Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1991-09-23 9-9-91/9-23-91 I the organizations for proof of their status and purpose. In response to a question of Council and aside from legal issues, the city Manager indicated that from an administrative standpoint it would be prudent for the city to make cash contributions to organizations through an agreement, and through such there would be the requirement for by-laws. It was suggested that the list be provided to the City Manager, and that those organizations be looked at where memberships are paid or contributions made. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Beverly Casares, Seal Beach, stated at 10:30 the previous evening she had placed a telephone call, and not knowing that the owner did not understand how to use the telephone recorder, left a message requesting that the person listen to a tape of her previous position in support of no alcohol. Ms. .Casares said she was informed this date that the police had been called as a result of an obscene telephone call at Councilmember Forsythe's house, stated the words on the recorder had been those of the Councilmember, and it was not a threat or felt to be obscene. As the recipient of the telephone call, Councilmember Forsythe responded that there was no verbal message from Ms. Casares on her recorder, that the tape has now been removed as recommended by the Police Department, and that the only message at 10:45 p.m. throughout her home the previous night was an excerpt from a prior Planning commission meeting. Councilmember Forsythe stated the caller had no right to invade the privacy of her home and family at that hour of night. Councilmember Hastings wished her Jewish friends Happy New Year. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications closed. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until September 23rd at 6:00 p.m. for a Closed Session. The meeting was adjourne consent at 11:34 p.m. Approved: ~t.2.L~:fL~ Mayor c~ty Cle Attest: I Seal Beach, California September 23, 1991 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. 9-23-91 ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Laszlo Councilmembers Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, City Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant city Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I CLOSED SESSION The Assistant City Attorney announced the City Council would meet in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) and (b) to discuss pending litigation in the cases of Astenius, Fife, perhaps Mola and Franchesi versus city of Seal Beach, and the significant exposure in Case Number 65 09 82, Dawson versus Sonju (Dawson). It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn to Closed Session at 6:02 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:05 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. The Assistant City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the matters previously identified, and that no action had been taken. ADJOURNMENT Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adjourn the meeting at 7:06 p.m. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, wilson None Motion carried Attest: I the Approved: Seal Beach, California September 23, 1991 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:11 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Laszlo Councilmembers Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, City Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk 9-23-91 I WAIVER OF FULL READING Hastings moved, second by Doane, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Seretta Fielding, Seal Beach Boulevard, said she was present on behalf of forty-five parents of children that attend her pre-school. She reported being served with a notice from the City to remove a trailer from her property by the following Friday, and read a parental petition requesting that the trailer be allowed to remain on the premises until such time as a proper barrier may be built to protect their children from injury, also placing the City on notice of potential liability for injuries and costs. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, read excerpts from a Coastal Commission publication seeking public input to the reestablished Coastal Zone Management Act of 1990, a voluntary grants program where participating States, including california, are to achieve coastal zone enhancement objectives by making changes to their coastal management programs. He said the Coastal Commission proposes to do an assessment and prioritization of projects for eligibility for the grant funds with the emphasis on protection, restoration and enhancement of existing coastal wetlands or the creation of new wetlands by limiting or eliminating development in high hazard areas. Mr. Ambrose offered that Seal Beach has a project site; the Hellman Ranch property, and suggested that communications be sent in support of that site. Mr. Ambrose stated his belief that a new Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Committee is proposed to be established in order to divide that land for parks, tot lots, and golf course use, said he could see no need for another Committee since the original Committee proposed a conceptual plan which was not acted upon, both initiatives were voted down, the citizens want nothing built on that property, and suggested there now be strong leadership to rezone the Hellman Ranch, seek the funds and create the wetland area. Ms. Lisa Antoci, Seal Beach, read her communication to the Council condemning the sale of alcohol on City property, at events sponsored by organizations such as United Way where many of their programs deal with the effects of alcohol, objected to the support of local businessmen and members of the Council for such sale, the proceeds of which will only support Main Street and those specific businesses, cited mixed messages to children regarding the use of alcohol and drugs, and suggested that fund raising efforts be redirected to selling tee shirts and brownies. Mr. Laird Mueller, Seal Beach, spoke regarding the sale of beer on pUblic property, suggested that there should be some compromise, that possibly alcohol could be allowed for local events yet not at the larger regional events where problems arise as a result of the numerous visitors to the city. He suggested that citizens call their Council representative and express their views. Mr. Galen Ambrose mentioned past reference to the Gion Dietz decision as it related to the Hellman Ranch, and questioned if the public would continue to have access to that property. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications closed. I 9-23-91 PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Laszlo proclaimed the week of October 6th through October 12th, 1991 as "Fire Prevention Week." Chief Peterson accepted the Proclamation on behalf of the Orange County Fire Department and Chief Holms with appreciation. He extended an invitation to attend the open house at the Orange County Fire stations on Saturday, October 12th, and I presented the Council with a photograph exhibit of the County fire and rescue equipment available to Seal Beach. Councilmember Forsythe noted that a number of local residences were built in the 1950's and 1960's and suggested that the electrical facilities of those homes be checked for safety. Mayor Laszlo declared October 16th, 1991, as "World Food Day" and the week of October 13th through october 19th as "Orange County Hunger Week." COUNCIL ITEMS APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS pro,ect Area Committee The District Three appointment to the Project Area Committee was held over. Solid Waste Advisorv Committee The District Two appointment to fill the vacancy on the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Advisory Committee was held over. Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation Mayor Laszlo moved to appoint Mr. Joseph Palmer, W~steria Street, to the District Four vacant position on the Cable Foundation for the unexpired term ending July, 1992. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. I AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried AB 939 UPDATE Councilmember Forsythe stated although the time frame for the recycling element is not,as yet firmly established, the latest component under discussion by the Solid Waste Committee is the funding element, the estimated cost for 1991 is $2,000 for review and update of policies and documents, 1992 is estimated to be $54,000, the consultant recommending that an additional staff person be hired to deal with the recycling element, an estimated cost in 1993 of $326,000 for labor costs at the material recovery facility, and in 1994 the figure increases to $340,000 to include education programs. She reported the revenue sources thus far are surcharges, special assessment, or rate structure modification, additional funding may also be available through County or State funds, and the Committee is presently looking at various locations to establish recycling bins and utilizing incentive programs for youth I organizations to recycle. Councilmember Forsythe invited interested persons to attend the next meeting of the Committee to be held the following Thursday. Councilmember Wilson indicated her desire to appeal the decision of the Planning commission with regard to the Rossmoor Shopping Center signage, specifically Condition Number 3 relating to a planned sign program. Mayor Laszlo asked that the request be postponed until Council Concerns. with regard to the recycling issue, Mayor Laszlo noted the preference of some people he had talked to had been that the City not use the small yellow separation baskets. 9-23-91 I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "E" throuah IIJII Councilman Doane requested that the record reflect his abstention from voting on the minutes, Items "F, G, and H." Mayor Laszlo requested Item "E" removed from the Consent Calendar. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except Item "E", and that the vote to abstain on Items "F, G, and H" be so noted. F. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of May 13, 1991- G. Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of May 28, 1991. H. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of May 28, 1991. I. Adopted Resolution Number 4087 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT NUMBER 613, RESURFACING DOGWOOD, CANDLEBERRY AND FIR AVENUES AND ROSE STREET." J. Adopted Resolution Number 4088 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT NUMBER 602, WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT/RECONSTRUCTION OF ELECTRIC AVENUE ALLEY." I AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "E" - DEMANDS Mayor Laszlo noted that the warrant payable to the National League of cities has been voided as he will not be attending their seminar. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to approve regular demands numbered 85305 through 85459 in the amount of $635,068.94 and payroll demands numbered 47096 through 47303 in the amount of $224,772.36 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL - VARIANCE 6-91 - 323 MAIN STREET - HAGEL Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing open to consider an appeal to planning commission denial of Variance 6-91, a request to vary from the required parking in the Service Commercial Zone (C-l), in conjunction with the addition of approximately three hundred twenty-two square feet to a commercial office building located at 323 Main Street. The city Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explained that the request before the Planning commission had been to enclose a portion of the ground floor that is currently open, partially covered by the second story of the office building, that addition would deem the property to be nonconforming by not meeting the current 9-23-91 parking requirements by one space given the size of the building that presently exists. He noted the application before the Planning commission was to grant a number of variances from parking standards in conjunction with the proposed construction, to allow four tandem spaces of the twelve spaces proposed, the compact spaces would then exceed the current standard of twenty-five percent, to provide a I shared use loading zone/parking space area at the rear of the structure, which is not allowed by current Code, and a request for less than the required backout/drive aisle from the parking spaces to the front of the building. The Director noted the denial of Variance 6-91 by the Planning commission, described the layout of the structure basically in the center of the property with five existing parking spaces across the front, four tandem/compact spaces at the rear, with three full size spaces provided on the south side of the property, and reviewed the options of the Council as set