Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1994-01-10 1-10-94 Seal Beach, California January 10, 1994 adjourned meeting scheduled for 6:00 p.m. this date as there were no Closed Session matters requiring I Seal Beach, California January 10, 1994 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in reqular session at 7:07 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers Brown, Doane, Hastings, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, city Manager Mr. Barrow, city Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk I WAIVER OF FULL READING Brown moved, second by Hastings, 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: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, encouraged citizens to become involved in their local government, take control and protect individual property rights, values, and quality of life so they are not eroded. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. COUNCIL ITEMS JOINING ORANGE COUNTY AVIATION GROUP With regard to the pending closure of the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, Councilman Laszlo mentioned the preference of many that El Toro be reused as a regional airport facility, and requested Council support of the Garden Grove based Orange County Regional Airport Authority and the possible joining of the Authority. Councilman Laszlo suggested support also for the Leaque of cities alternative for a Board of Supervisors re-use committee to consist of eleven voting members, the five Orange County Supervisors, five city council Members chosen by the :1 I I I 1-10-94 Orange County Division of the League, and one at-large public member appointed by the other ten members. He pointed out that the League alternative would provide representation on the committee that would be more evenly balanced countywide. Councilman Laszlo presented draft resolutions in support of the Orange County Regional Airport Authority and possibly this City's joining of the Authority, and in support of the League of Cities option as stated, and confirmed there to be some urgency to take action on this matter. Laszlo moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4282 "SUPPORTING THE JOINING OF ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4282 was waived. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried Laszlo moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4283 "SUPPORTING THE LEAGUE OF CITIES OPTION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4283 was waived. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried SOUTH COAST AIR OUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to consider a non-agenda item relating to the selection of a representative to the South Coast Air Quality Management District at the upcoming League meeting, and declared the urgency of this matter. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried Councilman Doane inquired as to the desire of the Council should the current representative, Mr. Henry Wedaa, not be selected on the first vote at the upcoming League meeting.' Given the importance of having a representative to the AQMD, Councilman Brown suggested a first round vote in support of Mr. Wedaa, thereafter the vote choice be left to the judgement of the city's voting delegate, Councilman Doane, and so moved. Councilman Laszlo objected inasmuch as the State has imposed a two-thirds vote requirement on only Orange county for the selection of this representative, indicating his preference that all votes be in support of Mr. Wedaa. Mayor Forsythe seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings Laszlo Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "B" thru "J" Brown moved, second by Hastings, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented. B. Approved the minutes of the December 13, 1993 regular meeting. c. Approved regular demands numbered 4041 through 4159 in the amount of $673,496.93 and payroll demands numbered 4751 through 4927 in the amount of $231,386.93 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. D. Authorized the City Manager to sign the response letter on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Proposed Rule 1504 (Backstop 1-10-94 E. Rule) for Local Government to the South Coast Air Quality Management District, received and filed the staff report and instructed staff to forward same to the Planning commission, Environmental Quality Control Board and the Chamber of Commerce for information purposes. Authorized the Mayor to sign the response letter to the Orange County Transportation Element Amendment T94-1, received and filed the staff report, and instructed staff to forward same to the Planning commission for information purposes. I F. Approved second reading and adoption of Ordinance Number 1381 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 1B OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO CAMPAIGN FINANCING." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1381 was waived. G. Adopted Resolution Number 4280 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RESCINDING RESOLUTION 4255, WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP 92-261, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 105.4 ACRE PROPERTY INTO TWO PARCELS AT 2201 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD, SEAL BEACH (ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4280 was waived. I H. Authorized the execution of an agreement between the city and Moffatt & Nichol Engineers for preparation of plans and specifications, bid documents and construction support services (Tasks I, II and III of the December 28, 1993 proposal) for repair of the groin. I. Adopted Resolution Number 4281 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 4215 AND SETTING UNLAWFUL HOURS TO BE UPON, USE, ETC., PUBLIC BEACHES AND PUBLIC PARKS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4281 was waived. J. Received and filed a status report relating to the Orange County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried I CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93-21 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-7 - ONSHORE PRODUCTION FACILITY - 99 MARINA DRIVE - UNOCAL Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider the appeal of Planning commission approval of Negative Declaration 92-3 and Conditional Use Permit 92-7 subject to conditions, a request to institute operations at the existing, although currently non-operational, Seal Beach onshore production I I I ~~ .~ 1-10-94 facility at 99 Marina Drive (UNOCAL). The City Clerk certified that notice of the continued public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported the receipt of written communications from nine persons relating to this matter since July 21, 1993, copies of which were provided to Council with the staff report. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report relating to the subject facility at 99 Marina Drive. He explained that the Planning Commission held public hearings on July 21st and October 20th, 1993 to consider this application, based upon the testimony received the Commission ultimately approved the request and negative declaration and imposed thirty conditions on UNOCAL for certain circumstances on the property that the Planning Commission felt were proper to mitigate any potential adverse impacts on the environment and the area. The Director noted that prior to the public hearings there were two initial studies and proposed negative declarations circulated on the project, the initial hearing was scheduled however the Commission received a request from UNOCAL in March 1993 to continue the matter indefinitely, thereafter a request for hearing was received from UNOCAL. Given the lapse of time and surfacing of new information, a revised negative declaration was circulated prior to the July public hearing, the responses from other agencies to that document contained within the staff report. He reported considerable testimony before the Commission on July 21st, at which time the Commission continued the matter and requested additional information submissions by UNOCAL; the second public hearing held on October 20th with more public testimony, the hearing was closed, staff was directed to prepare a resolution reflecting the determination of the commission, and Commission Resolution 93-50, containing the thirty conditions of approval and a mitigation monitoring program, was adopted on November 3rd, 1993. The Director said the conditions of approval basically address nine areas of concern identified by staff during the initial study, those concerns being the focus of the majority of discussion during the Commission hearings. He noted that eleven conditions relate to the issue of air quality and compliance with Air Quality Management District regulations, one condition deals with water quality, five relate to noise generation from the facility, three conditions deal with light and glare, risk and upset drew eleven mitigation measures, thirteen measures address human health issues, seven relate to aesthetics, six deal with impacts on the adjacent recreation facilities, and two address cultural resource issues. The Director reported the appeal raised various issues of concern to which staff attempted to address within the staff report, citing the specific findings and conditions of approval the Commission felt addressed those concerns. The Director reported the options of the City Council, upon conclusion of the public hearing and Council deliberations, would be to 1) deny the appeal and sustain the recommendation of the Planning commission subject to appropriate terms and conditions; 2) sustain the appeal of Rita v. strickroth/Riverbeach Homeowners Association, reversing the recommendation of the Planning Commission and denying the requested application; or 3) grant the appeal of the approval of the Negative Declaration and require additional specified environmental evaluation. To option three he explained that the appeal was filed on the Negative Declaration also, the issue being whether or not the Negative Declaration was sufficient to fully delineate all of the environmental impacts that could be caused by the project, the Commission felt the Negative Declaration was sufficient and approved the document, however the Council has the option to sustain the appeal on the Negative Declaration and require that some degree of additional environmental review be prepared. If the Council were to select alternative three, staff would prepare a request for proposals, to be approved by the Council, the Council