns. Each of the young ladies expressed appreciation for having been invited to attend the meeting and their pride in having the opportunity to represent the City of Seal Beach for the upcoming year. Mayor Forsythe presented each with a certificate of Recognition. Ms. Meyer thanked Councilman Brown for his assistance with the Pageant, and in turn Councilman Brown praised Miss Seal Beach and her Court for their representation of the city, their academic standards and personal presentation. PROCLAMATION Mayor Forsythe proclaimed May 10th, 1997 as "Fire Service Recognition Day." Orange County Fire Authority representative Don Hayden accepted the proclamation with appreciation and extended an invitation to all to visit the fire stations on May 10th. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "c" thru "s" Councilmember Campbell requested a correction to the first Oral Communications of the March 24th regular meeting minutes to reflect that 'both groups agreed to the parameters' (for the Bixby development). Brown moved, second by Campbell, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented and corrected. 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. D. Approved the minutes of the March 24th, 1997 regular adjourned meeting as presented, and the regular meeting as corrected. 4-14-97 ' E. Approved regular demands numbered 15456 through 15621 in the amount of $367,362.55 and payroll demands numbered 21324 through 213486 and 21497 through 21666 in the amount of $377,283.55, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I F. Received and filed the staff report relating preparation of the Southern California Association of Governments 1977 Regional Transportation Plan, and instructed staff to forward same to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. G. Received and filed the staff report relating the withdrawal of the application for the Sunset Harbor Maintenance Facility, and instructed staff to forward same to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. H. Adopted Resolution Number 4521 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF THE NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND TURN POCKETS LOCATED AT THE MAIN STREET/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTION" (Classic C,ar Show). By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4521 was waived. I Received and filed the staff report relating to the Naval Weapons Station responses to the comment letter from the Environmental Quality Control Board with regard to the NWS Focused Site Inspection for Operable Units 4 and 5, and instructed staff to forward same to the Planning Commission, Environmental Quality Control Board, and Archaeological Advisory Committee for information purposes. J. Authorized the hosting of the Junior Lifeguard Regional Championship event, July 18th. I. K. Adopted Resolution Number 4522 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL-97-2, FOR PARCEL 2 OF LOT 4 OF BLOCK 106 OF BAY CITY TRACT, ALSO KNOWN AS 204 SIXTH STREET." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4522, was waived. L. Denied the claim for auto damages of Ms. Sylvia Peterson. Denied the claim for property damages of Mr. Jerry Rootlieb, and recommended that said claim be submitted to the project contractor. N. Adopted Resolution Number 4524 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE SUPPORT OF AB 1228" (California Public Beach Enhancement Act). By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4524 was waived. M. I I I I 4-14-97 O. Informal bids were received until March 27th, 1997 at 2:00 p.m. for the city Hall Recarpeting Project (furniture moving weekends) as follows: The Finishing Touch $14,435 Bixby Plaza Carpets 18,586 Awarded the contract for the City Hall Carpet Replacement project to the lowest responsible bidder, The Finishing Touch, in the amount of $14,435, and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the city. Received and filed the staff report relating to SB 689, Zoning, Business Regulation, authorized the Mayor to sign the comment letter in opposition thereto, and instructed staff to forward same to the Planning commission for information purposes. P. Q. Adopted Resolution Number 4523 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE RECEIPT OF A $11,000 GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A ROSS SYSTEM VHF WITH GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) AND INTERFACE AND CHART PLOTTER SYSTEM ABOARD THE CITY'S LIFEGUARD OCEAN RESCUE BOAT." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4523 was waived. Received and filed the Monthly Investment Report for February, 1997. S. Authorized the purchase of one 1996 Kawasaki Police 1000 motorcycle from V.I.P. Motorcycles, Inc. at a cost not to exceed $9,000 and the purchase of one 1986 vehicle for the Detective Bureau at a cost of $5,500, plus tax. R. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried . REOUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEES - 229 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD - MILLER The City Manager noted that at the last meeting the Council heard a request from Mr. Walt Miller for the waiver of fees for his proposed development on Seal Beach Boulevard, at that time the Council requested additional information. The Director of Development Services stated the staff report summarizes responses to questions posed by the Council, outlines the Coastal Commission and city approval processes as it relates to this particular application, basically when a project is in the coastal zone and receives City approval it must then go to the Coastal Commission for approval prior to city issuance of a building permit. He explained that in this case Mr. Miller went to the Commission in 1992, the project received approval subject to certain conditions that were not agreeable to Mr. Miller, thereafter there was a lengthy negotiation process with the Commission to revise the conditions, city staff involved in that process as well, revised conditions could not be agreed upon, legal action was filed against the Commission by Mr. Miller with regard to the conditions of approval, in 1996 a settlement agreement was reached between the commission and Mr. Miller which approved the project, again subject to certain conditions. 