forth in the staff report. The Director noted there have been two other variance requests considered for this property, Variance 13-78 approved by the city, allowing tandem parking, yet no indication as to the number or location of the spaces approved, a site plan at that time indicated the building was proposed to be located ten feet from the property frontage, however staff has been informed that the Coastal Commission did not approve the project as submitted, and their approval was based upon the building being located where it presently exists with parking from Main street and the alley, and subsequently a request under Variance 10-85 which was basically the same as that now under consideration, that Variance 10-85 was approved, however pursuant to the provisions of the Code, the Variance was not acted upon within the required one year period of I being granted, therefore it became null and void. The city Manager announced a fire at the Haynes steam Plant, Westminster Avenue being closed to traffic, and that fire .. and police services were being brought from Long Beach and Seal Beach. Mayor Laszlo invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Jim Hagel, applicant, distributed an informal parking survey conducted by his staff at the time of the 1985 Variance request, updated in August this year, reflecting a count of the number of Main street off-street parking spaces, and a backup to his representation to the Planning commission that for their building area they provide more off-street parking than ninety percent of other Main Street properties, and cited as an example Hennessey's with forty in-lieu parking spaces and Howard Brief's commercial building with seventeen in-lieu spaces. He mentioned a comment at the Planning commission meeting that if the ordinances are enforced strictly the small lots that are over-developed will eventually need to be torn down, which would resolve perceived inequities, to which he responded he did not believe to be so. Mr. Hagel noted he had provided the Council with a brief on the , I various issues of variances. Mr. Hagel said the staff is of the belief that the 1978 Variance was abandoned, yet there is no information to substantiate that position, and claimed that it remains in effect as the Variance made no reference to a particular site plan or parking configuration, merely that tandem parking was approved, also that tandem parking was used on the property when it was purchased. ~e claimed the property provides sixteen off-street parking spaces at the north end of Main street, a benefit to the other smaller businesses, and in keeping with the spirit of prior parking studies. He stated that V-13-78 also provided for a reduced 9-23-91 I loading area to the rear of the property, and given the present parking configuration the loading area can be no larger than it is presently, and it is consistent with that Variance. Mr. Hagel again contended that Variance 13-78 continues to exist for tandem parking, that the brief refers to a number of examples of properties that have been granted variances for parking, yet his property is one of a few that has had a strict application of the zoning ordinance. He made reference to the Variance request of 1985, to which he stated the city reque~ted that the curb cuts in front of the property be closed, which would result in the loss of five parking spaces, eliminate Main street access, and that he then purchase an easement from the neighboring property to.. access the front parking for 323 Main street, the Planning commission at the time determined that proposal was not reasonable, yet the Commission required that one of the curb cuts be closed, which he finally determined to not be practical. Mr. Hagel said their intent is to increase space through the addition of a conference room, they are willing to dedicate the tandem spaces to employee parking, while allowing the opportunity for clients to park off of the street. Mr. Hagel offered to pay an annual parking space fee, made a comparison to the size and use of his property to that of 101 Main street, said he did not feel their request was a special privilege, that they presently remove sixteen cars from the street, and asked that the rules be applied equally. I In response to questions posed by Council, Mr. Hagel confirmed that he was merely enclosing an area for a conference room, not expanding his business, that the stairway and existing parking space at the rear of the building will remain as it is presently, that there will be a drive aisle, the existing six rear spaces will be reconfigured, some will be tandem, confirmed that there are presently signs designating law office parking only, however said that is difficult to enforce, that the public is often allowed to park on the property as are adjacent business persons for a short term or upon request. The Director confirmed that there is presently no allowance for compact parking on-site given the manner in which the spaces are striped, the provisions for compact spaces adopted approximately 1978 or 1979, that as the property currently exists the parking requirements are met, however with the addition there would be one space short unless the variances are granted to allow tandem and more than twenty-five percent compact spaces. He confirmed also that current Code does not allow tandem parking, although the City once allowed tandem for residential only, and to allow tandem to meet the required parking spaces would require a variance. He explained that some persons do presently include tandem parking as part of their construction development, the tandem spaces are not part of the required spaces for whatever the use may be, in other words they are extra spaces. The Director clarified that under Section 28-2801 of the Code if an approved variance or conditional use permit is not utilized within a one year period it is considered to be null and void, which then requires reapplication. staff again explained that there are presently six parking spaces to the rear of the property, all of which are of a lesser size than a standard space, and to meet the requirement of the Code only twenty-five percent of the spaces could be compact size. Mr. Hagel countered that cars have been parked on the property on a tandem basis since 1978, that their intended use of the property is not inconsistent with others, that their business has existed as long as or longer than others, questioned if grandfathering