would 1-10-94 select the environmental consultant, and UNOCAL would be responsible for the payment for the additional environmental study. Mayor Forsythe offered the appellant an opportunity to present a statement, with public testimony subsequent to that. Ms. Rita Strickroth, 343 Regatta Way, President of the Riverbeach Homeowners Association, presented the request of the Association that the City Council sustain the appeal, reverse the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the UNOCAL application to reactivate the potentially dangerous oil separation facility that has been abandoned for the past eleven years and is approximately one hundred feet from their homes. She claimed this onshore facility will expose the well established neighborhood to possible industrial spillage, explosions, fire and toxic gas releases, the twenty-four hour operation would also create additional fumes, noise and lighting nuisances for many area residents. Ms. Strickroth said the eighty townhomes did not even exist eleven years ago when the 1983 storms blew down the offshore oil island; the disclosure laws in place today were not yet enacted; when potential homeowners made inquiries to the developer and City Hall at that time they were told the site was an abandoned oil plant and would most likely become part of an expanded park. She noted that this plant was built over forty years ago when it was in an isolated area, today the plant is surrounded by single family homes, townhomes, condominiums, apartments, a trailer park, Marina Park, a playground, and a preschool; the city has continued to issue residential building permits thus promoting the change of land use and area zoning. She submitted that oil extraction is no longer compatible with the surrounding residential property use; the negative declaration states that the adverse health effects are not expected to occur from exposure to routine facility emissions, however last March twenty-five residents filed suit against UNOCAL's facility near Huntington Beach, Fort Apache, charging environmental negligence which caused them breathing and skin problems; the Press Telegram reported on October 8th, 1993 that UNOCAL's wilmington facility was fined $200,000 to settle eight counts of hazardous waste violations, the violations involved the generation of benzene contaminated water, failing to properly train workers, and failing to conduct required facility inspections; pursuant to Proposition 65 the law requires that California consumers be warned about products containing chemicals known to the State to cause cancer or other reproductive harm or birth defects; UNOCAL and Exxon are subject to this law and the facilities at First and Marina Drive are so posted with the Proposition 65 warning. Ms. Strickroth said they are asking that the Council keep uppermost in mind the purpose of a conditional use permit, to ensure that proposed uses are compatible with surrounding uses and not detrimental to the neighborhood; fumes, explosion, fire, spillage, liquefaction, earthquake damage, birth defects and cancer are all significant detrimental impacts and must be seriously considered when making a decision regarding this application; all the safety and the mitigated measures in the world will not replace a human life or restore a retarded child. She stated the residents believe that the oil extraction, O-E zoning, is no longer compatible to the surrounding property uses; the City Council is strongly urged to sustain the appeal, reverse the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and deny UNOCAL this CUP application. Ms. Strickroth offered that these residents of Seal Beach value their quality of life, the charm and desirability of the small town atmosphere, clean air, excellent schools, and peaceful, friendly neighbors; it is the primary duty of local government to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. She asked that the UNOCAL CUP be denied and that the property be rezoned, thus allowing the I I I~ I I I 1 .... .... 1-10-94 residents to continue to live the American dream, in Seal Beach, in peace, and in safety. Mayor Forsythe asked for a show of hands of those persons present in support of the appeal to which it appeared that more than three quarters of the audience raised their hand. Mr. Robert Armstrong, Riverbeach resident, stated as a legal principal this should be regarded as a loss of statute of limitations and infringement upon ones rights. He said if UNOCAL had any thought of reactivating this plant at the time Riverbeach was being built, which now has a tax base of $25 million, it seems that in all fairness a notice should have been posted as to their intent before substantial sums of money was invested in these quality residences instead of being lulled into a false sense of security that the subject site would remain dormant, and since they did not notify the people UNOCAL should be estopped now. Mr. Jay Bulmash, 127 Electric Avenue, mentioned his decision to drive to this meeting instead of walking given the increase of violent crime and reduced police protection, also made reference to a statement attributed to Councilmember Hastings that the city has done without the UNOCAL revenue in the past and can continue to do so. Mr. Bulmash was advised that the opportunity to speak in opposition to the appeal would be forthcoming. Mr. Rex Smith, 215 Central Avenue, noted the attendance of his oldest daughter at Camp Marina, his wife a third generation Seal Beach resident, and having relocated from New York compared Seal Beach to Green Acres. He suggested that the UNOCAL request be denied and rather, that there be investment in the children and future of this community. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, said at one time it was likely that UNOCAL fit into Seal Beach, however the land use has now changed and Seal Beach is a bedroom community. He asked that the appeal be sustained, the decision made on what is best for the community and the citizens, not who can afford to pay for a lawsuit. Dr. Christine Peterson advised of her ten year practice experience in clinical oncology, cancer chemotherapy, and her concern with this project. She said two things must be looked at in the area of risk assessment for biohazards that she felt would be emitted by the facility, hazard identification and dose response curves. In terms of hazard identification one must look at determining whether or not the exposure of the chemicals being talked about can cause an increased instance of disease such as cancer or birth defects. Three things that the Council needs to take into account, the acute or short term risk of exposure, exposure that may occur intermittently or over a short period of time such as a couple of weeks to a month, and the chronic long term exposure that may occur at very low dose levels over a period of years. Additionally, the dose must be considered given the cumulative effect of two facilities operational at the same time. The literature available on the subject of the toxicology and biohazards of the chemicals emitted is absolutely vast, giving only a few highlights and again there are three scenarios to consider, the chronic atmospheric contamination, the possibility of an accident and attendant acute exposure, like an equipment malfunction, which persons may have witnessed last week, and subsequent high levels of short term exposure. A few of the things that are emitted by the facility being discussed, methane or marsh gas, inert, but having the possibility of causing explosions, again reference to the incident of last week where the area was cordoned off due to the risk of explosion; toluene, a major chemical in glue sniffing, and even at one hundred parts per million it causes eye and nose irritation, headache, dizziness, central nervous effects are other symptoms, and long term abuse is associated with brain atrophy, there is also evidence of the possibility of fetal toxicity where pregnant women may be at risk; naphthalene another compound, at only fifteen parts per million it can be an 1-10-94 eye irritant, also causes central nervous effects such as headaches and nausea that can be caused by chronic exposure, longer exposure has been shown to cause cataracts, acute exposure to naphthalene can actually destroy the red blood cells in the body; benzene, the chemical of greatest concern, is a known carcinogen, a cancer causing agent, well shown to have caused bladder cancer, it has been implicated in leukemia, implicated in serious blood diseases such as total destruction of red and white blood cells in the body, also implicated in multiple myelomas, this thought to be the most serious chemical that one could be exposed to, and actually OSHA has decreased the exposure limits for benzene to 0.1 parts per million, it is an extremely dangerous compound, in addition it has central nervous system effects, headaches, nausea, etc. If we totally rely on the mathematical models, which many of the citizens have seen with some of the studies that UNOCAL, etc. has provided, one must remember that we are only looking at the effects of a single one of these chemicals on a single animal or human subject, we are missing the total synergistic impact of multiple and chronic chemical exposure on individuals or on our population. If we additionally rely on only short term measurements, that is two or three day measureme~ts of what the parts per million are, we may be missing some of the fluctuations that we know we see in atmospheric conditions, if we additionally rely just on the studies that tell us what happens to either a normal population of healthy adults or perhaps an animal population with exposure to these chemicals we will totally under estimate the damage that these could do to children, to pregnant women and to the elderly population. In summary I want to say that the variables to assess the risk of this facility, not just UNOCAL but the current Exxon facility, are very great, the answers even in the literature are somewhat limited and do not account for multiple exposures, and I would like to know if the City is willing to take the risk. Mr. Mario Voce, 730 Catalina Avenue, voiced his opinion that the City is facing this dilemma today as a result of poor planning in the past with businesses and residences situated adjacent to each other, historically typical of orange County. Mr. Voce stated his support for the appeal basically because of the reported release of seventy-five pounds per day of a major pollution component, unknown and undisclosed whether it be organic