4-14-97 , A second inquiry of Council related to giving a credit for a previous conversion of residential units on an adjoining property to the proposed construction of two apartment units of the subject project, to which the Director confirmed that the conversion had occurred in 1977 where the residential units were converted to the existing commercial use of that property, that long before the city established the program for non-subdivision fees for park and recreation purposes, and explained that at this point in time the City has never had a provision for credit other than a credit where there is an existing unit on the lot involved in the development application, never has there been a credit for conversion of units on a separate piece of property, nor consideration of credits for something that happened some twenty years ago. councilman Brown noted there had been question as to the in-lieu parking issue. The City Attorney offered that Mr. Miller had provided staff with papers relating to the Coastal commission actions. He explained that the Commission lost the legal action in the trial court, Mr. Miller was correct in that he sued for a writ of mandate to have the Coastal Commission issue the permit without conditions, of concern was signage and a deed restriction that the artists would be required to live on-site, the judge agreed that those conditions were not properly part of tne permit, also said the action taken was invalid and returned the matter to the Coastal commission, thereafter Mr. Miller negotiated a settlement with the commission and at that point the Commission was still unwilling to revise the conditions. Councilman Brown said his understanding then is that the in-lieu parking was no~ an issue in this case. The city Attorney confirmed that the conditions were not related to parking, both the 1992 and 1994 applications required four on-site parking spaces for the residential use, not the commercial portion. Recalling Mr. Miller's presentation to the Council last meeting and the desire of the City to improve the Seal Beach Boulevard area, councilman Brown noted that there is no fleKibility to adjust the park and recreation, sewer, etc. fees,. however suggested that the cost of curb and gutter replacement be deleted and that the City then address~that repair with whomever, also, should the development fees pose a working hardship in this specific case, possibly the city could consider payment of the fees for the issuance of the building permit and then payment of the other fees deferred for a specified period of time, possibly two or three years, and as Mr. Miller realizes income those fees could then be paid, however there would need to be a written understanding that at the end of the time period if the fees were not paid, interest could be applied and a lien could be placed on the property. Councilman Brown moved to place his suggestion in the form of a motion, and Councilman Fulton seconded. The city Attorney confirmed that a written agreement with Mr. Miller would be necessary, including a payment schedule. It was noted that Mr. Miller's estimate for the curb and gutter repair was $8,000, that of the city was $2,000. The Director of Development Services clarified that the deferred payment would include $10,000 for Parks and Recreation fees, $4,800 for water meter installation, $2,100 for Environment/ Transportation fees, and $3,500 for in-lieu parking spaces, a total of $20,400, the other fees to be paid at the time of building permit issuance. Councilman Brown confirmed that was the intent of his motion. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried I I I I I I 4-14-97 The city Attorney clarified that an agreement will be prepared to either be resubmitted to the Council for consideration or, with approval of the city Council, may be executed by the City Manager. Brown moved, second by Fulton, to authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement under the terms as stated on behalf of the city. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton None Hastings Motion carried CITY MANAGER REPORTS There were no City Manager reports. COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilman Fulton reported he had attended the final OCTA Transportation Corridor meeting, and the consensus of all present was that improvements be made to what exists rather than develop other projects for the future, one recommendation was to extend the 57 Freeway in order to close a gap in the freeway system, a request was made that a light rail system for the middle corridor continue to be looked at however nothing further is to be done until there are figures developed for study. He noted a public open house is planned in May and in June the Board will meet to take action on the recommendations. For information of the public, Councilmember Campbell announced that the weekly recycling collection will commence the first week of June. She stated also that she is being accused of beating the Brown Act to death, that is not true, and read the response of the City Attorney to Brown Act questions during the last meeting. Councilmember Campbell stated she will not commit to something before a public hearing is held, as people would like her to do, that she can not participate in something that she will be voting