applies to one property and not another, and referred to examples that he claimed has set precedent. I 9-23-91 Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th street, stated he was neither in favor of or in opposition to the proposal and acknowledged having provided some prior background information regarding the subject property to staff. He reported previously there was a drive-in dairy with two front curb cuts on the site, an application was submitted to construct a building to the front setback with tandem I parking, as was allowed for commercial structures at that time, and a reduced loading zone since it was an office building, however when the matter was considered by the Coastal Commission that body determined there was another means to provide parking with the two curb cuts, which was to redesign the building to accommodate parking both front, and back. He stated the only provision of the 1978 Variance that was used was the reduced loading zone area, and at the time the building was constructed there were adequate parking spaces of standard size, not compact. Mr. Laird Mueller, 255 - 8th street, said the request of the applicant seemed to be reasonable to merely enclose a portion of the building, however suggested that there should be compliance with existing regulations otherwise the Code should be changed, and that there should be no further grandfathering. Ms. Geraldine West, 1201 Electric Avenue, acknowledged that 323 Main street is one the few multi-unit properties that provides all of the parking not in tandem, however should the appeal be approved she said she would presume that would be the basis for her to request a similar variance. Ms. West read her written statement in support of upholding the denial of the Variance, cited the findings necessary for granting a variance, unique hardship, the size, shape, topography, or location of the property, to which she said there was no justification in any case, and commented on I various points addressed by the applicant in the brief provided in support of his appeal. With reference to the 1983 Downtown Revitalization study, she recalled the recommendation of the Committee that City staff develop recommended parking requirements and a method of determining on-site and off-site ratios, which she said has never been done. Ms. West urged that the appeal to the denial of Variance 6-91 be denied. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing closed. The Assistant city Attorney explained that the issue of whether the Variance that was granted in 1978 continues to exist is not a factor in granting or denying the request under consideration, that the focus should be on the grounds or special circumstances for granting a variance that would deprive this applicant the use of his property. Aside from the request for variance, he noted that should the Council determine that the issue of parking for Main street should be looked at once again, that matter could be referred to staff. After brief discussion, Councilmember Hastings moved to sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission, denying Variance 6-91. Councilmember Forsythe seconded the I motion. The Assistant City Attorney advised that proposed Resolution Number 4089 would be amended to incorporate additional information received at this meeting, the amended Resolution to be presented for consideration at the next meeting. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Wilson Motion carried It was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to review and address the recommendations of the Downtown Revitalization Committee, specifically Main street parking 9-23-91 requirements and a method of determining the on-site and off-site ratio. I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:51 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:03 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to o~der. REPORT - BEACH COMMISSION The city Manager noted that the Council had been provided with a September 5th report from the Chairman of the Beach Commission outlining the accomplishments and matters of consideration since the Commission was established. He noted the last paragraph of the report requests that guidelines be established as to the scope and responsibilities of the Commission if it is the desire that the Commission continue. Wilson moved, second by Doane, to receive and file the report, and that staff be directed to develop guidelines for the Beach Commission, as recommended by the City Manager. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD RESTRIPING The Director of Development Services noted that at the meeting of July 22nd the Council considered a number of alternative restriping programs and bikeway provisions for Seal Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue, the matter was referred back to the Planning Commission requesting that they study the eastern portion of Old Town to determine if there were alternative means of providing the bikeway lanes that would be lost through restriping for diagonal parking. He reported the determination of the Commission was to provide a bikeway between the palm trees and the fence of the Naval Weapons Station, which would be a bi-directional bike lane, also recommended that there be negotiations with the Naval Weapons station regarding the possibility of moving the separation fence further to the east to provide a wider bicycle area. He noted staff has had contact with the Navy, that they appear to be generally in agreement with the proposal, that a written proposal is being prepared and will be forwarded as soon as same is completed. The Director noted a matter that was not considered by the Commission was that the City will be installing a new water line in Seal Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue, located one and one-half feet west of the center line of the Boulevard or within the current drive lane, the construction anticipated to commence sometime in November or December, therefore it would not seem to be realistic to commence the restriping at this time. The Director indicated the staff recommendation would be to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission which would allow the bikeway to be located between the palm trees and the Navy fence, allow continuation of negotiations with the Naval Weapons Station for relocation of their fence, and postpone the restriping project until completion of the water line, and requested