or inorganic compounds, questioned why 1980 rather than more recent AQMD standards were used in this case and how they are going to be enforced. In additional to the comments of the prior speaker he noted that chemicals of heavy metals will also be spewed into the air. Mr. Voce spoke for setting aside the Negative Declaration and the preparation of an environmental impact report, part of which should be an oncological survey and a site alternative. Dr. Sharon Goldstein identified herself as a clinical psychologist and a Riverbeach resident, and stated her present involvement with a psychological treatment team that is in the process of evaluating and treating the victims of the October, 1992 Texaco Oil Refinery explosion in Carson, one result of that incident. being the filing of a class action suit by between four and seven hundred persons claiming physical or psychological injuries. She noted her understanding that Texaco knew of the potential danger, did nothing and have done nothing since to rectify the situation, the victims continuing to live in fear of another explosion. She said she would like to believe that UNOCAL would do everything possible to prevent such an accident in Seal Beach, however accidents do happen, it appears that Texaco's concern is with financial profits rather than the welfare of the community, and there is nothing that would lead one to believe that UNOCAL would feel differently. Dr. Goldstein reported the residents have described the explosion as an earthquake or a plane crash in that its power I I I I I I - 1-10-94 shattered windows, scattered belongings and people, there was panic, chaos, an uncertainty as to who to call, how to help themselves or others. She described the physical injuries as primarily orthopedic as well as respiratory with the exasperation of pre-existing problems and the development of new problems such as asthma and allergies, one example being a small child having been thrown from her bed, hit her head, and is now suffering from and being treated for a seizure disorder; the psychological symptoms fall primarily into a variety of categories including post traumatic stress, anxiety, depression, substance abuse and adjustment disorders, as an example, the criteria for a post traumatic stress disorder is that the event has to occur outside the range of usual human experience, typically that is thought of as a war, natural disaster, injury or violence against ones self, the Texaco explosion meeting that criteria, these particular victims suffer from nightmares, recurring, frequent recollections of the event, distress at the exposure of something that reminds them of the event, they try to avoid thinking or feelings that relate to the explosion, they report diminished interest in activities, insomnia, impaired concentration, irritability, appetite disturbance, gastrointestinal difficulties, respiratory problems, muscle tension, helplessness, substance abuse, and they live in fear that another explosion will occur, they are angry yet feel helpless to do anything about it, particularly given such a large and powerful company. Dr. Goldstein said people are present at this meeting because they are already experiencing symptoms of psychological distress by being afraid, anxious, angry, and feeling helpless, and in view of what happened last week people are already feeling that way. Mr. Fred Shriner, 245 Electric Avenue, said on the issue of health he wished to make additional comments to those of Dr. Peterson. He made reference to the July 21st and October 20th Planning Commission staff reports which stated the UNOCAL Ft. Apache was similar to the Seal Beach facility in terms of location and operational characteristics, in fact an environmental report by Meredith/Boli & Associates, selected by the Huntington Beach group, was conducted at the Ft. Apache facility in 1993, issued May 12th, that report identified fifteen pollutants of concern: benzene, toluene, xylenes, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, formaldehyde, naphthalene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, propylene, carbon monoxide, sulphur oxide, nitrogen oxide, ethyl benzene. Mr. Shriner said the chemicals mentioned either come from the natural gas combustion, which UNOCAL would have on their heater treaters, or from fugitive emissions from the facility, the acetaldehyde, benzene and formaldehyde are known carcinogens, and the others do cause respiratory problems and irritation, central nervous system problems, reproductive system problems, and cardiovascular system problems. He mentioned that of some concern to him is that the Meredith/Boli study was based on a study of three days of routine emissions only, the report stated that the predictions and health effects of chronic exposure was beyond the scope of the investigation, they did not deal with the chronic exposure aspects that Dr. Peterson mentioned and everyone cares about, the acute exposure data was extrapolated to a yearly average based upon what was found in the three days there are factors and calculations used by the industry to try to estimate what the annual output is, there is no hard facts when looking at the tables that list all of the chemicals and what parts per million exposure will be at the end of the year, they are engineers making calculations and estimates that are inherently subjective. The report states that all risk estimates are subject to uncertainty, also the risk estimates are very dependent upon particular assumptions and input data, therefore it is not a precise science, therefore there is considerable subjectivity and uncertainty involved in this type of report, especially with the short term studies of acute 1-10-94 exposure. Mr. Shriner expressed his opinion that common sense and good judgment by the City Council needs to be exercised when it comes to health risk, particularly the chronic health issue and cumulative effects. He continued with comments relating to non-routine or upset conditions, as he said they are known, which include, as stated in the report, visible smoke from the smokestack, periodic maintenance activities, and sewer emissions, however were never included or addressed by the Meredith/Boli study/ report, which the Planning commission based their negative declaration approval on, and the report states that a much higher concentration of these pollutants could be emitted during these events, to which he said that during the three days that Meredith/Boli were at the Ft. Apache site in March of 1993 blue smoke was seen from heater treater number four for fifteen minutes, the UNOCAL employee was notified to shut off the valve which eliminated the smoke however the smoke drifted over two sampling stations, five and six, and recorded naphthalene levels ten times the routine levels, one order of magnitude. Mr. Shriner said if you take that upset, the sewers, and the cumulative effect that Dr. Peterson mentioned you can imagine what kind of exposure is possible, you conclude statistically that it will not happen once in a hundred years but since he has become interested in this issue there has been a test conducted that released emissions at the Exxon facility as well as the sewer situation of last week. He offered that he has talked to a number of residents in the area, has personally seen smoke in the smokestack, which is considered an upset case and is not dealt with here, and everyone has smelled many foul odors, of which all are aware. In summary, Mr. Shriner said given the unknown effects of these upsets, the frequency, no matter all of the statistics in the world it will or can happen, and the fact that this facility is located in a quiet residential area, literally beside townhomes, houses, a park and a preschool, renders this facility completely incompatible with the neighborhood, and from a personal view he did not believe that even an environmental impact report would be sufficient in this case because it is all based on calculations. Mr. Shriner concluded that the granting of a conditional use permit, which UNOCAL has applied for, requires that the facility be compatible with the surroundings and that it creates no detrimental effects to the community, UNOCAL clearly does not meet that requirement, therefore he requested that the city Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, sustain the appeal of Ms. Strickroth of the Riverbeach Homeowners Association, and deny the UNOCAL requested application. Mr. Bill Scane, resident of Riverbeach Townhomes, advised he is a licensed appraiser, real estate broker in the East San Gabriel Valley, also an approved expert witness in Superior Court. Mr. Scane said in appraising residential property external obsolescence must be considered, external obsolescence defined as a loss of property value resulting from negative influence outside the property itself, generally incurable and can be further defined as either economic obsolescence or locational obsolescence. Economic obsolescence is caused by a negative economic force that effects an entire area whereas locational obsolescence is caused by environmental or social forms that negatively affect a specific property due to its location. External obsolescence can be measured by comparing sales of similar properties that are subject to the negative influence and similar properties that are not subject to the negative influence. When an appraiser is asked to appraise a particular property that is located in an area that is affected by known neighborhood noise or other nuisance, as in this issue the Exxon operation and the UNOCAL proposed operation, the value of that property must be adjusted by comparing sales of similar properties that are subject to the same influence and similar I I I I I I ., :, .... 1::'iI> 1-10-94 properties that are not. When looking for a home for ones family most have experienced on at least one occasion finding the ideal home but due to its being located near a railroad track, main streets, shopping center or possibly a freeway, that home was rejected for a similar home located out of the affected area with a willingness to pay a higher price because of the location, a choice was made to provide the family with a better quality of life in a safer place to grow. The Exxon operation and the proposed UNOCAL operation will be a factor for those properties that are within the area and affected by that operation, to what extent that the individual property will be affected will be determined when the property is sold or when appraisal is made. The changes in the disclosure laws in 1987 and revisions in 1992 have placed responsibility on the residential homeowner for disclosure of any known negative factors affecting the property, the warning that is currently posted by Exxon on the property in question, "detectable amounts of chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm may be found in and around this facility," will have an affect on the value and saleability of properties in the area. Each one of you must put yourself in the position of someone who has made an offer on a property in this area, it has been accepted, now you receive the disclosure statement and on that disclosure statement you read this warning notice, and each of you must consider what is your opinion then of the value and desirability of that home that you have made an offer on. Ms. Anne Marie Sablock, resident of Bridgeport on Electric Avenue, said she has devoted a lot of time and effort to educating herself regarding this proposed facility, has read everything the Planning Department has to offer on this facility, and as the Council may be aware, she wrote a thirteen page document regarding her concerns, a copy of which was delivered to each of the Planning Commissioners before their last vote, a copy also delivered to each of the Councilmembers and to each of the newspapers. She reported having spent countless hours researching, writing, educating others, talking to the media, etc. at the expense of her and her family's personal life, expressed belief that had the Planning Department and Planning Commission done their job it would not have been necessary for her to spend this time, and asked for accountability for some of the actions she has observed since moving to the community in 1989. Ms. Sablock deemed Seal Beach to be a fabulous city as far as Southern California goes, relatively crime free, beautiful, friendly, and thought to be an environmentally safe place to be. She claimed to have just recently learned that Exxon is currently operating an oil separation facility a few hundred yards from her home, contrary to the assertions from some Planning Commissioners that everyone must have known what they were getting into when people bought near the Exxon land, she and her husband were totally in the dark, and he being a real estate broker and she being an attorney, they do ask questions and read the fine print, and nowhere was it disclosed to them that they were moving in near an active oil separation facility, in addition, the trees were so overgrown on that piece of property that nothing could be seen except two green tanks near the tennis courts, which were observed and thought to be abandoned water tanks. She noted that she and her husband used to wonder about the petroleum smell that was noticed on their walks around the neighborhood yet figured it was a passing tanker near the beach, now it is known that it was the sewers about to explode. As to the sewer incident that occurred in Bridgeport on January 4th, that just another blatant example of big business doing whatever they please no matter what the consequences to the environment or to people's health, noted her experience upon leaving the Bridgeport area and being told she could not re-enter with her van because of the possibility that the catalytic converter 1-10-94 might spark and cause an explosion near the sewer, at that point the sewers were all blocked off with cones, a fire engine and hazardous materials truck were present also, a policeman blocking Electric at Fifth street stated there was a possibility of explosion due to flammable gases at very high concentrations in the sewers. She said she left immediately with her young daughter and daughter's friend, at a later time neighbors who I called City Hall and the Fire Department were told that it was probably Exxon who had dumped something into the sewers, the investigation being handled by the Sanitation Department who said they thought it was Exxon but were still investigating, and Exxon had been shut down until further notice. She reported an additional incident on November 16th at the Exxon facility, bells, whistles and lights went off, petroleum vapors filled the air, and the people on the property of Exxon told the residents to go home, later told by Exxon that Chevron was testing its lines and that the water pressure in the fire hydrants had gotten so low it caused a problem in terms of finishing the testing, to which she noted low water pressure is wonderful thought in the event of a fire. Ms. Sablock said she moved to Seal Beach so that her family could enjoy a safe and healthy environment, similar to the one she grew up in Arlington Heights, Illinois where the citizens were put first, their health and welfare was protected, there were lots of parks to play in, and the businesses complimented the ~esidential area, not threaten to destroy it. She asked what is going on in California, a beautiful State, but more and more, particularly in Southern California, it is being seen that people and the environment are being put at risk for a few bucks, look at what happened to Long Beach, look at the coastline, who wants to live there, Long Beach was a beautiful city at one time, why do they have a crime problem, if you don't respect your environment your I town starts to fall apart. Ms. Sablock asked the City Council to deny UNOCAL's application for a conditional use permit, according to the Seal Beach Zoning Code the Council may grant a conditional use permit in the case of an application for a use which is required to be reviewed and conditioned prior to approval so it can ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and the community in general and the General Plan, reference to Section 28-2503 of the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of a conditional use permit is so that proposed uses are compatible with surrounding uses and not detrimental to the neighborhood, reference Section 28-2504. She pointed out that the oil companies bought the subject land when it was zoned commercial and were granted variances that allowed them to separate oil as long as this use did not create a public nuisance, we now have a public nuisance, and this mother, attorney, community volunteer and tax payer is tired of it. Given the realization that through some mistake by the City this land was rezoned to Oil Extraction in 1974, the benefits to the city appeared to be zero regarding this rezoning in fact it allowed the city less control over the parcel and goes against common practice in cities regarding parcels surrounded by homes, usually a parcel such as this is rezoned to be more compatible with homes, not less, but for whatever reason the city rezoned to Oil Extraction in 1974 and at least the writers of the Zoning Code had the foresight to I' say that just because a piece of property was zoned Oil Extraction did not mean that they had a right to practice that use, thus a conditional use permit requirement was written into the Code and again it may not be granted unless the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and not detrimental to the neighborhood. To city Councilmembers she said that the writers of the Zoning Code wanted to protect the residents, that is why they wrote in the CUP requirement in the first place, and asked that the Council take advantage of that protection and use it in this situation, a situation tailor-made for the protection provided for a CUP, and it is extremely important to remember I I I '"li' .... \'1' l~ 1-10-94 that the oil companies bought this parcel as commercial land and it was not zoned for Oil Extraction in 1955 when the Exxon facility began operation, Exxon still owns this parcel, and in her opinion Seal Beach has been extremely generous to Exxon in allowing it to buy commercial land, then granted a variance, and then the land was rezoned for them. She stated it is time for Seal Beach to stop worrying about Exxon's profits and start worrying about how these facilities are affecting the health and welfare of the residents, this is not 1955, this parcel is now surrounded by homes, a park, and a preschool. Ms. Sablock said she would like to stay in this town and raise a family here but she can't knowing that at any time these facilities may explode, catch fire, leak oil, gas, and toxic fumes, all real possibilities as stated in the only study of such facilities used by the Planning Department in their research, at least the Santa Barbara study in 1985 is the only one referred to in the Planning Department reports and documents. Not caring if the risk of major fire or explosion or toxic gas cloud is rare or unlikely, she said she did not want to be sitting with her children at Marina Park if an accident occurs at Exxon, spreads to UNOCAL, then hits her, she would hate to have to appear before this council to say 'I told you so.' Ms. Sablock said she has dedicated considerable time to let the Council know that this proposal is clearly incompatible with their neighborhoods, asked that the legal means at the Council's disposal be used to deny the conditional use permit requested by the lessee of this property, UNOCAL, use every means possible to rid the area of Exxon inasmuch as they come before the City in a few months for a CUP themselves, let this land be rezoned back to commercial and residential if it can be cleaned enough, the oil companies have used Seal Beach long enough and have made a tidy profit, it is time to start worrying about the people and the environment for a change. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:26 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:34 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. Mr. Jim Bridges, resident of Huntington Beach, said he had been requested to be present to address the Council. Mr. Bridges reported his involvement with the Huntington Beach Ft. Apache issue for over a year, that being an oil and water dehydration facility similar to the facility proposed for reactivation in Seal Beach. With regard to financial revenue, Mr. Bridges said for the third quarter of 1993 there was $41.46 generated, per barrel, land lease, etc., and in the last quarter there was zero revenue generated. He claimed to have addressed the Planning Commission at length on two occasions, at which he had offered to share his information and experience, yet he was not contacted by the Commissioners. Mr. Bridges stated he had had to negotiate the Meredith/Boli study, compromised somewhat and limited to only three days, the greatest finding of the study being that a lot more work, measurements, and analysis needed to be done as there were high and low levels that were averaged, the three days merely scratching the surface, and when UNOCAL was again contacted he had been informed there was no money for more studies. With regard to non-routine activities he reported a vessel Cleaning was conducted a couple of months ago to which all of the community was invited to witness, however claimed that the layman would not be able to determine if it was legitimate, people were present to take measurements, and to his request to select independent persons to do the testing, UNOCAL declined. Mr. Bridges said if an EIR is done, to which he offered doubt as to the purpose that would serve, he would recommend that it be done by an agency selected by the community, not UNOCAL. He reported having sequestered AQMD reports a few months ago, on the first attempt they provided 1-10-94 half filled out forms that were done in 1988 even though they attest that they inspect this type of facility at least annually, the next request produced more reports yet again not much more than incomplete forms, therefore the AQMD can not be looked to as a savior. He mentioned the health problems of a friend and her child that lived adjacent to the Huntington Beach facility. Mr. Bridges offered that since the Seal Beach I facility has not been operative the associated problems are not known, yet again stated there have been many concerns and documented health problems associated with the Huntington Beach facility. To a request to produce documentation of health problems Mr. Bridges responded that he would try however medical records are confidential. Dr. Gordon LaBedz, Seal Beach, said he was representing the Surf Rider Foundation, mentioned that the ocean too plays a role in this issue, opening the door to oil drilling once again, especially if the oil separation facility is reactivated. In lieu of a full environmental study he urged that the application itself be denied. Mr. John O'Neil, 309 Clipper Way, claimed that the initial staff report relating to this issue reported reactive organic gas emissions of fifty-nine pounds per day, therefore pursuant to the seventy- five pound per day standard a full environmental study was not required, which Mr. O'Neil deemed to be misleading. He noted an inquiry for a comparative example of a seventy-five pound per day reactive organic gas emission was that of a semi-truck, to the same comparative posed to a transportation engineer the response was that based upon new vehicle emissions the seventy- five pounds would be about one hundred fifty cars. Mr. O'Neil questioned the credibility of those persons claiming to provide a pristine, state of the art operation for the next twenty years and that the neighboring properties will not know exists. He mentioned AQMD Regulation 13, enacted to protect the environment I and people, which limits any facility to locate or modify in the district to thirty pounds per day of reactive organic gases, yet for a new facility having essentially the same equipment and emission of no additional pollution, the thirty pound per day limit is exempted, to which City staff indicated they did not want to impose restrictions greater than those of AQMD, the AQMD having granted the exemption, therefore asked how the citizens are to protect themselves. Mr. O'Neil concluded that neither a focused or full environmental impact report is needed, the UNOCAL facility does not fit with the area, that the resident's request is not unreasonable, merely for a safe and clean environment. Mr. Jim Klisanin, 122 - 7th Street, stated he was not in favor of the UNOCAL request and would be supportive of removing the Exxon facility at the earliest possible time as well. Mr. Norman Punim, 483 Galleon Way, submitted photographs to the Council showing the close proximity of the oil separation facility to Marina Park and even closer to the handball courts and horseshoe pits, play area and playground equipment, another of the Huntington Beach Ft. Apache facility posted for dangerous chemicals that exist around that area, and expressed his opinion that UNOCAL does not belong in the area proposed, and one can not afford to gamble with the health and well being of life in Seal Beach. Mr. Mark HotChkiss, Seal Beach, provided the Council with a handout, said although he had some problems with I the negative declaration he wished to focus only on the soils stability. He noted the initial study places the facility site at approximately 0.9 miles from the Newport/Inglewood fault however describes the earth conditions of the site itself as relatively stable, thereafter a supportive statement from a soil investigation of the Chevron facility in 1986 claiming that all structures and equipment have existed since 1965 and no major problems have been encountered due to site stability, a soils investigation of the Chevron facility prior to UNOCAL acquiring the property which stated groundwater was encountered at each of ten borings to depths of about six feet, based on the boring I I I I " '~I'~ 1-10-94 logs the subject property was gravel and silty sandy fill from two to three feet and beneath the silty soil are fine grain sands containing abundant shell fragments, below which at six feet is water. Mr. Hotchkiss claimed those conditions to be a recipe for liquefaction. He cited 1965 as a relatively short period of time without a major earthquake. He made reference to a map included in his handout that showed the subject location to be under water in 1913, therefore it would be difficult for one to say that the site is stable where only eighty years ago it was under the San Gabriel River. He mentioned another map, the planning scenario for a major earthquake on the Newport/Inglewood fault zone prepared by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, showing the subject area as potential high liquefaction. Mr. Hotchkiss said the staff report claimed an EIR was not necessary and the negative declaration was sufficient because there was no substantial evidence that there may be an impact, however said that according to CEQA if there is any substantial evidence that there may be an impact an EIR is required, to which Mr. Hotchkiss claimed to have just given three substantial pieces of evidence that there may be an impact, therefore an EIR would be required in order to approve this project. He contended that the reason the instability was not acknowledged was that it is understood that the instability could not be mitigated therefore would show that the site is basically incompatible with the residential area around it in the event of an earthquake. Mr. Hotchkiss suggested that the energy of everyone should be saved through the denial of the project at this time. Ms. Eleanor Wamsley, 306 Regatta Way, questioned the length of time it would take to clean the subject property. Mr. David Sutton, residing approximately 200 feet from the proposed facility at 245 Clipper Way, claimed that the City has had a ten year track record of approving, permitting and actually participating in residential development and it gets closer and higher in density to this facility. He said he moved to the community in 1982, in 1983 the facility shut down, and the nonconforming use was abandoned. Since that time Riverbeach has been constructed, the City having permitted and participated in that housing development, Bridgeport has been filled in, culminating most recently with the Watson project which butts to the Exxon facility, there has been increased use of Marina Park with the pre-school, athletic activities, tennis, aerobics, etc., the City has leased land from Exxon for park purposes/handball court use, there are approved plans for commercial, recreational and open space uses on the D.W.P. property, and in other areas of the City the oil extraction use of the Hellman property has been rezoned to specific plan, residential uses contemplated for that area also, and through none of this has there been any additional inclination by the city to promote oil extraction. Mr. Sutton expressed his opinion that if the Conditional Use Permit is approved it represents a reversal of a ten year trend that the City has been carrying out, which he agrees with as it makes the City a better place and there should be a plan to do so, to rid the City of old uses that were built when there were no other uses around. One that has moved here, even worse than being ignorant, having relied on the ten year track record of the city will find this to be much to their detriment if this record is reversed by permitting the UNOCAL facility. Speaking to the consequences of the ten year growth, if there is an upset or any kind of a fugitive gas release, the prevailing winds are basically onshore and given the location of this facility every fugitive gas will come back on the City and impact all people no matter which direction the wind is blowing unless it is offshore which is a rare Santana wind condition. To give some perspective Mr. Sutton said the basketball court is forty-five feet away, with a 1-10-94 ten mile onshore wind those gases travel at about fifteen feet per second, which gives the basketball players about three seconds, cited his house as being two hundred feet away which would give him thirteen seconds, about the same distance as the Marina Center, kids in the park and at Riverbeach are about a hundred feet away and would have seven seconds, the commercial center being about fifteen hundred feet would have one hundred 1 seconds. Mr. sutton noted there is also a lot of fuel at the site and if anything were to happen a fire would probably spread and be very hard to fight in a residential area, the fuel estimated to be three thousand barrels, that incompatible with the existing neighborhood especially with its proximity during construction if permitted by the city. Mr. sutton concluded that the approval of a conditional use permit depends on the use being compatible with the neighborhood and not a nuisance, its compliance with existing zoning and plans is sufficient but not necessarily to grant this permit, so clearly this use not only going against a ten year history of what the City has been doing but is also incompatible with the way the city has grown under the existing plan. He urged a vote against the conditional use permit. Mr. Bob Chaffee, 302 Spinnaker Way, said for the future of this city he would hope that there is a follow through of this issue, recalling that at one time there was considerable industrial use of properties on the westerly side of the community however the use has changed