on, to commit to a decision is pre-judgment and bias. The City Attorney mentioned that there have been recent cases on thi~ issue, one in Hermosa Beach, Thousand Oaks, Beverly Hills a few years back, it is uncertain if there has been a reported decision in an Orange county case, however such case law does affect Seal Beach as it does any other city. councilmember Campbell said the comment made that she has done nothing with regard to the Bixby project is untrue and unfair as she has been working on it continuously. councilman Brown said he was pleased to announce that Councilmember Campbell was selected by the Orange County Division of the League to serve as a representative to the Airport Land Use Committee, that Committee charged with the task of determining the reuse of EI Toro and other airport issues. Mayor Forsythe requested an update regarding the vacant lot at Pacific Coast Highway and Balboa Drive. The city Manager reported the Public Works Department recently cleared the weeds as they represented a fire hazard, however the fence that was erected without permits still remains and the lot needs to be graded with some provisions for drainage, the City Attorney's office is working on the legal abatement issue of the fence and grading. The city Attorney responded that he believed the grading can be accomplished first, the fence issue may be resolved within two months. The Mayor asked if the City could then remove the fence and charge the property owner. The Attorney stated with some. certainty that a court would authorize the fence to be taken down, however would likely not allow something to replace it without the cooperation of the property owner. The Manager interjected that the fence, without permits, is a violation of the city Code thus can be prosecuted, the grading issue constitutes a public nuisance with mud, debris, etc. going onto the city sidewalks therefore is being dealt with differently. To the question of responsibility should someone be hurt on that property in the interim, the response was that the fence installation and condition of the property was not with city permission. 4-14-97 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Walt Miller Seal Beach Boulevard, stated he had left the meeting to make c~pies of exhibits for his presentation as he did not see a projector in the Chambers, and being the last item on the agenda had anticipated his item to be no earlier than 8:00 o'clock. Mayo~ Forsythe advised that the Council h~d taken act~on on his item, considerable time was allowed for h~s presentat~on at the last meeting, and the additional information provided this date has been read. Councilman Brown noted that a recommendation has been made by the Council, the city Manager given authority to negotiate a reasonable settlement of this matter, suggested that Mr. Miller discuss the issue further with the Manager and should the Manager determine there is sufficient additional information the matter can be brought back before the Council. Mr. Miller claimed he had additional information to present, the prior meeting with the Manager was only to negotiate fees, said he has spent six years on this project, spent considerable money, therefore he has a right to make a further presentation and recommendations for amendments to the ordinance. The Mayor explained that the fees and charges that the Council agreed upon at this meeting were those that are an actual expense to the City, none of which are arbitrary, fees for things that through his development would be a cost to the city, and if the Council were to waive any of those fees that would mean every other tax paying resident would be paying for the improvements to his property, and that can not be done. Mr. Miller argued that had he had the parking credits in 1992 he would not be present at this meeting, the project would have been built with up to three thousand square feet of retail and up to five apartments, it would have been an economically viable project, it was designed to be that from 1984 through 1987, that is why the ordinance was adopted. He claimed he has tried to work with the City for the past six years, when he had a meeting with the City he was informed the only adjustment of fees would be those for park and recreation purposes, nothing else, then he requested a meeting with the Council on the basis of hardship in the hope that that would be recognized, he then wrote a letter to the Director advising of things that have held back his project over the years, that letter was forwarded to the City Attorney, yet he was advised by the City Manager to not deal with an attorney, Mr. Miller also said he did not even have the opportunity of input to the staff report. The Mayor suggested that Mr. Miller distribute the information that he had made copies of, advised him to make an appointment with the city Manager which she would attend. Mr. Miller stated every week his project is delayed it costs him $500, he applied for the application to build September 24th, this is April. The Mayor reminded Mr. Miller that he received initial approval from the City in the early 90'S, it was the Coastal Commission, not the City, that has delayed the project. Mr. Miller claimed he did not get city approval, that there was a clerical error in adoption of the ordinance, a drawing of the project shows clearly there is no parking on-site, and certified copies of testimony at the Coastal Commission say the city can not give public spaces away, the City can not use public parking for in-lieu parking. Councilman Brown emphasized to Mr. Miller that he should meet with the City Manager and the Mayor as offered, and should information be provided that is deemed to be of further significance the matter will be resubmitted to the Council. To a question from Mr. Miller