Council direction with regard to, the bi-directional bike lane proposal. He explained that in talking to the Navy they indicated that should the fence be moved that particular property would be deeded to the city and in turn they would expect a trade of some other city property, mentioned was the land surrounding the water tank facility on the station where the fence could be relocated closer to the tank thus freeing a portion of that property, also that a suggestion to open some of their vacant land along Seal Beach Boulevard for off-street parking was not necessarily favorably received. He indicated that the water I 9-23-91 line project would likely not be completed until sometime early in 1992. The Director explained that it is anticipated that the width of the bikeway would be seven feet and possibly up to ten feet if the Navy is agreeable to moving their fence, that an assessment of the property owners, was proposed to cover the cost of removing and replacing the bikeway, however those costs will need to be I' revised if the fence is relocated to allow the bikeway to be located between the palm trees and the fence rather than adjacent to the street curb. He clarified that the ultimate plan was to restripe both sides of the Boulevard for diagonal parking. Mayor Laszlo mentioned receiving an anonymous letter questioning access to the downtown area by emergency equipment if diagonal parking is implemented sin~e Seal Beach Boulevard is often used for that purpose, and asked that the Fire Department review the proposed improvements. It was the consensus of the Council to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff as previously stated. Mr. Walt Miller, 229 - 231 Seal Beach Boulevard, objected to the referenced anonymous letter, and instead made reference to his communication to the Council of September 9th that reported his discussions with the Fire and Police Departments regarding the proposed improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard, both indicating there would be no concern with the improvements, the width of the drive lanes or diagonal parking on one or both sides. Mr. Miller did indicate an objection to an assessment on the property owners for the bikeway, which he compared to the improvements to the Electric Avenue greenbelt for which there was no assessment. The Director estimated an I assessment of $10 to $11 per front foot, and that the bikeway work would not commence until all funds were received unless the Council chose to allocate funds from another source. The city Manager noted that a determination must first be made as to under what auspices an assessment-- could be applied. INSTALLATION OF STREET DOTS - 10th STREET The city Manager presented a memorandum regarding a citizen request for the installation of street dots in the 300 block of 10th street, the request citing the change in speed zones from Pacific Coast Highway onto 10th Street in the vicinity of st. Anne's Church. He noted the request had been submitted to the Traffic Committee for consideration, and their recommendation was that street dots not be installed given the absence of specific data to support their use. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to receive and file the memorandum, that street dots not be installed and that the Police Department be directed to increase enforcement efforts in the area. AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried COUNCIL CONCERNS I' Councilmember Wilson indicated her desire to appeal the decision of the Planning commission with regard to Rossmoor Center signage, specifically Condition Number 3 relating to a planned sign program. The Assistant city Attorney suggested that Councilmember Wilson could file the appeal the following day at city Hall, to be considered at a future meeting. Mayor Laszlo commended the Rossmoor Center for their recent frontage,and landscaping improvements, as well as their Street Faire that was held the past Saturday. 9-23-91 I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Wendy Morris, Crestview Avenue, expressed concern with proposed fencing of the Hellman Ranch property, specifically the lines of barbed wire that would top the fencing. She cited the safety factors with the potential of children attempting to climb the fence adjacent to the residential properties, as well as the factor of aesthetics. Ms. Morris reported a conversation expressing her concerns to Mr. Hellman, suggesting that the fence with barbed wire be limited to the oil production areas with only the chain link fence around the entire property, to which she said Mr. Hellman suggested a meeting be established with the City Manager, the Hellman's and the neighbors of the property to discuss the matter. The city Manager indicated it would be within the jurisdiction of the city to meet with the interested parties and explore the options, that Mr. Hellman has indicated a - willingness to do so, and that it will be necessary to review provisions of State law to determine if they preempt local regulations with regard to such fencing. The Development Services Director reported that current Code does not prohibit the use of barbed wire nor are there specific fence setback requirements between properties, and noted staff would be working with the interested parties to resolve the issue. Mr. Charles Antos 328 -17th street, suggested that the direction for staff to discuss the Seal Beach Boulevard improvements with the Fire Department be expanded to include the Transit District as their vehicles are as wide and long as fire equipment. He noted also that there are portions of the Hellman property that were not part of the development plan, reserved for oil extraction, and if state law provides that it is necessary to separate oil extraction, those specific areas only could be enclosed with the fence and barbed wire. He said given that a Specific Plan remains on the property and the Council has taken no action to zone the land to agriculture, oil extraction, and urban forest use, no argument exists that the entire area would require fencing with barbed wire. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications closed. I CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourned the meeting until October 7th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session and 7:00 p.m. for a regular adjourned meeting. It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. I of the Approved: - ~~~ ayor ~7'-- Attest: