Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1991-05-28 5-13-91/5-28-91 it was the previous Council. Mr. Hastings noted that the individual who had chaired the antique car show has indicated through a letter in the newspaper that he would no longer be involved in that major event due to a conflict with local businesspersons, which he said shows an inability of the Chamber and Business Association to get along internally. Mr. Peter Anninos made reference to a letter he I had forwarded to the Council regarding the cable company, and complained that public access persons are required to pay a $25 users fee intended for maintenance, yet certain cameras are inoperable for field use because they have not been maintained. Council suggested he take his concerns up with the Cable Foundation. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION The Assistant city Attorney announced that pursuant to the Brown Act the City Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss pending litigation in the case of WCAB 89 ANA 220239 and personnel matters. It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn to Closed Session at 12:15 a.m. The Council reconvened at 12:31 a.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The Assistant city Attorney reported the Council had discussed the mater of pending litigation previously announced, gave direction to the city Manager, discussed personnel matters, and no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn until May 28th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 12:36 a.m I the Approved: ~ cR. W~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California May 28, 1991 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:02 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: I Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hunt, Laszlo Absent: Councilmember Hastings 5-28-91 I Councilmember Hastings arrived shortly after the Council adjourned to Closed Session. Also present: Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Stevenson, Liability Attorney Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk CLOSED SESSION The Assistant City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss labor relations, pending litigation is the matters of Boag and Astenius, and SB 2557. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn to Closed Session at 6:04 p.m. The Council reconvened at 6:50 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The Assistant City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the matters previously announced and took no action with the exception of the pending litigation to SB2557 where the city Council authorized the filing of a amicus brief along with a number of other cities. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 6:52 p.m. of the I Approved: '-cO"dM.J "", W~~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California May 28, 1991 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:06 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo I Absent: None Also present: Mr. Archibold, Acting city Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk 5-28-91 WAIVER OF FULL READING Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, 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: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I ITEM "0" - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1334 - PUBLIC EMPLOYEES SYSTEM - CONTRACT AMENDMENT Councilmember Hastings moved to hold this item over, noting that the existing contract had not been provided for comparison purposes. Councilmember Forsythe seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried PROCLAMATION Mayor Wilson read the proclamation commending the Seal Beach Animal Care Center, its Board of Directors, Officers, and volunteers, and proclaimed June 2, 1991 as "Pause For Pets Day." Ms. Aviani, President, and Ms. Goldstein, Director, accepted the proclamation with appreciation, and invited the Council to their third annual Strawberry Fest on Sunday, June 2nd. COUNCIL REORGANIZATION I Selection of Mavor Councilmember Hastings nominated Mr. Laszlo as Mayor, and moved that nominations be closed. Councilmember Forsythe seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried Mr. Laszlo was declared Mayor of the city of Seal Beach for 1991/92 and assumed conduct of the meeting. Selection of Mavor ProTem Councilmember Hastings nominated Mrs. Forsythe as Mayor ProTem. Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to declared nominations closed. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Mrs. Forsythe was declared Mayor ProTem of the City of Seal Beach for 1991/92. Mayor Laszlo presented a commemorative City plaque to Mrs. I Wilson in recognition of her services as Mayor for 1990/91. _ Mr. Laszlo expressed appreciation to the Council for the selection as Mayor. Mrs. Wilson stated she appreciated and enjoyed having had the opportunity to serve as Mayor, and reviewed numerous personal and Council activities and accomplishments during the past year. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Lee Risner, 845 Driftwood Avenue, made reference to the former City Manager and what he understood to be compensation in 5-28-91 I the form of severance pay, stated no litigation was involved therefore any compensation agreement should be announced publicly, yet city officials have neither confirmed or denied there was a payment or an agreement. He stated legal counsel was hired by three members of the Council to appear in court on their behalf relating to the ballot argument issue, that pursuant to the Charter only the Council has the authority to hire an attorney yet this matter was not brought to the Council until after the hiring, which he claimed was a violation of the Brown Act. Mr. Risner said if the members of the Council were 'not acting in their official capacity when signing the arguments, then what would be the basis for the City to pay those legal fees, claimed that would be a gift of public funds, also that only one side of the ballot argument issue was authorized for payment. Mr. Frank Ellsworth, Leisure World, reported receiving an invitation to attend a meeting in support of the Mola Initiative at a neighboring Leisure World residence, to which he suggested that if Leisure World voters have questions or concerns regarding the Initiative that they vote against the measure. Ms. Joyce Risner mentioned her former positions as Mayor and a member of the City council, and reported a letter recently circulated from the present member of the Council setting forth her position on the Hellman Ranch project based upon new information regarding earthquake faults that she had received upon becoming a member of the Council. Mrs. Risner expressed her objection to the position taken by the councilmember to deny the Mola development after only a few days of study, where the prior Council had studied the project for more than four years. As a member of the Specific Plan Committee she claimed that those persons representing the developer and the property owner were not allowed to participate in the meetings, she also objected to the reference that the Initiative was taking the city from a beach community to a more urbanized setting, to which she said that statement was in reference to the seven hundred seventy-three unit project and not in reference to the Initiative proposal. Mrs. Risner suggested that the citizens look to those persons who have studied the project for the facts. Mr. Ken Hayashida, 4233 Candleberry Avenue, urged that everyone come together to heal the community, that people should work towards preserving open space for the next generation of leaders, and spoke for a vote against the Mola Initiative. Ms. Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th Street, questioned what will be a reasonable price for the additional five acres as referred to in the Initiative, if it would be the $1 million that the developer is to pay to the City as opposed to the estimate of $750,000 a year ago. She mentioned the requirement for low cost housing, a set aside or payment by the developer, suggesting that the city should not be burdened with that requirement if the developer is unable to provide those units or funding for same. Ms. Morton objected to a newspaper quote referring to a group of negative people, and stated the persons involved with Measure B are simply concerned about the business of Seal Beach, preserving and protecting the community for the children of the future. She said the upcoming election is not merely a vote on the Initiative, but whether two of the new members will remain on the Council, the rumor being that if the Initiative is not approved there will be a recall movement against two members, which she deemed would be disastrous for the community. Dr. George Telford, Leisure World, said the Measure B ballot question makes no reference to a massive commercial development as is being claimed by some, and even though something would be built, the property would first need to be rezoned. Dr. Telford expressed his view that the campaign literature is distorting the facts which is I I 5-28-91 confusing to the voters. Mr. James Goodwin, 1405 Crestview Avenue, showed diagrams of the areas proposed for development by the Initiative, noted that the developer is proposing homes on an area that is a high liquefaction zone, poses a potential for considerable damage in the event of an earthquake, and in considering the factors of both the Hellman and state Lands properties the consequences is that I the total of the area is a potential for high liquefaction, however there are varying opinions from the experts. Mr. Goodwin referred to prior discussion of toxics on the Hellman property, the Leighton report having noted the existence of hydrogen sulphite which he said affects concrete and the rods in concrete, that it is also flammable, that there are tanks that need to be examined as well as underground piping, all of which is a challenge to any contractor. He commended the Council action in refusing the Mola development because of the earthquake and toxic problems on the Hellman property. Mr. Kenneth Radcliff, 4880 Hazelnut Avenue, spoke of his awareness of the lawsuits against Mola Development, the condition of the Mola financial institution, the out-of-town consultants, local supporters, complaints of poor construction, etc. which has led him to believe that the developer's organization is undesirable based on past record. Mr. Gilbert Florence, 3861 Goldenrod street, said he has seen no mention of future housing units in campaign materials distributed by the developer, that this project will impact the sewers, water, schools, etc. He also reported attending a recent meeting in support of the Initiative where a video was shown to the two persons in attendance, and noted there has been no mention that some of the parks of the project would be private. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, reported Mola I Development has filed a legal action to avoid a development project in Irvine as a result of toxics on the site, noted there has been oil production, dumping, fill, etc. on the Hellman property for many years, that a toxicity report on that land does not appear to exist, yet an investigation and report is called for just prior to issuance of building permits for the project, and claimed those conditions could be more dangerous than the earthquake faults. Ms. Linda StObbe, Seal Beach, expressed her support for the Initiative Measure, and said the intent of the persons in support has been to conduct themselves in an intelligent, responsible, professional manner. She referred to a May 5th event at Gum Grove 'Park which resulted in a number of disturbances by persons in opposition to the Initiative and requests for police assistance, reported that between six to seven hundred political signs have been stolen or mutilated during the campaign, a number from the Hellman property, however said Weapons Station Security have observed and identified an individual removing the signs from the private property. Mr. victor Grgas, 15th Street, said he wished to comment on statements in a recent news article made by a member of the Council having an opposing opinion. He said the notion that Measure A-91 would drain the General Fund was incorrect, the calculations referred to related to a three hundred forty I unit project, did not take into account that the roads would be constructed at private expense, the $1 million contribution to the City, or the interest earned thereon, that prior financial analyses had not been considered nor had the analysis by the Finance Director who projected a gain to the General Fund of $9 million and $29 million to the Redevelopment Agency over a twenty year period. He stated the claim that the park amenities had not received Coastal Commission approval was untrue with the exception 'of the duck pond, asked what approvals the B-91 Measure has received, and noted previous concerns with a golf course . . -,.,.. 5-28-91 I adjacent to wetlands. Mr. Grgas suggested persons look at the litigation filed by the Wetlands Society against the City to stop the development and force low cost housing. Mr. Tim Roberts, Director of operations and Finance for Mola Development Corporation, pointed out that in the past five and one-half years development proposals have gone from one thousand units to a golf course plan with seven hundred seventy-three single family residential and condominium units, environmental constraints and product concerns were realized, their firm then worked with local residents to redesign a project, and when considered by Fish and Game and the Coastal Commission those agencies determined golf courses and wetlands were not compatible. He said a 40.9 acre wetland and low density, three hundred twenty-nine unit, 2.2 unit per acre plan was then developed, which is now Measure A-91. Mr. Roberts stated the property is not toxic, and questioned the Wetlands Restoration Society being desirous of restoring wetlands yet are saying that the property is toxic laden. He explained that Mola Development does not have control of two hundred twenty-five acres of the Hellman Ranch, the option is on one hundred forty-nine acres, that the Retention Basin is approximately thirty-five acres and oil production is forty acres. Mr. Roberts emphasized that if Measure A-91 is passed the Council has the absolute discretion over the implementation of the three hundred twenty-nine single family detached unit subdivision of which nearly fifty percent is preserved for open space, parks and recreational amenities. Mr. Lionel Okin, Leisure World, read a listing of legal actions against Mola Development filed in Orange County Superior Court from 1987 through 1990. Ms. Patti Campbell, 4433 Ironwood Avenue, displayed a video tape she had received at her residence, said she understood the developer had eight thousand copies made for distribution at a cost between $20,000 to $25,000, and described some of the commentaries and scenes from the video. Ms. Campbell indicated she expected the developer to drop his legal action against the City as an election ploy, said the Chamber wants increased business yet wants to retain the small town atmosphere, which she said is not possible because to have more business means more cars. She stated a claim that Measure B-91 would result in twenty-one thousand vehicle trips per day was not true, and made reference to various other pieces of campaign literature. Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th Street, reported the picketers of the May 5th campaign gathering at Gum Grove Park were within the pUblic right-of-way, no one had blocked access as previously claimed, and agreed that campaign signs should not be removed, noting two removed from his yard thus far. Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications closed. I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:14 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:22 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. I CITY COUNCIL ITEMS APPOINTMENTS ~ BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Acting city Manager reported receiving a communication from the Chamber of Commerce submitting Mr. Bruce Walter and Mr. Leonard Wilson as their nominees to the Business Advisory Committee. Councilmember Wilson nominated Mr. Bob Barger as the District Two representative to the Committee, and Councilmember Forsythe nominated Mr. Jim Balaam as the District Three representative. Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to approve the appointment of those nominees to the Business Advisory Committee. 5-28-91 AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried BUDGET WORKSHOP SCHEDULE The Acting City Manager reported a list of recommended dates to be considered for budget workshops had been provided by the city Manager for consideration. After discussion it was the consensus of the Council to schedule the initial workshop for the June 11th adjourned meeting to be held for the purpose of declaring the results of the election, and that the meeting commence at 6:00 p.m. I INITIATIVE MEASURES Councilmember Hastings said she had been advised that if Measure A-91 is passed a recall effort will commence the following day, and in questioning if the Mola supporters would lead that effort, suggested they may be'the same persons involved in the 1971 recalls, and that such action, should not be allowed to divide the city once again. She reported a letter from the Hellman attorneys of January 24, 1991 advised that Mola has no ownerShip rights in the Hellman Ranch, a statement contrary to that of a Mola representative, also that a recently adopted Resolution of the Council stated there was never an intention of the City to use city funds to purchase the Hellman land. She made reference to a letter from supervisor Wieder to the General Manager of the MWD inquiring if the development of three hundred twenty-nine homes in Seal Beach would cause further rationing of water in the City, the reply being that Seal Beach is a special situation and that the allocation would not be adjusted for growth, however the ground water supply could be increased to meet the increased need, and with regard to construction of a new well, the response from MWD was that if the City increases the needs from the ground water basin the City would be required to pay a monetary penalty on a percentage of extra water used. Councilmember Hastings said when considering the development ,of three hundred twenty-nine homes one must consider that will mean six hundred fifty more automobiles in the City, the extension of First Street will not relieve traffic congestion, only exacerbate it by providing an easier access to Seal Beach Boulevard, and to the claim that the extension will allow easier access to the freeway and Westminster, one must keep in mind the increase of vehicles as a result of the Rockwell headquarters, the Bixby project, and the residential units that may be built at the Los Alamitos Reserve Center, the result being an additional two thousand cars that will impact Seal Beach Boulevard. Councilmember Hastings invited Mr. stark, Mr. Thornberg, and Mr. Mulligan to also speak to this item. Mr. Stark said for the first time he can be proud of a Council that respects the people and what the people respect, and that he looked forward to supporting the Council's efforts. Mr. Stark said he too received a video relating to the Initiative Measure, and quoted from various pieces of campaign literature. He deemed the Initiative as special interest legislation, and spoke for the defeat of Measure A-91. Mr. Pat Mulligan, 1660 Crestview Avenue, represented himself as a golf course architect and land planner by profession, resort developer on occasion, present clients consist of two major developments in Ireland, consulting with the President of BUlgaria and the Mayor of Leningrad, past experiences involve a number of projects in Hawaii, entered the golf course design business in the early 1970'S, etc. In response to a question regarding the viability from a profit standpoint of placing an eighteen hole championship golf course on the Hellman property, Mr. Mulligan said he I I ~~ 5-28-~1 I believed that the approach'of Councilman Hunt was to use a residential value for the property underlying the golf course, the value of land being contingent on the use and zoning of the property. He explained that he did not know the specifics of the ground value of this particular property, however it is reasonable to assume that a golf course of some type, meeting generally accepted standards, would be successful on this site. He said he was fully aware of a golf course feasibility study he had done for another Orange County developer during the past year in which it was determined that for every public golf course in Southern California there are three thousand public golf course players, yet there is a need for only three hundred for maximum use, and offered that any golf course that is done with a reasonable amount of quality and attention to detail would be a success. with regard to the concern with runoff as it relates to wetlands, Mr. Mulligan made reference to a U. S. Department of Interior Geological Survey, a 1990 report prepared by Penn State University which suggests that the turf is not the problem in a well managed situation, but the hard surfaces such as roofs and roads that contaminate an adjacent property, this perspective developed and reinforced by an article in the January/March, 1990 edition, Journal of Environmental Quality, which evaluates nitrous fertilizers and turf grass and the implications of that on adjacent properties, the finding being that well managed turf grass maintains standards that are equivalent to drinking water standards. with regard to Mr. MUlligan's awareness of any methods where the City could have a golf course and not use its own funds, he respond that would depend on a variety of factors, the most obvious being the developer who wants to develop the land and put in a golf course, also there are many golf courses that are available to the population at large with local citizens given preference that are developed by private individuals, and made reference to a recent League of California cities publication on Cal-Muni Golf and the NE 501-C-3 program that could be formed by local golfers. I I COMMENTS ON BALLOT MEASURES Councilmember Forsythe defended the contents of the newsletter she recently distributed, stated the three hundred twenty-nine unit plan took approximately six months to develop rather than five years, that she had studied the information relating to the Mola development proposal, identified eighteen areas of concern, that at the time of the vote on the project those problems had not been resolved, also that her election campaign stance had been sensible growth. Councilmember Forsythe reported the Council received a letter this date from the President of Amigos de Bolsa Chica, the subject of the letter being the video distributed to Seal Beach residents in support of Initiative Measure A-91 and a caption on the video identifying a speaker as a member of that organization. The letter requesting that it be made clear that the Amigos de Bolsa Chica gave no authorization or approval to any person to use the name of the group on the video, nor had the President, Executive Director or Board of Directors given anyone the authority to speak on behalf of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica, also requesting that the parties responsible for the video recall same, delete any reference to the Amigos de Bolsa Chica, and that a disclaimer be printed in several newspapers of wide distribution in Seal Beach, Sunset Beach and Huntington Beach indicating that the Amigos did not give permission or authorization for its name to be used or had indicated support for the position of the video advocates. Mr. Edward Dilks was introduced and stated he 5-28-91 was the owner of a residence at 103 Ocean Avenue, currently a twenty percent resident, over a period of twenty years a local government lawyer, a partner in a firm that represents six cities, presently city attorney for a small Los Angeles County city, represents a small redevelopment agency, has extensive experience in redevelopment law and worked with those who revised redevelopment law in 1977 and 1978. Mr. Dilks said in his opinion there is nothing worse than making land use policy in this manner, by initiative, the initiative document basically a study document and not a document that permits a public decision from the standpoint of a voter, that he