over the years to maintain the village atmosphere, therefore from a visionary viewpoint it would seem to be recidivistic to go back and start establishing an industrial park after years of development to bring the residential community up. Mr. Chaffee said he would hope just from a perspective of future planning, as there is always the prospect of some other industrial enclave coming in, that this 1 issue be dealt with now. He said he did not doubt the good will of UNOCAL and their belief that they can build a facility that is felt to be pristine but it is naive to assume that nothing will ever go wrong, even that one in a million chance that it could occur, and more importantly to consider is that if hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent in developing this plant, taking at least a year to build, a twenty-four hour a day operation with trucks coming in and out, once it is there it is going to be there forever, and the Council and the City will have to deal with citizen complaints, lawsuits, etc., and although the City is in need of revenue, the return from this is quite minimal. Mr. Chaffee suggested that consideration be given to moving this facility to another location within the city limits so that the revenue could still be captured, it is understood also that there are pipelines directly to E1 Segundo, and it is further understood that UNOCAL would prefer to pump from their on-site facility in the ocean. He offered his viewpoint that the city would be ill advised to approve something that will likely be continued forward, the City might be able to capture revenue from another location, possibly the Hellman Ranch property or elsewhere, this being a very serious consideration, and the action of the Council will likely set the tone for months and weeks to come as to how this issue is treated. Mr. Chaffee said he would be willing to pay an extra $5 or $10 per month to not have this facility across the street I" from where he lives, that even if there is a guarantee that this pump station will be the best and most scientifically developed facility in the world the location is not a logical place to put a pumping station in the midst of a park, daycare center, community center, residential area, thus his great concern with its approval, suggesting that UNOCAL be requested to provide an alternative responsible plan. He concluded that should the Council make the wrong decision on this matter he would foresee considerable dissension for a long time to come. Mr. Gene Vesely, Trailer Park resident, expressed his ,opinion that the recent ribbon cutting for the new playground equipment at Marina I I I t . ," 1-10-94 Park is a step in the right direction, more recreation facilities, another step in the right direction would be to wrap up Exxon and UNOCAL. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, said his wife brought up the point that if it was a negative declaration that was prepared, declaring no negative impact, then why are there mitigation measures, and in considering the revenues that may be forthcoming to the City he said it usually costs more to maintain a tax base than is derived from it, therefore the services, inconvenience and the money it takes for UNOCAL to be in town should be enough to do away with the facility, no one wants them here. Mr. Jay Bulmash, 127 Electric Avenue, referred the Council to a news article of last month which showed that property values in Seal Beach, measured by dollars per square foot, declined more rapidly between 1990 and 1993 than any other comparable city in Southern California, fifty percent more rapidly than property values in Long Beach, as a matter of fact the per square foot property values in 1993 are equal to the per square foot property values that Long Beach had in 1990 and that includes North and West Long Beach. He asked why Seal Beach has had this precipitous drop, why has the bottom fallen out of the Seal Beach market, and offered that the mystique of Seal Beach as this wonderful village is in the past, Seal Beach is becoming another city that is the victim of encroaching crime, gangs, and violence, and because of the NIMBY attitude in this City of 'not in my backyard' to tax revenue, new housing, new businesses, etc., the mystique of Seal Beach is gone and those persons who think it is still here are just kidding themselves, but the buying public knows that Seal Beach is going downhill and if we don't do something about it Seal Beach is going to be on par with Long Beach and we will have the same quality of life as Long Beach. Mr. Bulmash expressed his belief that in this case the Council needs to balance things, there are some angry property owners and if the appeal is sustained it will benefit them, including himself who is just a few hundred feet away, yet there are twenty-seven thousand people in Seal Beach and no one has spoken on behalf of the twenty-six thousand five hundred who don't live in Riverbeach or Bridgeport and their interest in the City, City revenue, the City budget, and that should be taken into account. He claimed that this public hearing has produced a lot of supposition, hysteria, a lot of threats but no facts, not one fact presented. Mr. Bulmash said he felt the Council has a duty to think about the entire City of Seal Beach, not just about the residents of one small area, whereas but for the storms in 1983 nobody would be here today, the rights of UNOCAL are being taken away, and it is true they are a big corporation with deep pockets, but they have rights just like everyone else and when you start taking away those rights then other people's rights diminish. He offered his belief that the Council needs to look at both sides of this issue and determine what is best for the entire City and its entire population. Ms. Susan Correl, Catalina Avenue, said she did not wish to take issue with either side however would like to speak to the health and environmental issues as a registered California environmental assessor, having heard a number of comments regarding health risk assessment. She recalled a question posed as to how do we get protected, how can we be sure that this facility, if it is permitted, is safe, and stated that the real question is what is the risk to health, safety and the environment, and if those questions can be answered it is hopeful a good decision can be made that is good for business, good for people and good for Seal Beach. She pointed out that everything has risk, everything we do, everything we eat, every time we drive to the store, there is risk, and in her work they try to evaluate health risk and determine how best to clean up sites, waste sites, hazardous sites, polluted sites, polluted ground water, 1-10-94 so that the risk is minimal to people. Ms. Correl said it scares her when people ask for zero risk, or when people want to stop a project because there is one chance in a million or one chance in ten million that something bad or unpredicted could happen. She noted that things we eat, such as peanuts and mushrooms have high natural carcinogens in them, driving cars, sitting in front of a computer monitor have lots of health 1 risks, drinking Los Angeles Basin water has about a one in ten thousand risk of cancer, everything we live with every day has - risks, we have to measure how big the risk is and how much impact does this facility have compared to the other risks that we all normally have to manage in our lives in order to get up and get out of bed in the morning and get to work in a car. with the limited resources we have to evaluate the risk of every single project we want to undertake, the City has to rely on professionals to some degree, we have to rely on the EPA to come up with methods for evaluating health risks, which they have done, and we have to rely on professionals that work for the City such as the Planning Department, the professionals that work for CAL-EPA and federal employees to help us make really tough and scientific decisions, we should listen to these people and rely on the sciences instead of getting emotional in order to understand all of the facts. Ms. Correl said she was asking that we put a little bit of faith in the professionals and use good science when we make these decisions. To a question from a member of the audience, Ms. Correl stated she did not work for UNOCAL. Mr. Dave Stanger, Manager of UNOCAL Offshore Operations in the L. A. Basin, said the Planning Commission did what they consider to be a good job and devoted a lot of work to putting together the negative declaration that did declare the facility to not be a safety or environmental hazard. He said he personally felt that UNOCAL can operate this facility and not I create a risk for the community, if he did not feel that way he would not put it here, stated he did recognize that everybody is not happy with the studies that were originally done, and said he wished to reiterate that they are willing to participate in a full EIR to do whatever is necessary to alleviate the questions that are still outstanding. He mentioned that one of the points is that UNOCAL doesn't think that this is the best option, however unfortunately may be the only option, that they do want to process offshore if possible however that requires Coastal Commission approval. He noted that since the last Planning commission hearing the pipeline issue is being pursued full time, which they will continue to do, however those options are not very tangible at this time. Ms. Rita strickroth, appellant, said she was impressed with the caliber of speakers at this meeting and noted that she had only met three of them personally before. Ms. Strickroth expressed her belief that UNOCAL is generous in their desire to put this separation facility on the platform offshore, truly attempting to work towards that end, however the issue of permitting the onshore separation facility is now facing the City Council as the deciding factor. She said it was her understanding that whether or not the platform was blown out during the 1983 storms a CUP would still have been required regardless. Ms. Strickroth I' stated she would take exception to the comment of one speaker that just a small group of residents would benefit from the appeal being sustained, and noted that she had been told by City staff that the Marina Park facilities, the handball courts, tennis courts, basketball courts, park, picnic grounds, and the Center itself is the most used and enjoyed facility within the City of Seal Beach, and it was her belief that on any given day if someone were to take a clipboard and check the residency of the people using those facilities it would be found that they are from all parts of this City. Ms. strickroth mentioned that should there be an incident at the facility there is no means of I I I J.: .. 