Advertisement

SEAL BEACH : Site for Bixby Project Review Draws Debate

Share

In a preview of the battle expected over a proposed 223-home Bixby Ranch Co. development, City Council members verbally scuffled this week about selection of a meeting place for review of the project’s environmental impact report.

Council members voted 3 to 2 Monday night to grant a Planning Commission request to meet at the North Seal Beach Community Center, expected in early May. The environmental impact report will first be reviewed by the city’s Environmental Quality Control Board in early April.

Councilman Frank Laszlo argued in favor of the community center site, saying the city should bring “government to the people.” Laszlo said he wanted to encourage participation and avoid the overcrowded conditions at City Hall five years ago when hundreds of residents battled over the Hellman Ranch residential development proposed by Mola Development Corp.

Advertisement

But Councilwoman Gwen Forsythe raised concerns that a meeting at a remote location might not be televised by the local cable television company.

“All the people in this community should have access to either what the Planning Commission says, the City Council says or the members of this community have to say,” Forsythe said.

The remote meeting site was approved with the condition that live television coverage be considered.

Comcast Cablevision has offered to tape the meeting and show it, perhaps live, but will charge a $1,000 fee the next time the city wants to have a meeting outside Council Chambers shown to cable subscribers. City officials say they will attempt to set a meeting date that will allow the cable television company to provide live coverage.

Community groups are mobilizing in opposition to the Bixby project, promising a fight similar to the Mola Development battle. After initial council approval of the proposed Mola project in 1989, a new City Council in 1990 overturned the approval. In 1991, voters rejected a referendum on the development, and in 1992 the California Supreme Court refused an appeal by the company for reinstatement of the project.

Advertisement