personally did not understand much of what is proposed in the Hellman Ranch Plan, yet he felt the analysis of the Plan by the City Attorney was excellent. Mr. Dilks said that if Measure A-91 is approved the City will be plagued with initiatives by every developer that wants their project approved where that approval could not be obtained by vote of the Council, in other words it will be land use policy based upon who can spend the greatest amount of money. Mr. Dilks made reference to Mola's option on the property where they would be negotiating for the purchase thereof, analyzed that they came to the City seeking permission to develop the land pursuant to a Specific Plan they proposed, when that was not approved, they developed, circulated and filed an initiative, placing their project in the public arena as an electoral item, and said the resulting renting of the community is something no one should be particularly proud of. He noted also that the developer has filed legal actions against the City and individuals because they did not achieve the approvals they sought, and in his opinion to do so is a violation of fundamental expectations at the local governmental level. Mr. Dilks again pointed out that the issue is dividing the community, that the people are being manipulated by a carefully run political campaign, there are personal attacks, negative energy that will scar the community for years, and reiterated that initiative is an inappropriate manner to make land use decisions or run a city. Ms. Jane McCloud, 700 Balboa Drive, said she was one who had input into the Mola plan, however a comment by Mr. Tim Roberts that the plan was developed with the residents from scratch was incorrect, and actually commenced with more than three hundred twenty-nine homes. She reported the participants to the plan were desirous of open space, no homes on the low lands, the wetlands and the Gum Grove as one unit to preserve the ecological balance, did not want the golf course on the wetlands as initially designed nor a substandard golf course, and there was request for an adequate buffer for those homes that line the Hellman property. Ms. McCloud suggested that if the city wants developers to meet the needs of the community, then the city and the citizens need to determine the land use and then invite developers to develop the city plan. At the request of Mayor Laszlo, the Council agreed to consider next two items in reverse order. I I INITIATIVE Councilmember wilson read a letter from Mick Hellman to be referenced as part of the record, the letter making reference to the Hellman family owning the Hellman Ranch property for over one hundred years, stating they have followed the debate over Measures A-91 and B-91 with considerable interest, and offered some observations from a property owners standpoint, that the development approval process is intended to create a fair balance of benefit to the parties involved, the balance should include physical I 'r" ft';:~:'H:" . 5-28-91 I and financial benefits for the community, a reasonable profit to the developer, and a reasonable economic return to the property owner, that Measure A-91 is the product of such negotiation over a period of five years, requiring huge concessions from the developer and the property owner and created physical and financial benefits to the community. The letter cited a 1981 city approved one thousand unit development versus the three hundred twenty-nine units proposed in A-91; physical benefits to the community to include twenty-six acres of parkland available to the public plus forty-one acres of restored wetlands, and as a result forty-five percent of the development area would be devoted to open space; financial benefits to the community according to the City's Finance Director will include gains over the next twenty years of $9 million to the City and $29 million to the Redevelopment Agency. The letter continued, stating that Measure B-91 is intended solely to frustrate A-91 and does not offer a genuine alternative; financial analysis indicates that B-91 is not economically feasible; the physical and financial benefits to the community of any development must be financed from the profits of development, and because B-91 is not economically viable, the benefits can not be forthcoming; and indeed the city may be compelled by law to spend taxpayers money to purchase the property for its fair market value if the owner is left without an economic viable alternative. The letter concluded that A-91 is a fair deal for everyone, the product of five years of negotiation with the community, B-91 will produce no tangible benefits to the community and is not a substitute. I CAMPAIGN OUESTIONS Councilman Hunt stated there is no question that this city and the entire state are experiencing water problems and it is necessary that conservation be practiced, yet Seal Beach, the surrounding communities, and even the County are in the best position in the state from a water standpoint. He noted that even though this area has underground water reserves, conservation and capital investments are needed to replenish the underground reserves for the coming years. During attendance at the West Orange County Water Board meeting this date he said he inquired specifically if in the case of the population of a city either increasing or decreasing is there a mechanism in place where that community would be compensated by the Metropolitan Water District accordingly, the answer was yes, and there is a form that can be submitted to request either an increase or decrease of water based upon a change of population. He noted that the water usage in Seal Beach is relatively low during the winter months and approximately four times greater during the summer. Councilman Hunt pointed out that the City has four pumps and four wells with the capacity to pump all of the water necessary, and given the conservation efforts, reduction of MWD allocations and increase of the cost of water, it is important that the city produce as much water as possible from the underground supply and purchase as little as possible from MWD. He said in the event that Measure A-91 is approved for the Hellman property, there will be funding or partial funding of another pump and well, as well as a water recycling system. Councilman Hunt recalled his previously expressed concern for the financial status of the City, and based upon his review of the City's financial reports he would conclude that there is most likely less than $400,000 in the City treasury, including , reserves, and stated part of his support for Measure A-91 is that there will be significant financial benefits to city, approximately $30 to $40 million over the next twenty years. I 5-28-91 The Acting City Manager confirmed that the City's financial status with regard to fund balances is somewhat reflective of Councilman Hunt's comments, approximately $500,000 in the liability reserve, $100,000 in the workers comp reserve, about $30,000 in the street lighting assessment fund, and by June 30th it could be perceived that there would be no cash balance. Mayor Laszlo said he understood the reserves are approximately $1 million, and upon discussing the budget and the reserves with the new City Manager, he had indicated that the budget could be balanced without an increase of taxes, even though there is a likely shortfall of about $600,000. Mayor Laszlo made reference to four financial reports relating to the Mola development on the Hellman property which he said reflected losses to the City ranging between $21,000 to $174,000 per year, yet subsequent financial reports, paid for by the developer, show a financial gain to the city. Ms. Carol Shouder, was invited to address the Council, and as a resident of the Mola developed Cabo del Mar in Huntington Beach reported problems ranging from the complex having been built on fill and toxic soil, to noise, sinkage, and various problems relating to the construction. She stated although there was a partial settlement, it will be necessary for the residents to pay the additional costs to resolve the numerous problems, that in order to rid the site of toxics it is likely that one building with twelve units will need to be removed. Ms. Shouder said she could not imagine allowing Mola Development to build in Seal Beach. Mayor Laszlo asked if Mr. Mulligan felt a golf course on the Hellman property would be feasible. Mr. Mulligan responded in the affirmative, stating in his opinion it could generate an income flow that could maintain and over time expand the restoration of the wetlands, pointing out that a problem nationally is how to maintain wetlands once they have been dedicated, that being his reason for making reference to the recent studies. He said it is reasonable to assume that a program could be developed, depending on the underlying value of the land, that would generate an operating income stream in the area of $1.0 to $1.5 million, that figure based on a September, 1990 Urban Land publication, and the question is then how much debt would that amount of income carry. with regard to whether there would be adequate acreage, Mr. Mulligan responded that the answer could be yes and no, if there were only the one hundred forty-nine acres less the forty acres of wetland, he indicated it would be difficult, however acknowledged that if the oil production land could be utilized, as well as the retention basin, it could not only be an interesting project, but could also be healing for ~he community since a golf course would be for all of the citizens. Mayor'Laszlo read an invitation to coffee and tea socials in support of Measure A-91 and the follow-up letter to those who did not attend, also campaign literature claiming the that a massive commercial project is being forced on the Hellman Ranch, to which he said he and other residents of College Park East feel is inappropriate campaign tactics. Ms. Jody Weir, Beachcomber Drive, took exception to remarks made by Mayor Laszlo, stated it had been carefully explained to those attending the coffee that there were twenty-six acres of parkland, also commented on campaign yard signs, and expressed her opinion that any commercial development on Seal Beach Boulevard would be detrimental to the city, the business community, and everyone else. I I , It was the order of the Chair, with consent of ,the Council, to declare a recess at 9:45 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:51 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. t N..... I - '. " , 5-28-91 I WORKERS COMPENSATION PRESENTATION The Acting city Manager said at the request of a member of the Council a workers compensation workshop presentation is proposed with the workers compensation administrator and representative of the City Attorney firm present, which could be held on June 10th if the Council desired. Councilmember Hastings said this would be an opportunity for the Council and citizens to review workers compensation laws and procedures. After brief discussion Mayor Laszlo suggested this matter be placed on a future agenda, possibly late June or July. AGENDA AMENDED At the request of Councilmember Forsythe, the agenda was amended to consider Item "AA" at this time. I DRAFT EIS - WEST COAST HOMEPORTING PROGRAM The Development Services Director noted that staff had engaged in a substantial review of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Fast Combat Support Ship (AOE-6 Class), U. S. West Coast Homeporting Program, the documents provided to the Council approximately a week ago to allow for review and any additional comments and allow staff to prepare a final response for submission to the Department of the Navy prior to the expiration date for comments, June 3rd. He explained the Draft EIS basically indicates that the Navy will be homeporting two AOE-6 Class ships at Puget Sound, Bremerton, Washington, sometime within the next two to three years, at this point there is no direct proposal from the Navy to locate additional ships on the U. S. West Coast, however if the Navy is successful in obtaining congressional authorization for funding of additional ships, at that point the Navy would then prepare an additional environmental analysis to look at homeporting ships in the Southern California region, Naval Stations at Long Beach, San Diego, or North Island, San Diego, and in conjunction with that the Naval Weapons station, Seal Beach, would be looked at for expansion to provide ordinance support for any of those locations. Therefore, if the Navy is not successful in obtaining additional funding to build ships there would be no other activity proposed for the Southern California region, and likewise if additional funding is authorized, the City would be looking at this matter once again. The Director pointed out that as part of the draft response letter the City has requested to be placed on notice to receive information regarding future funding requests by the Na~, which would allow the city the opportunity to develop any 'input it may wish to present. He noted that the environmental analysis, contained in the Draft EIS, was reviewed item by item to identify those concerns that staff felt were appropriate for the City to express to the Navy for items that either need to be included in the final Program EIS for the project as it presently exists or for additional detailed or technical studies that are felt necessary for future environmental analysis. The Director stated once again that at this time the Navy is not proposing to locate any ships in Southern California therefore there would be no expansion proposed for the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, that those expansions would only occur if there are future proposals to locate ships in Southern California, and as long as the ships are homeported on the' northerly West Coast they will be serviced totally from the Puget Sound area. He pointed out that in the response letter it was indicated that since the Draft EIS includes Naval Station Long Beach as a potential homeporting location, the Navy should look at that in view of the recommendations of Secretary of Defense to I 5-28-91 close that station and how that would impact the program for homeporting ships on the West Coast, the suggestion being that if that proposal were to remain in the EIRS as a long term program to locate ships at Long Beach, that an alternative, as opposed to construction of new facilities at Weapons Station, Seal Beach, would be to consider the transport of the necessary ordinance by rail from Seal Beach to Long Beach for direct loading onto the ships at dockside rather than coming to Seal Beach for loading. Councilmember Forsythe commended the Director on the draft letter and the analysis, however noted concern that the problem areas with the expansion are identified yet mitigating measures are proposed that would lessen the impacts, and given the city's stance in opposition to the expansion, possibly the Navy should not be provided with the various alternatives, which appears to lessen the city's position at this time, however suggested the alternatives be kept in the City files for future use. The Director agreed that that could be done, also advised that the response does point out that the impacts of the proposed Disney project in Long Beach and the 2020 Plan all need to be addressed. councilmember Hastings suggested that the response letter, as amended by Councilmember Forsythe, along with the previously adopted Council Resolution, be forwarded to the City's Federal and State representatives, the Secretary of, the Navy, Secretary of Defense, and the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The Director reported the Environmental Quality Control Board had made minor modifications to the text of the letter, and requested direction from the Council as to whether the letter should or should not contain those modifications. I Mr. Roger West, 1201-A Electric Avenue, said he was speaking as Chairman of the Seal Beach Council for Environmental Concerns, and expressed his support for the position taken by the Council. He stated that the Draft EIS is a monumental study in trivia to expand the nuclear facilities where that is no longer necessary and bases are closing throughout the country. He spoke in favor of forwarding the city's position to all persons that may have an interest, and urged that consideration be given to the seriousness of what may take place at the Naval Weapons station. Mr. Tom Quinn, 1013 Electric Avenue, commended the Director on his review of the Draft EIS, expressed concern with the potential for an oil spill, previous mishaps at the Station, talk of transporting missiles from Concord to Seal Beach, the impacts on local surf and ocean waters should the expansion take place, as well as on southerly beaches, and noise that will be generated from the ships. Mayor Laszlo suggested that possibly an EIR should be requested for any transportation of missiles from Concord. No further action was taken. I AGENDA AMENDED It was the consensus of the Council to consider Item "0" and I liP", the public hearing regarding fire prevention fees at this time. PUBLIC HEARING - FIRE PREVENTION FEES/FALSE ALARMS/ MISCELLANEOUS NON-EMERGENCY SERVICES - ALARM SYSTEMS The Acting City Manager presented an overview of the staff report dated May 20th relating to adoption of fees for fire prevention, false alarm and miscellaneous non-~mergency services provided by the Orange county Fire Department. Mr. Bob Hennessy, Orange county Fire Department, explained that the City will be reimbursed for the collection of new 5-28-91 I construction and inspection fees associated with building permits, the County fee added to the present city fee, and that the administrative fee should be included in the City's charge, that all other fees will be collected by the County therefore there would be no administrative cost to the City. with regard false alarms, Mr. Hennessy explained that an individuals fire detection system will be required to be routed to a central station that receives the signal and transmits same to the Department as the response agency, that the central stations will be inspected and if approved a permit will be issued, the central stations will also be advised that they must inform their customers of penalties for malfunctions or testing of equipment without notifying the emergency responder, and explained that an individual will not receive a bill if there is a malfunction of equipment however if a system is being tested without notification to the response agency there will be a charge. Mr. Hennessy confirmed tha~ the Fire Department has been conducting plan checks and construction inspections in the past, including additions, and said it should be made clear that if one wants to do an, addition or there is a subdivision for a number of new units, they do not necessarily review and check the plans but they do point out certain areas of concern with regard to encroachment into a roadway, water supply, fire flow, hydrants, etc., specifically in area where, there is congestion, such as Surfside. He advised that the charge for plan check and inspection of a new structure is $345 and $141 for an addition, similar fees for commercial and industrial. Councilmember Hastings objected from an equity standpoint, stating that the fee for a single family dwelling should be reduced. Mr. Hennessy noted this is a new program, the intent was to keep it simple, it is automated thus the fixed fees, that fee adjustment is likely in the future. He explained it is important that the fees charged be consistent with other contract cities, also that there are inspection requirements for a commercial building where other inspection costs will be incurred that do not apply to a residential building. Mr. Hennessy confirmed that the plan check applies only to'Surfside and is a result of their concern with the density of that area. with regard to public input as to the fee schedules, Mr. Hennessy advised that in this case input from the building and construction organizations was sought rather than from residential persons, and confirmed that the fees include costs for travel, office, and on-site personnel costs, and that charges of similar agencies was also taken into consideration. Mr. Hennessy stated that other areas subject to this type of plan check/inspection fee inciude certain mountain areas, areas of brush exposure, areas where there are recognized water deficiencies for fire protection. Mayor Laszlo suggested that this item be held over to try to arrive at a successful solution with the Fire Department. Mr. Hennessy said the fee is not negotiable, however he felt that the Department may be receptive to discussing the matter as it relates to Surfside. I I Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing open. The city Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received. The Assistant City Attorney pointed out that the proposed Ordinance applies to false alarms and alarm systems, which includes fire alarms, where the Code presently only applies to burglar alarms. There were no public comments on this item, Mayor Laszlo declared the pUblic hearing closed. ' 5-28-91 The Assistant city Attorney reported a discussion with the Fire Department for clarification as to the type of alarms being addressed, and explained that there are direct and indirect burglar alarms where they either go directly to the police department or to a company who in turn transmits the information, and with respect to fire alarms, the indirect alarm is preferred. He suggested the proposed Ordinance be I amended as follows: Section 2A-1, definition of Private Line, wording added to read "...or where the Fire Department has issued a permit for such a line, to the Fire Department..."; definition of Propietary System, "a fire station" added after "...communications center"; definition of Terminal Monitor Module, amended to read "Shall mean a device installed at the police or file facility..."; section 2A-5 regarding Direct Alarms, the reference to IIfire department II deleted; section 2A-6 dealing with Direct Alarm Systems, the word "Burglar" added, reference to "fire department" deleted from subsections 3 and 4, and the last paragraph corrected to read "The Police Department may issue to the applicant a permit to operate a direct alarm system" rather than "indirect"; Section 2A-8, Indirect Alarm System, reference was added to "the Fire Department"; Section 2A-10, Central station Permit, the reference to "Fire" deleted from the title so that it would apply to both the Fire Department and Police Department; section 2A-16, Alarm Business, two commas and reference to Fire Department added; section 2A- 21, subsection 1, the word "said" deleted; and section 2A- 23, Administrative Rules, reference to "Fire Department" added. Pointing out that the last three pages of the Ordinance was missing from their agenda packets, Council indicated their desire to hold Items "0" and liP" over until I' the next meeting. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to reopen the public hearing and continue same until the June 10th meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "J" thru "N" Councilman Hunt requested that Item "JII be removed from the Consent Calendar, and Mayor Laszlo requested Item "M" removed. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items "J" and "M", as presented. K. Approved the Modification, Extension, and Assignment of Lease of sport fishing facilities on the municipal pier between city of Seal Beach, Seal Beach Anglers, Inc., and Seal Beach Pleasure FiShing, Inc. L. Approved renewal of the Health Services Agreement between the County of Orange and the City of Seal Beach for the term July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1996. Accepted the resignation of Doris Hoffman as the District Five representative to the Environmental Quality Control Board and declared the position vacant. N. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "J" - DEMANDS Councilman Hunt recalled his request for a more detailed accounting of City Council and staff requests of the city Attorney's office, and expressed appreciation for the detail ,'t" . 5-28-91 I provided. He inquired as to the procedures for payment to the city's liability attorney. The Acting City Manager explained that the services of the liability attorney are paid from the Liability Reserve Fund, the allocation to that fund made annually through the budget process, and offered to request the attorney meet with the Council again to discuss the reasoning for those particular procedures for payments. Councilman Hunt asked that the staff inquire as to how other cities handle payment of liability matters. with regard to check number 83867, the Acting City Manager advised that was a settlement of a minor liability claim that he believed was automobile damages resulting from a fallen limb of a City tree. Hastings moved, second by 'Wilson, to approve regular demands numbered 83856 through 84025 in the amount of $581,786.27 and payroll demands numbered 45325 through 45509 in the amount of $175,889.15 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I. ITEM "Mil - AGREEMENTS - BIXBY RANCH GOLF COURSE EIR PREPARATION Mayor Laszlo inquired as to the status of the Bixby Ranch development proposal. The Development Services Director reported there has been no activity on the project pending the approval and execution of the agreements between the City, Bixby Ranch Company, EIP Associates, and Claire Associates. Noting that Bixby had submitted their plans in January, Mayor Laszlo asked about time constraints. The Assistant city Attorney said he understood that the application was filed January 16th, under State law the City had thirty days to review the application and determine if it was complete, which the city did on February 15th, thus the City has until February 15, 1992 to prepare, hold public hearings, and certify the EIR. He noted that since the application is coupled with a General Plan application, the City will have more than a year to act upon the map, that the Permit Streamline Act only applies to quasi-judicial proceedings, the General Plan amendment in this case being a legislative act, and pursuant to case law the zoning would also fall within a legislative act. Councilman Hunt left the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Mayor Laszlo stated that since this project is proposed in proximity to the Los Alamitos Reserve Center, he felt that there will be a need to involve aviation experts, that he wanted to ensure that the city retains the expressed right' to retain such experts, also that the Commanders at Airfield be informed of the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. The Assistant City Attorney suggested that Section 8, Personnel, of the agreement with EIP Associates be amended to include language to basically read "Not withstanding the foregoing, the city shall have the right to select all subcontractors hired for the purpose of providing analysis and study of the potential impacts associated with the proximity of the airport." The Director advised that first draft of the Initial Study had been forwarded to the Armed Forces Reserve Center for review and comment. Mayor Laszlo again stated he wanted the Commanders of the Airfield as well as the California Air National Guard to be notified of the EIR preparation. The Assistant City Attorney noted that the applicant had requested that Section 5 of the Reimbursement Agreement be amended to reflect that this Agreement "amends" rather than "supersedes" the prior I 5-28-91 Agreement, which is within the discretion of the Council to accept that request. The Director explained that the basic difference between the agreements is that the previous agreement did not provide for reimbursement of all staff time. with regard to comparison of the proposed and previous reimbursement agreements, the Assistant city Attorney offered to provide the Council with a red-line copy I for review. It was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over until the next meeting. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 11:31 p.m. The Council reconvened at 11:43 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order with all members present. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4045 - MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS Resolution Number 4045 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE MAY OF REPRESENTATIVES TO VARIOUS BOARDS, AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS, ASSIGNING CERTAIN DUTIES TO COUNCILMEMBERS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 3944." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resol~tion Number 4045 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4045 as amended to reflect Mayor Laszlo. as the representative to the Sanitation District, Councilman Hunt as the alternate, Councilmember Wilson as the representative to the West orange County Water Board, and Councilman Hunt as the newly created position of alternate representative to the Board, all prior appointments to remain unchanged. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4046 - WATER CONSERVATION Proposed Resolution Number 4046 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF MANDATORY COMPLIANCE/WATER ALERT, STAGE II." It was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over and that it be rescheduled for a future meeting. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4047 - PUBLIC WORKS MUTUAL AID PROGRAM - EMERGENCY SERVICES Resolution Number 4047 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PUBLIC WORKS MUTUAL AID PROGRAM FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4047 was waived. Forsythe moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 4047 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1333 - APPEALS I Ordinance Number 1333 was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO APPEAL OF DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1333 was waived. The Development Services Director reported the Council took action to introduce Ordinance Number 1333 at the March 11th meeting and referred same to the Planning commission for their comments, the Commission suggested four modifications which were then reviewed with the City Attorney, and .1".~ 5-28-91 I determined that the only applicable change would be the reference to "calendar days", that current provisions of case law and state and local legislation would apply in lieu of the other three suggested modifications. It was explained that any person, as opposed to merely an applicant, has the right to appeal an item to either the Planning commission or City Council, which is an existing city policy, that the Commission had been looking for a clarification of an aggrieved person, however the city Attorneys office felt that has been defined by case law, therefore the City should not be placed in a position of redefining something that has been so defined by case law. He clarified further that pursuant to existing city regulations any appeal is a public hearing item, also, with ,regard to considering specific time frames under the ordinance, he explained that once the Planning commission holds their hearing on an appeal they are allowed thirty days to make their decision by resolution, and the Council likewise has a period of forty days to make a determination. Wilson moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Ordinance Number 1333 as amended to make reference to "calendar days." AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Councilman Hunt was excused from the meeting. I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4048 - FIRE EOUITY STUDY Proposed Resolution Number 4048 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, AGREEING TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE FIRE CONTRACT CITIES TO STUDY ALTERNATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR FIRE SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING FUNDING FOR LEGAL SERVICES THEREFOR." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4048 was waived. Comments were made with regard to the legal representation to be provided by Rutan and Tucker to the Fire Equity Study Steering Committee, and potential conflict of interest as a result of their involvement in a legal action against the City of Seal Beach. The Assistant City Attorney said the type of services provided would be the same as provided to all of the cities, however if this is approved by the Council, it would be necessary"to waive the conflict issue. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to not approve this item through Resolution Number 4048 as a result of the conflict of interest issue. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Wilson Hunt Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4049 - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - SURFSIDE COLONY - MAINTENANCE ACCESS Resolution Number 4049 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF PARCELS 42, BLOCK 471 7 1, BLOCK 672 OF THE ASSESSOR'S MAP BOOK 178, PAGES 47 AND 67 OF ORANGE COUNTY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4049 was waived. This item was continued at the request of the applicant. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1335 - CITATION POWERS - LIFEGUARDS Ordinance Number 1335 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING CITY LIFEGUARDS TO ISSUE CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PURSUANT TO 5-28-91 SECTION 836.5 OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE, ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR SUCH CITATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 853.6 OF THAT PENAL CODE AND AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1335 was waived. In response to an expressed concern of the Council, the Assistant city Attorney suggested that reference to city Code Enforcement Officers be deleted from the Ordinance, therefore relate only to Lifeguard personnel. Mr. Dan Dorsey, Lifeguard Department, presented the staff report, noting that in March of this year the Council authorized nine Lifeguard Department personnel to attend the Orange County Sheriffs Department Penal Code 832 course for the purpose of enforcing public safety ordinances in the offshore waters, on April 30th eight of the attendees satisfactorily completed the course, and at this point it would be necessary to obtain Council authorization through Ordinance 1335 for Lifeguard personnel to issue citations for public safety violations. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1335 as amended, deleting the reference to citation powers for Code Enforcement Officers, and that it be passed to second reading. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Hunt Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1337 - MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES - AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAMS - ESTABLISHING AIR OUALITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND Ordinance Number 1337 was presented to Council entitled for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES TO FUND PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION FROM VEHICULAR SOURCES, AND AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO ESTABLISH AN AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF MONIES DEPOSITED INTO THAT FUNDS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1337 was waived. The Acting City Manager noted it is anticipated that the City will realize approximately $22,000 from these programs to be used for various air pollution reduction purposes. The Assistant city Attorney explained that when one purchases their car registration there is now $2 per year earmarked for this program, the cities receiving approximately forty percent of that amount. Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1337 and that it be passed to second reading. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, None Hunt Laszlo, Wilson -- Motion carried ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE TAX It was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over until a future meeting. I COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilmember Wilson reported that the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission recently approved the Helen Majesko Wilderness Park, a well known actress of the 1888/1906 era, the fourteen acre country estate is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and will be restored to reflect that period, the area proposed to be a supervised park with opportunities for research, study, painting, photography, and quiet reflection, wil~ include a one house per acre development of three hundred homes, .t'.. 5-28-91 I construction to commence by fall of 1991 and open by fall 1992, and is located in the Santa Ana mountains. Mayor Laszlo made reference to a communication from the Airport Land Use Commission requesting the participation of Mr. Whittenberg regarding a consistency review of the General Plan, and asked that he delay his participation for the next four to five months. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Mark Soukup, Seal Beach, spoke regarding comments at the earlier oral communications. He objected to the comment that the EIR statement that the Mola development would turn this beach community to a more urban setting only related to the seven hundred plus unit plan, to which he referred to a Supplemental EIR which contained that statement in reference to three plans of four hundred forty-nine units, four hundred thirty-three units, and three hundred eighty three units, with no reference to seven hundred homes, also that the EIR did state there would be a cumulative impact on the community. He objected to comment that deficit financial impacts were the result of not taking into consideration the $1 million from the developer. Mr. Soukup stated also that the deficient Housing Element had been ignored during the previous approvals, yet the Wetlands Society luckily became aware of it and filed a legal action. With regard to an editorial this date regarding property rights and land use issues, he said such rights do not lie with Mola but with the Hellmans, that the property has earthquake faults, historic wetlands, has been used for oil production and farming, and Hellman does not need a residential development to realize a return on their property. Mr. Soukup objected to Mola asking for support of his option on the land while asking to change the zoning, exceed the height limit, etc., and yet the initiative does not prevent the developer from not completing the project. Mr. Soukup expressed his opinion that the City does not need development by initiative. Ms. Wendy Rothman, Seal Beach, expressed her view that the issue is precedence and deception, the initiative being spurred by an expensive, hired marketing firm, providing signature gatherers, telephone solicitors, videos, expensive mailings, misrepresentations, etc., which she said may work in large cities, but it will not in this community. She objected to the comments of some persons supporting the initiative for the reasons of need for housing, property rights, financial benefits, etc., and expressed concern with the precedent being set by development by initiative. Ms. Rothman indicated her ' opposition to Measure A-91. There being no further comments, Mayor Laszlo declared Oral Communications closed. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn the meeting until Monday, June 10th at 6:15 p.m. to meet in Closed session. I It was the order of the to adjourn the meeting of the Council, 5-28-91/6-10-91 Attest: J~~' ~J-4 Mayor, ~' Approved: I Seal Beach, California June 10, 1991 The city council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:31 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Mayor Laszlo Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt Councilmember Wilson Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to excuse the absence of Councilmember wilson from this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT : Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried I Mr. Bankston, city Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant city Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk Mayor Laszlo welcomed and introduced the new city Manager, Mr. Jerry Bankston. Also present: CLOSED SESSION The Assistant city Attorney announced that the City Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel matters pursuant to the Brown Act. The council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:33 p.m. and reconvened at 6:58 p.m. with Mayor Laszlo calling the meeting to order. The Assistant city Attorney reported the council had discussed the matter previously announced, gave certain direction to the city Manager regarding a workers compensation claim, and no other items had been discussed. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council, to adjourn the meeting at 6:59 p.m. C C I of the Approved: ~~y=~r