1-10-94 knowing what time of day it will occur, the sewer incident having been mid-morning causing considerable inconvenience and frightening a number of people in that no one was aware there was gas under their homes at a level much higher than what safety would allow. She acknowledged that there is risk in everything that people do every day, however this is a risk she said can not afford to be taken, and given the opportunity to come before the Council it may be possible to control this risk before there is a problem. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing closed. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 9:35 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:44 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. Councilmember Hastings questioned the time frame to allow a like use to be reinstated, noting that this separation facility ceased operation in 1983 and it is now 1994. The Director of Development Services explained that a like use may be reinstated within ninety days of having first been abandoned without the City conditioning the use over and above what may have been imposed in 1965 in this particular case, if closed for more than ninety days the operation is then required to comply with current City requirements, which in this case is a Conditional Use Permit. Councilmember Hastings pointed out that reference to the City realizing $14 per barrel was in error where in fact it is 14.6 cents per barrel. She noted her attendance at the community meetings relating to this issue. Councilman Laszlo inquired if application to place the separation operation offshore has been made and if there has been a Coastal Commission response. Mr. Robert Province, UNOCAL, responded that formal application had been made to the Coastal Commission in July, 1993, a first response was received from that agency in late December, to which answers to the Commission's questions are now being compiled and hoped to be submitted in February, and pointed out that there is no guarantee that such permit will be granted. Having applied for similar permits for other offshore operations he said it has been in excess of two years before they were granted. Councilman Laszlo suggested that possibly their application could be expedited with city support of that effort. Noting that since UNOCAL has lost its grandfathering of use and now requires a Conditional Use Permit, Councilmember Hastings inquired why they have not likewise lost the grandfathering of the emission standard, not being required to adhere to the thirty rather than seventy-five pound standard, and inasmuch as this would be treated as a new facility suggested that the City should have the ability to demand that they meet the new criteria. The Director advised that to be a technical question regarding the permitting process of the Air Quality Management District and might be better answered by the representative present, however suggested that one must keep in mind that the rules, regulations and criteria are of two separate agencies, the city and the Air Quality Management District, in this case. He explained that the standard used in preparing the environmental analysis is the most recent criteria that the AQMD uses to determine if an environmental analysis is required, if a facility emits more than seventy-five pounds of reactive organic gases as one example, then the AQMD recommends that a city have an environmental impact report prepared regarding the emission levels, whereas the Rule 13 is a permitting rule of the AQMD and is separate from an environmental analysis, and again pointed out that the information staff provided is with regard to the level of analysis that is required to force an EIR to be prepared. Councilmember Hastings asked which agency has the ultimate authority, her feeling being that the AQMD sets outside limits yet the City should have the ability to impose standards that 1-10-94 are far more rigid. In response, the Director explained that from a planning standpoint cities are required to develop thresholds of significance for certain types of activities that would require an EIR, cities generally use the guidelines that are set forth by the major agency that deals with those issues, and to this point the City has taken the position of using the criteria that has been established by the Air Quality Management 1- District for determining those threshold levels that would require a further, more detailed environmental analysis under an environmental impact report. He further stated that the city does not have the authority to tell the Air Quality Management District on what level of emissions they can issue a permit, they are charged by the state of California through state law to establish those criteria and are the ones authorized to issue permits based on the criteria that their Board of Directors approves, therefore it is not believed that the City has the authority to supersede the permitting authority of the AQMD. The City Attorney confirmed the response of the Director to be correct, however added the City Council has the discretion to require more stringent regulations. To a prior speaker, Councilmember Hastings stated that the City has done without the 14.6 cents per barrel for many years, can get along without it in the future. Mayor Forsythe pointed out that conditional use permits are evaluated on three criteria: 1) is the use conditionally permitted in the zone; in this case the answer is yes, it appears on the zoning map and the land use map as oil Extraction; 2) is the use compatible with the General Plan; by all means and purposes set forth in the law, by designation on the map in City Hall the answer is yes, by the goals and aspirations and years that went into the preparation of the General Plan of the City containing all the different elements 1 that were created to protect the public health, safety and welfare for the future, 99 Marina Drive does not appear in that document. A quote from the Land Use Element of the General Plan states the purpose to be an "outline, guide for decision making by both public and private sectors to direct the growth of either new construction or modernization of the community into the type of an environment desired by its people," to which she concluded that it is hard to take a parcel, evaluate it and put it into perspective as to how it would be compatible with future development if it is not contained within the document, and in this particular case it is an oversight that goes back many years; another excerpt found consistently throughout the General Plan is that "change is expected to occur within the City, mainly in the Coastal District where the impact of a beach attraction for visitors and an inviting residential environment exists..."; the "Minerals" section of the Open Space Element quotes "some oil extraction operations are conducted within the City. Two oil extraction sites are maintained within the tidelands of Seal Beach. These sites are known as Belmont II, an oil drilling platform, and Esther Island. Oil extraction operations are also conducted along the Newport Inglewood Fault on the Hellman Estate and an oil lease site in the National wildlife Refuge on the Seal Beach Weapons Station. It would appear that the oil fields within the City's sphere of influence will continue in operation through 1985. Should oil extraction I" activities be proposed within the City, existing ordinances would regulate the operations to insure compatibility with other types of surrounding land uses," and noted that the subject site nor its future was discussed; the Seismic/Safety Element speaks to the seismic hazards on the Hellman Ranch and related problems with the oil wells on the Hellman property, also does not discuss or mention this particular facility, yet does talk about fire hazards in the high residential density areas of the City mentioning Surfside and Old Town, this Element written before Riverbeach, Bridgeport, etc., and she concluded that if you take the two concerns of the SeismiC/Safety Element and put them I I I .. ~ .. t ,.......:0 1-10-94 together, the fire with the oil wells and the high residential density, the two have been mixed in this area of the city and has been remiss in not discussing the hazards created with that. In reference to the staff reports a comment was made that "Current General Plan of the city indicates that future land use of both of these oil/water separation facilities should remain for oil extraction purposes," to which she said she was unable to locate, yet throughout the General Plan oil extraction is referred to on the Hellman Ranch, Naval Weapons station, and the oil platforms however does not list this site. A statement was made that "CUP No. 92-7 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the city's General Plan which provides an Oil Extraction designation for the subject property," which the Mayor corrected to refer to the Land Use Map as there is no such reference in the text of the Element; a statement of the appellant was that "CUP 92-7 is not consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan" to which the staff response was "The subject property is indicated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan for oil Extraction purposes. The text of the Land Use Element indicates that Industrial Land Use - Categories for Light Industry and for oil Extraction are the only industrial use categories that are felt appropriate for the city of Seal Beach," the section goes on to describe the areas however this specific area is not listed, when it talks of light industry it refers to Rockwell; the community goals set forth in the Element under industry states that Seal Beach should encourage development of non- noxious industries such as research and development and other light industry areas where such activities would be compatible with neighboring land uses. The Mayor claimed that the City then is not in compliance with the General Plan, in fact going the opposition direction of what the General Plan was intended to do. With regard to provisions of the City Code, Mayor Forsythe made reference to Section 15-18, noted that one must keep in mind that reference to drilling sites is applicable to a separation facility as there is no separate zoning provision for such facility. The Mayor read the following