as to why this item was not held over when he was found to not be present, he was advised that this item was not on the agenda for further presentation as that opportunity had been provided at the prior meeting, rather, for Council consideration and action. After further comments, it was tentatively agreed that a meeting would be held this week if possible, attended by the Mayor, City Manager, city Attorney, I I I 4-14-97 I Director of Development Services and Mr. Miller. Ms. Audrey Kime, College Park East, said she wished to reiterate some of the information provided earlier in the meeting relating to the citizen meetings that were held in an effort to come to some consensus as to the Bixby property development, she read the eight criteria once again, those provided to the city Manager to present to the Bixby Company, the Bixby responses as well. Once again she reported the opinions of individuals as to how the proposal fit within the guidelines, also deemed this proposal is as interesting alternative that the citizens would like to see worked on to improve its fit within the criteria set forth by the group. Ms. Kime said it is now understood that the Bixby Company is unwilling to collaborate further on an acceptable proposal, stated the Council representative did sit in on the group meetings, she knew there had been agreement to not speak publicly of the issues until there was something worth talking about, which she respected, and apologized for those persons who have made negative comments. She concluded that the group worked hard, did reach a consensus on the eight issues, however unfortunately the developer was evidently unable to work within the parameters. Ms. Dorothy Whyte, College Park East, offered that Councilmember Campbell has never been asked to go against the Brown Act or case law, the requests have only been to hold a town hall meeting to allow people to express their views with regard to the Bixby property, at one such meeting a police officer was present, those attending were not allowed to ask questions or discuss Bixby, yet before and after the election the statement was made that the residents of College Park East would be able to choose what is to go on the Bixby property, to which she asked why information is not being shared with everyone rather than just a select group, questioned why the people have not been told of an effort to widen the bridge over the freeway or that a gas station is being proposed, and made reference to a recent news article which labels some of the residents as prO-development, to which Ms. Whyte said they are not. She said it needs to be understood that it is necessary to communicate with the land owner. Ms. Whyte recalled that the city Attorney confirmed that the City could hold a town hall meeting, as there have been in the past, and requested that such a meeting be called as there are false statements and accusations being made, and reported she could personally attest to verbal and physical threats. She claimed that the Bixby issue should be dealt with as business rather than political decisions, also that her Council person is not representing the people and sbould resign. Mr. Marty Mahrer, College Park East, in reference to receipt of a letter expressed amazement at the lack of credibility of some people, stated years ago he felt certain people were working for the developer, and believes that is still happening. Mr. Mahrer commended the hard work of his Councilperson, stated his certainty that she will talk with everyone, said the group against the Bixby proposal numbers many, and concluded that he did not threaten the prior speaker, the word he used was 'if'. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. I I ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, April 28th at 6:30 p.m. to meet in Closed Session if necessary. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 4-14-97 I 4-28-97 Approved: . _ ~ /JrJ' Attest: I Seal Beach, California April 28, 1997 The regular adjourned city council meeting scheduled for 6:30 p.m. was postponed and adjourned until the conclusion of the Redevelopment Agency meeting. Mayor Forsythe called the regular adjourned meeting to order at 6:49 p.m. with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Forsythe councilmember Brown, Campbell, Fulton, Hastings Absent: None Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, city Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hastings moved, second by Brown, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. I AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. CLOSED SESSION The city Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the two items identified on the agenda pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.9(a) and (b). By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:50 p.m. The council reconvened at 7:06 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. The city Attorney reported that the council had discussed the two items identified on the agenda, with regard to the first item, existing litigation in case WCAB#MON 0179205, Arvizu versus City of Seal Beach, the council gave direction to the city Manager, and with regard to the second item the city Council considered taking a nuisance abatement procedure for a property located at the I corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Balboa, the property owner has agreed to remove the fence and perform the necessary grading, his intention at present is to relocate the fence out of the setback by May 9th, the owner was in turn advised that the City would schedule a hearing on the matter for May 12th should that time frame not be met, and no other action was taken. ADJOURNMENT It was the order .of the Chair, with consent of the council, to adjourn the meeting at 7:08 p.m.