provisions of the city Code: "Section 15A-7 - Purpose of Article - Such controlled drill site or sites and the limitations and regulations set forth in this article are necessary in order to protect the citizens and residents of the city from oil odors, noise, dust and the spreading of oil, dirt, and debris upon the public streets of the city; Section 15A-13 - The council finds and determines that the location of drill sites on real property within the city, other than as authorized by ordinance and designated as controlled drill site, would be contrary to the best interests of the citizens and residents of the city and the public health safety and general welfare of the citizens and inhabitants of the city;" and Section 15A-22 provides that if there is any probability of any kind of danger, injury or damage to property, in all cases, unless they can be rectified, the council shall deny the application. The Mayor pointed out, therefore, that knowing what the goal and intent of the General Plan was, this is going in the opposite direction of what the Plan was created to provide. with regard to whether the use is compatible with, rather than detrimental to the surrounding uses, the Mayor noted that the facility at 99 Marina Drive was approved in 1955, the Hill development was just beginning, Bridgeport was not built until about 1968/ the Electric Avenue homes were built in 1978, Riverbeach was completed in 1984, and the new Watson homes are just being completed, the last of the two developments completed with only Exxon in operation. She said it would be her assumption as a prospective homeowner in that area and that close to a production facility that that facility must be a declining use otherwise why would the city permit new development to occur so close to a facility that would be reactivated eleven years later, and again the General 1-10-94 Plan, when it speaks of oil production on the Hellman Ranch, even with the amount of vacant land that is separating those oil wells from the Hill, the Plan talks of providing a safety buffer between the Hill homes and the oil extraction on the Hellman Ranch. With residential property immediately adjacent and the Marina Park area the most heavily used recreational facility with at least five hundred children per week using it, many I engaged in high energy level activities, the health, safety and - welfare issue needs to be addressed. Mayor Forsythe cited the significance of the passage of Proposition 65, despite the great amount of monies spent lobbying in opposition, which requires the posting of warnings of dangerous chemicals, etc. She reported receiving documentation that 10,284 Orange County residents will be diagnosed with cancer in 1994 of which 4,345 will die, in the State of California 64,615 men and 63,755 women will be diagnosed with cancer in 1994. She su~ised that most everyone in attendance has lost someone to cancer and when the medical profession is asked why so many are getting cancer the answer is typically our environment, our water, food and air, and cited the fact that at age twenty-five, in good health, she too had cancer, and again to why, one could cite a facility such as the one proposed with known carcinogens as a pretty good answer. She mentioned the standards that are set by government as being safe yet in a few years are revised to lower levels, to which she used the example of the government deeming it to be safe to go outside and watch the beauty of the nuclear test clouds outside Las Vegas and likewise one could now ask the people of st. George, Utah their feelings on government disclosure there, and pointed out that technology changes on a daily basis, what is acceptable healthwise today may be lethal tomorrow, and made reference to a news article that addressed air pollution levels that can cut a persons lifespan. with I regard to the cumulative impact of these two facilities, Exxon and UNOCAL, the Mayor noted the current normal air pOllution standards are twenty to forty pounds per day, UNOCAL by itself will have sixty pounds per day. Mayor Forsythe asked that the Council picture their Council District, returning home and being told that they could not enter the neighborhood with their vehicle, and in turn a resident that is at home, wishing to leave, yet fearful of causing an explosion upon starting their vehicle, and stated this to be a concern and risk that people of this area should not have to live with, mentioned also that the methane gas situation of last week here was the same situation that occurred in Los Angeles at the Farmers Market area as well as in Mexico city. She noted the noise level for the area has already been rated at 55 decibels, with the inclusion of this facility that level will go up, and there will be light and glare impacts. The Mayor made reference to the 1986 Planning Commission request for an EIR for the reactivation of this facility by Chevron, to which Chevron did not comply and the CUP was denied. She quoted a statement of the Director of Development Services during the 1986 consideration that she indicated encapsulated her feelings that "staff is extremely sensitive to the needs and desires of the surrounding community which may be impacted by the intensification of a use which few want to see within their city, nor especially in Old Town. It I' is a necessary function of the Planning Commission to not only determine the desirability of these improvements but to insure the maintenance or enrichment of the quality of life enjoyed by those who are nearest to the facility. It should be pointed out that the Planning Commission may only grant a 'CUP if the proposed use is reviewed and conditioned prior to approval so as to insure compatibility with surrounding uses and the community in general." Mayor Forsythe indicated belief that the comments quoted are basically what people are feeling, in other words how can the quality of life be compromised for the financial aspect in this case, cited the recent approval of taxation of the I I I : 1-10-94 community by about $2 million annually, the return from this facility at maximum oil production would be approximately $107,000, to which she questioned its worthiness considering the impact on life. She mentioned a comment of a member of the Planning Commission that had he known reactivation of this facility was going to occur he never would have approved the Watson homes, which seems to go along with the deficiencies of the General Plan, and if anything, when Bridgeport was built that is when an amortization period for these facilities should have begun. In reference to the above, new information, and conflicts with section 15-18 of the Code with regard to public health, safety and welfare of its residents and the unquestionable incompatibility of an oil production facility next to playgrounds, preschools, and homes, Mayor Forsythe moved to sustain the appeal of Rita Strickroth and deny the requested application. Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion. Councilman Doane concurred with the motion and supported the suggestion of Councilman Laszlo to assist UNOCAL in their application to conduct the separation process at their offshore facility. From a historical standpoint Councilman Laszlo mentioned that he had been the deciding vote on the Riverbeach project. From the public meetings discussing this issue Councilmember Hastings recalled an uncertainty of a number of persons as to the ability of UNOCAL to follow through with their commitments, also made reference to a news article of this date reporting a judge had ruled that charges had been filed too late with regard to allegations that UNOCAL had covered up spills at one of its locations, however the San Luis Obispo County Judge said there was substantial evidence that UNOCAL and its employees actively engaged in a course of conduct that included not only failure to disclose the leaks but took steps to prevent the leaks from coming to the attention of the public. She indicated that this substantiates to some degree the concerns that a number of persons in the area have expressed. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried The City Attorney advised that a resolution would be prepared and forthcoming to reflect the decision of the City Council to affirm the appeal and denying the appeal. FINAL DRAFT AICUZ STUDY - LOS ALAMITOS ARMY AIRFIELD The Director of Development Services reported that receipt of the Final Draft AICUZ Study for the Los Alamitos Airfield, the Study has been reviewed and a response letter to the Armed Forces Reserve Center has been prepared for signature of the Mayor citing concerns of the city relative to clear zones, accident potential zones, utilization of the aviation report by Aries Consultants, and the use of outdated information, also noted that the response has been reviewed by the City'S aviation consultant relating to the Bixby project. Councilman Laszlo mentioned that the Study does not reflect Accident Potential Zones and there is some confusion as to the length and width of the crash zones. He made reference to page thirty-three of the Study relating to noise contour lines that extend into College Park East, to which he said the noise contours have not been reflected in this manner on previous maps, also that the City'S aviation report indicates that the 65 CNL line falls outside of College Park East. He questioned the noise measurements, and indicated a desire that the consultant's map be provided to the AFRC. The Director explained that the Reserve Center has been provided a copy of the draft aviation document, and the response letter indicates concern that the most recent information 1-10-94 I 1-24-94 . prepared by Aries was not utilized. Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to receive and file the report, and authorize the Mayor to sign the response letter. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried COUNCIL CONCERNS No Council concerns were presented. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, commended the City Council for the fine job they have done. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, January 24th, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:26 p.m. n of the Approved: I Attest: Seal Beach, California January 24, 1994 The regular adjourned meeting scheduled for 6:00 p.m. this date was cancelled as there were no items requiring Closed Session discussion. TED ':::~:1I;Y/f ~a7iY' e M. Yeo, CJ.ty~ of Seal Beach 1994 I Seal Beach, California January 24, 1994 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.